schoolgirl who joined IS but wants to come home.

[BigAdz]

JMW alludes to a good point, in that to avoid confusion, we should probably specify whether we are taking about revocation of citizenship or guilt with regard to an as yet unspecified crime.

Revoke citizenship, then the other issues are someone elses problem!!

[kukushkin88]

In our justice system, someone is an alleged criminal until he's been tried even if the judge and jury watched them commit the crime.

Innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. It might be inconvenient in some circumstances, but it's the only way.

You can argue as much as you like, but to have any credibility you have tell me who should have the absolute power to decide what constitutes a CLEAR CUT crime and be able to convict without trial.   

Adz has answered this to a limited extent, he does.

I'm sorry, I don't understand what you mean.

I was suggesting that he seems to think he is well placed to adjudicate on such matters.

Oh I see.

What Iwould like is a straightforward answer from Adz himself. Who should have the power to pronounce guilt without trial?

What you have got is that answer above.......re CPS/DAs etc. It might not be what you want to hear but thats my answer....

They can decide not to prosecute a case for a variety of reasons, they cannot presume guilt.

[Pokerpops]

JMW alludes to a good point, in that to avoid confusion, we should probably specify whether we are taking about revocation of citizenship or guilt with regard to an as yet unspecified crime.

Revoke citizenship, then the other issues are someone elses problem!!

You do realise that the current issue is whether or not it is legal to revoke her citizenship.

[kukushkin88]

JMW alludes to a good point, in that to avoid confusion, we should probably specify whether we are taking about revocation of citizenship or guilt with regard to an as yet unspecified crime.

Revoke citizenship, then the other issues are someone elses problem!!

You do realise that the current issue is whether or not it is legal to revoke her citizenship.

The two things are intertwined though and really highlight the idiocy of Javid’s decision. What’s the grounds for revocation? To revoke someone’s citizenship, you’d think they must be guilty of a crime right, oh wait. Policy by tabloid headline, 🤡.

[MANTIS01]

Terrorism seems quite a new phenomenon to me. Never do recall folk driving vans into hoards of Christmas shoppers, flying planes into buildings or machine-gunning worshippers before. So for me looking back on how things have always been and citing medieval documentation doesn’t present much of a solution to this.

Sure 99% of the time the principles work but in this very special heinous crime...which has been described as a war..,do regular society rules deliver the best solution to preventing further attacks. Especially now we see perpetrators actually filming themselves in the act? Are regular historical protocols the best deterrent the best use of much needed public funds.

Don’t think I got an answer on how it’s a fair trial if witnesses can’t appear btw

[kukushkin88]

Terrorism seems quite a new phenomenon to me. Never do recall folk driving vans into hoards of Christmas shoppers, flying planes into buildings or machine-gunning worshippers before. So for me looking back on how things have always been and citing medieval documentation doesn’t present much of a solution to this.

Sure 99% of the time the principles work but in this very special heinous crime...which has been described as a war..,do regular society rules deliver the best solution to preventing further attacks. Especially now we see perpetrators actually filming themselves in the act? Are regular historical protocols the best deterrent the best use of much needed public funds.

Don’t think I got an answer on how it’s a fair trial if witnesses can’t appear btw

It’s great to be discussing it sensibly but we need to lose the ‘much needed public funds’ idea. Our government’s decision not to adequately fund anything is a political weapon not an economic necessity.

In terms of ensuring the fairness of the trial, they can only work within the parameters/situation that exists. I don’t see a reason why Syrians or any other relevant people couldn’t provide testimony. (This about her possible crimes rather than citizenship)

[Jon MW]

Terrorism seems quite a new phenomenon to me....

really?

Click to see full-size image.

Click to see full-size image.

[Karabiner]

Terrorism seems quite a new phenomenon to me. Never do recall folk driving vans into hoards of Christmas shoppers, flying planes into buildings or machine-gunning worshippers before. So for me looking back on how things have always been and citing medieval documentation doesn’t present much of a solution to this.

Sure 99% of the time the principles work but in this very special heinous crime...which has been described as a war..,do regular society rules deliver the best solution to preventing further attacks. Especially now we see perpetrators actually filming themselves in the act? Are regular historical protocols the best deterrent the best use of much needed public funds.

Don’t think I got an answer on how it’s a fair trial if witnesses can’t appear btw

You do make a valid point there about combatting terrorism Mantis. It's clearly impossible to have a rational discussion with a suicide-bomber who has no regard for his/her own life let alone the lives of his/her prospective targets.

