Shamima Begum

Fode N The Hole said:
I don't think you debate in good faith, so I think any further discussion is pointless, the same applies to AC. The fact that you have compared her unfavorably to Myra Hindley is evidence of that. Torture tapes and a substantial body of evidence versus newspaper clippings and hearsay. You are on a black and white, fire and brimstone circle jerk with your chums.

Is it possible that she could be vulnerable and dangerous? Did that thought ever cross your mind? That things aren't as binary as you make out.

There are practical considerations and financial costs issues, why the Syrian Kurds may not be able to hold a trial and house foreign criminals for long sentences. The UK could facilitate trials, and as there are already laws that allow war crime trials for overseas offences. This isn't particularly an alien idea, when it was passed these considerations must have been in the mind of the legislators.

The same doesn't apply to Anne Saccolas in the United Kingdom, but in any case the USA would be entitled to request that she serve a sentence in USA (even if only partially) and the victim's family made unprompted remarks of having no objection to that.

I told you that the number of children in those camps exceeds the number of adults. I have made it clear several times that I am concerned about those children and believe we should do all we can to help them. As some of them have citizenship of western countries, ordinary immigration and refugee resettlement rules can be sidestepped.

I also linked an article about beheadings taking place and ISIS loyalists are the suspected culprits. Obviously the camps are not as secure as they need to be as otherwise this wouldn't happen. There needs to be a plan to tackle this. Allowing an environment where beheadings can take place could be allowing loyalist fighters to destroy potentially incriminating testimony from potential witnesses.

If she is as dangerous and complicit in crimes as you and your buddies are making out, and receives a sentence in Syrian Kurdish territory of something like 20 years, and the Syrians are able to meet the financial and practical demands of imprisoning her for that long. I wouldn't be that fussed, although I do believe that the UK, Syrian Kurds and herself should all have the right to request that she serve part of her sentence in the UK (as unlikely as the UK are to request it).

I also believe that she should have her citizenship returned regardless , as she is effectively stateless because there is no mechanism to force Bangladesh to accept her and issue travel documents, and they have already said that she would receive the death penalty.

Why should Bangladesh have the right to hand out a sentence for an offence equivalent to membership of a proscribed group when the Syrian Kurds have already said they will not be handing this out for the worst offenders?
The UK courts would never allow her to be deported to Bangladesh from the UK if the prospect of the death penalty was likely.

If she returns to the UK and there is evidence of outstanding offences , I would not be against her receiving a trial and appropriate punishment if convicted. This point applies generally, and I would feel the same about any other UK citizen, or for example Dutch and Australians and the responsibility of their governments.
Click to expand...
How did you manage to get back on here?
 
Alan Harper's Tash said:
Kind of agree. Don’t wish her anything but misery, but making someone stateless rather than bringing her back to face trial for what she has done seems a poor decision based on Facebook likes.

I don’t think anyone doesn’t want her tried for her actions.
Click to expand...
There are obviously people who are quite content for her not to be tried for her actions, and for her to be imprisoned without trial for ever. They are also OK for thousands of children to be in camps for years, either dying or being radicalised, and for the cost to be borne by the fighters who defeated the caliphate to the long-term benefit of us all, rather than borne by the countries where the ISIS fighters (and their women) were radicalised in the first place.
 
Alan Harper's Tash said:
Kind of agree. Don’t wish her anything but misery, but making someone stateless rather than bringing her back to face trial for what she has done seems a poor decision based on Facebook likes.

I don’t think anyone doesn’t want her tried for her actions.
Click to expand...
She can be tried 'in absentia' - stateless or not! That must be an option!
 
Law is not built in sentiment but ask this question, if your child had been killed or injured or just at the Manchester Arena and you heard Begum was reported as saying the bombing was "justified" would you really be arguing her case? I can't forgive her for that reason alone.
 
Kazzydeyna said:
I can sense the erections of some posters on this thread as they type out feverishly how much they want to punish this vulnerable young rape victim.

Shamima needs our love,succour, and support. Yes, she should face up to her crimes and also be allowed to present full mitigation. But then when the gammon-y pound of flesh has been extracted a broken young woman remains and as a society that formed her, we need to take responsibility for her welfare.
Click to expand...
You need help
 
Mëtal Bikër said:
They aren't BS reasons though. MI5, The Home Office are in agreement she poses a security risk and the Supreme Court believes she would pose a security risk, which is why they blocked her ability to come to the UK and 'fight' for citizenship.

