schoolgirl who joined IS but wants to come home.

[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.

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.

You get a little credit for effort I guess but the word “great” is a stretch.

Why wouldn’t people who represented a threat be in prison?

[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.

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?

Sorry, did you explain how the trial would be fair under the given circumstances?

[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?

Sorry, did you explain how the trial would be fair under the given circumstances?

I did yeah. I’m happy to keep saying it though. It can only be as fair as the specific situation/parameters allow. What else do you think we can we do? To answer that we’ll need to look at all the questions from my previous post (I’d probably rather not have to write all of them again) but we can’t identify a good solution to this problem without answering them.

[MANTIS01]

Yo and then in order to get to court the CPS will need to bring charges. What are the charges?

Talk me through how the investigation pans out?

Maybot co-operates with war torn Syria, a country we bomb, even though she can't do so with EU.

Assad high-fives a coupla British plod flying out to stumble through the rubble with note pads?

They discover an OCG like in Line of Duty and crack the case.

Everybody goes home for a cuppa, to discuss how fair it all was and how they upheld the principles of the magna carta.

[MintTrav]

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.

I'm getting tired of you telling us how we would feel about this. I told you a while ago that you were wrong, and I think I know better than you how I would feel, yet you keep repeating it.

[kukushkin88]

Yo and then in order to get to court the CPS will need to bring charges. What are the charges?

Talk me through how the investigation pans out?

Maybot co-operates with war torn Syria, a country we bomb, even though she can't do so with EU.

Assad high-fives a coupla British plod flying out to stumble through the rubble with note pads?

They discover an OCG like in Line of Duty and crack the case.

Everybody goes home for a cuppa, to discuss how fair it all was and how they upheld the principles of the magna carta.

It’s not perfect is it. We could try and identify an alternative way to deal with the issue? Perhaps revisit this if we can’t find a good alternative? What shall we do if we’re not going to attempt to establish if she is guilty of any crimes? What’s our next step?

[Woodsey]

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.

Yup, have fk all interest in the rest of the debate. Just want to see her cast loose tbh.....

[DungBeetle]

Does Treason still exist?  If so surely it’s a slam dunk.  Have the trial to keep the lefties happy and get the noose out?

[Jon MW]

Does Treason still exist?  If so surely it’s a slam dunk.  Have the trial to keep the lefties happy and get the noose out?

Yes it's a slam dunk if you can provide evidence that she actively tried to injure the Queen or she was at war with the UK or she was helping an invasion force of the UK.

The closest of these is war - but terrorists aren't soldiers, they're not in an army and they're not in a war (even if that's how they would like to be seen).

[kukushkin88]

Does Treason still exist?  If so surely it’s a slam dunk.  Have the trial to keep the lefties happy and get the noose out?

It really is an embarrassing post.

[Jon MW]

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!!

Pictures are easier to come by for more recent things - I could probably have found a picture from the early 20th century from the US but the context I was giving was that if terrorists used to kill a lot more people with their 'old fashioned' ways of committing it and that wasn't enough to change the rule of law - why should the modern, but less effective, version be any different?


NB: "Most scholars today trace the origins of the modern tactic of terrorism to the Jewish Sicarii Zealots who attacked Romans and Jews in 1st century Palestine" Terrorism definitely isn't new (from wikipedia, obv)

[DungBeetle]

Does Treason still exist?  If so surely it’s a slam dunk.  Have the trial to keep the lefties happy and get the noose out?

Yes it's a slam dunk if you can provide evidence that she actively tried to injure the Queen or she was at war with the UK or she was helping an invasion force of the UK.

The closest of these is war - but terrorists aren't soldiers, they're not in an army and they're not in a war (even if that's how they would like to be seen).

She’s joined an organisation at war with the UK.  Done.  The definition of War is antiquated.  This is as near as it gets.

[DungBeetle]

Does Treason still exist?  If so surely it’s a slam dunk.  Have the trial to keep the lefties happy and get the noose out?

It really is an embarrassing post.

What do you want her charged with?  Misadventure?

[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.

I'm getting tired of you telling us how we would feel about this. I told you a while ago that you were wrong, and I think I know better than you how I would feel, yet you keep repeating it.

Boo fooking Hoo.


Very brave of you, but until it happens I tend to think your words have little substance, it's human nature to be scared if terrorists end up next door, or are you Jack Bauer???!!!

[Jon MW]

Does Treason still exist?  If so surely it’s a slam dunk.  Have the trial to keep the lefties happy and get the noose out?

Yes it's a slam dunk if you can provide evidence that she actively tried to injure the Queen or she was at war with the UK or she was helping an invasion force of the UK.

The closest of these is war - but terrorists aren't soldiers, they're not in an army and they're not in a war (even if that's how they would like to be seen).

She’s joined an organisation at war with the UK.  Done.  The definition of War is antiquated.  This is as near as it gets.

The only definition that counts is the legal definition.

Also you might think it's antiquated but there's a reason why it's like it is.

There are wider issues as to why some states of war will be regarded as a "conflict" rather than a war - but in this context the important principles are that you don't say that terrorists are at war with you because it gives them a much more official status than you (for all definitions of you) want to give them.

If you are at war with a country it means - for a start you're officially recognising ISIS as a country, and we don't want that; but also if you are at war with them you have to follow the law and rules that govern it - and we definitely don't want that.