In that context I do believe the rule-book as we know it needs throwing out of the window along with The Geneva Convention and other privileges afforded to conventional criminals, even conventional war-criminals, but I'm sure that we've not arrived at that scenario in Ms Begum's case.

[MANTIS01]

Terrorism seems quite a new phenomenon to me....

really?

Click to see full-size image.

Click to see full-size image.

Taking history as a whole I’d say quoting the 70’s onwards and not mentioning any of the specific new vehicles of terror I highlighted...then Yes Really!!

[MANTIS01]

Terrorism seems quite a new phenomenon to me. Never do recall folk driving vans into hoards of Christmas shoppers, flying planes into buildings or machine-gunning worshippers before. So for me looking back on how things have always been and citing medieval documentation doesn’t present much of a solution to this.

Sure 99% of the time the principles work but in this very special heinous crime...which has been described as a war..,do regular society rules deliver the best solution to preventing further attacks. Especially now we see perpetrators actually filming themselves in the act? Are regular historical protocols the best deterrent the best use of much needed public funds.

Don’t think I got an answer on how it’s a fair trial if witnesses can’t appear btw

It’s great to be discussing it sensibly but we need to lose the ‘much needed public funds’ idea. Our government’s decision not to adequately fund anything is a political weapon not an economic necessity.

In terms of ensuring the fairness of the trial, they can only work within the parameters/situation that exists. I don’t see a reason why Syrians or any other relevant people couldn’t provide testimony. (This about her possible crimes rather than citizenship)

You don’t see any reason why Syrian people wouldn’t testify against ISIS.

Oh ok.

[kukushkin88]

Terrorism seems quite a new phenomenon to me. Never do recall folk driving vans into hoards of Christmas shoppers, flying planes into buildings or machine-gunning worshippers before. So for me looking back on how things have always been and citing medieval documentation doesn’t present much of a solution to this.

Sure 99% of the time the principles work but in this very special heinous crime...which has been described as a war..,do regular society rules deliver the best solution to preventing further attacks. Especially now we see perpetrators actually filming themselves in the act? Are regular historical protocols the best deterrent the best use of much needed public funds.

Don’t think I got an answer on how it’s a fair trial if witnesses can’t appear btw

It’s great to be discussing it sensibly but we need to lose the ‘much needed public funds’ idea. Our government’s decision not to adequately fund anything is a political weapon not an economic necessity.

In terms of ensuring the fairness of the trial, they can only work within the parameters/situation that exists. I don’t see a reason why Syrians or any other relevant people couldn’t provide testimony. (This about her possible crimes rather than citizenship)

You don’t see any reason why Syrian people wouldn’t testify against ISIS.

Oh ok.

I didn’t say wouldn’t, I said couldn’t, it is quite different. As I said, every trial has to take place within the situation and parameters that exist. It’s not clear what your point is. Are you saying we should never hold a trial unless everyone who was involved in anyway was available to and prepared to give testimony? That can’t be what your saying, can it?

[MANTIS01]

Terrorism seems quite a new phenomenon to me. Never do recall folk driving vans into hoards of Christmas shoppers, flying planes into buildings or machine-gunning worshippers before. So for me looking back on how things have always been and citing medieval documentation doesn’t present much of a solution to this.

Sure 99% of the time the principles work but in this very special heinous crime...which has been described as a war..,do regular society rules deliver the best solution to preventing further attacks. Especially now we see perpetrators actually filming themselves in the act? Are regular historical protocols the best deterrent the best use of much needed public funds.

Don’t think I got an answer on how it’s a fair trial if witnesses can’t appear btw

It’s great to be discussing it sensibly but we need to lose the ‘much needed public funds’ idea. Our government’s decision not to adequately fund anything is a political weapon not an economic necessity.

In terms of ensuring the fairness of the trial, they can only work within the parameters/situation that exists. I don’t see a reason why Syrians or any other relevant people couldn’t provide testimony. (This about her possible crimes rather than citizenship)

You don’t see any reason why Syrian people wouldn’t testify against ISIS.

Oh ok.

I didn’t say wouldn’t, I said couldn’t, it is quite different. As I said, every trial has to take place within the situation and parameters that exist. It’s not clear what your point is. Are you saying we should never hold a trial unless everyone who was involved in anyway was available to and prepared to give testimony? That can’t be what your saying, can it?