But no, Bluemoon nobodies know better. You don't get to decide if she poses a risk or not. You don't get to decide whether she retains or loses her UK citizenship. The Supreme Court was unanimous; she poses a security risk and cannot return to the UK to fight for it. You are placing one person's situation above the safety of everyone else in the UK, despite having the Home Office and MI5 provide their analysis that she does pose a risk.

I also seek justice, and Begum needs to answer to the Kurds and the Yazidi women who suffered at the hands of a regime she supported. That before anything else.
Click to expand...
Your faith in the judgement of the Security Services is touching but you don't take into account that they didn't consider Salman Abedi a threat and they claimed that Iraq had quickly-deployable WMD.

And even if they're right, there's still the legal argument over her citizenship status, which is the key argument here.
 
Even if, by a technicality, the UK government manages to win a court case that declares Begum to be a Bangladeshi citizen whilst the Bangladeshi authorities oppose this, does anyone think that it's morally right that a rich European country can offload its problems to a third world country against its will?
 
west didsblue said:
Even if, by a technicality, the UK government manages to win a court case that declares Begum to be a Bangladeshi citizen whilst the Bangladeshi authorities oppose this, does anyone think that it's morally right that a rich European country can offload its problems to a third world country against its will?
Click to expand...

Bangladesh support the death penalty still too, don’t they? That adds potential further issues legally.
 
This seems more appropriate here than in the Tory cronyism thread:

It's about the review into how the Prevent programme is working, and who would chair the review.


'Foregone is any semblance of seeking legal expertise by way of appointing writer and provocative commentator William Shawcross. Being an Etonian and a Bexiteer in line with Johnson’s tenure are seemingly his primary credentials. Suffice to say, the former head of the Charity Commission has made several disparaging comments about Islam. “Europe and Islam is one of the greatest, most terrifying problems of our future,” is but one, when he was Director of the neoconservative think-tank the Henry Jackson Society.

'Condemnation of his appointment came thick and fast, the MCB describing it as a “Trumpian” move that glaringly reinstates the Government’s disinterest “in truly reviewing the policy.” Tory peer Baroness Warsi said it was not only “inappropriate” but would “further toxify a policy, which is at best a broken brand, at worst has a dubious record of implementation.” Others pointed to his tenure at the Charity Commission when it was accused of institutional bias against Muslims not to mention comments he made in his book Justice and the Enemy, which appear to support the use of torture and the detention camp at Guantánamo Bay.'
 
@BluePhil8 said:
This made my day when I read it last week. Probably the most common sense decision I can remember a British government making. To the few lunatics defending her, I hope you find yourselves on a watch list.
Click to expand...
Which government decision are you talking about?
 
@BluePhil8 said:
This made my day when I read it last week. Probably the most common sense decision I can remember a British government making. To the few lunatics defending her, I hope you find yourselves on a watch list.
Click to expand...
Who's actually defending her? Some are more sympathetic about mistakes made by a child, and about balancing risk and reform, but it's mostly about defending her right to a fair hearing in the courts. The highest court in the land has ruled she can't have a fair hearing, and also that (effectively) the only way to challenge a security assessment is to vote out the people who make the assessment. A bit like in Russia now (or any number of "democratic" regimes where governments are above the law).
 
Vic said:
Who's actually defending her? Some are more sympathetic about mistakes made by a child, and about balancing risk and reform, but it's mostly about defending her right to a fair hearing in the courts. The highest court in the land has ruled she can't have a fair hearing, and also that (effectively) the only way to challenge a security assessment is to vote out the people who make the assessment. A bit like in Russia now (or any number of "democratic" regimes where governments are above the law).
Click to expand...
I mean, without explicitly saying ‘I’m defending her’, this is some of the most sympathetic diarrhoea I’ve ever read;


Kazzydeyna said:
I can sense the erections of some posters on this thread as they type out feverishly how much they want to punish this vulnerable young rape victim.

Shamima needs our love,succour, and support. Yes, she should face up to her crimes and also be allowed to present full mitigation. But then when the gammon-y pound of flesh has been extracted a broken young woman remains and as a society that formed her, we need to take responsibility for her welfare.
Click to expand...

Lol.
 
@BluePhil8 said:
This made my day when I read it last week. Probably the most common sense decision I can remember a British government making. To the few lunatics defending her, I hope you find yourselves on a watch list.
Click to expand...
Can you name the posters defending her actions?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top