I'm saying the only people who really know what activities Begum participated in live in Syria, won't be coming to the UK to offer evidence in court and won't testify against murderous terrorists they will return home to.

So when the trial of a terrorist starts what evidence would you present, what witnesses would you call?

Let's say the answer is not much evidence, it's impossible to present witnesses.

How is that then a "fair trial", especially to victims, their families and society?

So my point is the notion of a "fair trial" isn't available in every situation as you suggest, particularly within this new terror problem we're grappling with.

[BigAdz]

Terrorism seems quite a new phenomenon to me. Never do recall folk driving vans into hoards of Christmas shoppers, flying planes into buildings or machine-gunning worshippers before. So for me looking back on how things have always been and citing medieval documentation doesn’t present much of a solution to this.

Sure 99% of the time the principles work but in this very special heinous crime...which has been described as a war..,do regular society rules deliver the best solution to preventing further attacks. Especially now we see perpetrators actually filming themselves in the act? Are regular historical protocols the best deterrent the best use of much needed public funds.

Don’t think I got an answer on how it’s a fair trial if witnesses can’t appear btw

It’s great to be discussing it sensibly but we need to lose the ‘much needed public funds’ idea. Our government’s decision not to adequately fund anything is a political weapon not an economic necessity.

In terms of ensuring the fairness of the trial, they can only work within the parameters/situation that exists. I don’t see a reason why Syrians or any other relevant people couldn’t provide testimony. (This about her possible crimes rather than citizenship)

You don’t see any reason why Syrian people wouldn’t testify against ISIS.

Oh ok.

As I've said on so many occasions mate, these people live in nice safe havens, peeping through rose tinted curtains.

I bet each of them to a man/woman would change their tune if they ended up with an returning ISIS soldier or even Ms Begum, living next door to them.

That's the bottom line etc and I'm tired of going round in circles on this thread.

Will stick with politics, Im great at that too.

[nirvana]

JMW alludes to a good point, in that to avoid confusion, we should probably specify whether we are taking about revocation of citizenship or guilt with regard to an as yet unspecified crime.

Revoking citizenship is probably wrong/illegal but she's definitely guilty of the as yet unspecified crimes.

[kukushkin88]

Terrorism seems quite a new phenomenon to me. Never do recall folk driving vans into hoards of Christmas shoppers, flying planes into buildings or machine-gunning worshippers before. So for me looking back on how things have always been and citing medieval documentation doesn’t present much of a solution to this.

Sure 99% of the time the principles work but in this very special heinous crime...which has been described as a war..,do regular society rules deliver the best solution to preventing further attacks. Especially now we see perpetrators actually filming themselves in the act? Are regular historical protocols the best deterrent the best use of much needed public funds.

Don’t think I got an answer on how it’s a fair trial if witnesses can’t appear btw

It’s great to be discussing it sensibly but we need to lose the ‘much needed public funds’ idea. Our government’s decision not to adequately fund anything is a political weapon not an economic necessity.

In terms of ensuring the fairness of the trial, they can only work within the parameters/situation that exists. I don’t see a reason why Syrians or any other relevant people couldn’t provide testimony. (This about her possible crimes rather than citizenship)

You don’t see any reason why Syrian people wouldn’t testify against ISIS.

Oh ok.

I didn’t say wouldn’t, I said couldn’t, it is quite different. As I said, every trial has to take place within the situation and parameters that exist. It’s not clear what your point is. Are you saying we should never hold a trial unless everyone who was involved in anyway was available to and prepared to give testimony? That can’t be what your saying, can it?

I'm saying the only people who really know what activities Begum participated in live in Syria, won't be coming to the UK to offer evidence in court and won't testify against murderous terrorists they will return home to.

So when the trial of a terrorist starts what evidence would you present, what witnesses would you call?

Let's say the answer is not much evidence, it's impossible to present witnesses.

How is that then a "fair trial", especially to victims, their families and society?

So my point is the notion of a "fair trial" isn't available in every situation as you suggest, particularly within this new terror problem we're grappling with.

This doesn’t make any sense at all. If we can’t hold a trial because you have concerns over whether it will be fair..... shall we decide that they are innocent? Or shall we decide they are guilty? How will we decide? Who will decide? Maybe a court could look at the available evidence and see if that helped?