Ancient Citizen
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 26 Jul 2009
- Messages
- 15,711
Shamima Begum
- Thread starter SuperstarNeilC
- Start date
Ancient Citizen
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 26 Jul 2009
- Messages
- 15,711
Best you tell the Supreme Court about the international law aspect, they probably know nothing about it, and may change their minds.
Talking about conflation is merely an attempt to disguise the fact that you
want this individual back here, the safety of the public is not in your thoughts.
Ancient Citizen
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 26 Jul 2009
- Messages
- 15,711
Nothing at all about the nature and warped philosophy eagerly adopted by her and her siblings, no sympathy directed at the victims of this vicious, medieval cult, responsible for the sickening murder of the uncle of a poster on here, and thousands more, zilch, nada. No mention of mass rapes of Yazidi women and children, men thrown off buildings or burned alive, nothing about Begum sewing kids into suicide vests, the first response is she was 'Conned,' obviously along with her siblings and the tens of thousands of others who joined up.
Isis is still operating and continuing its wicked agenda, thousands in this country and abroad are keen supporters of it, yet all we get is handwringing about the fate of one of them, and a sob story telling us what she's been through.
Ancient Citizen
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 26 Jul 2009
- Messages
- 15,711
When you are responsible for criminality, and you commit it abroad, that country has the right to punish you as it sees fit.
west didsblue
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 2 Oct 2011
- Messages
- 32,215
You clearly don’t understand what the Supreme Court judgment was about and the second part of your post clearly proves my point. I’ve already said I have no sympathy for her and given a choice I’d rather she stayed away but if the Syrians or anyone else put her on a plane here we would not be within our rights to send her anywhere else because every country in the world has a better reason than us for keeping her out.
No where near as bad as Thatcher's Britain, we are normally a soft touch, I'm glad the government have grown a pair.
ZenHalfTimeCrock
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 18 Apr 2019
- Messages
- 1,408
- Team supported
- Manchester City
Okay, this really is my last post in this section of the forum. I have returned to expand once more on some of the points I have made previously.
Once again, I want to emphasise that although I am disinclined to view Begum's situation favourably, I am also not quite willing to cast her into the outer darkness as yet.
Here's why.
First of all, I want to draw attention to Muslim comedian Shazia Mirza's remarks about girls who run off to join ISIS. This is from the online version of the Metro.
'Comedian Shazia Mirza has claimed some young Muslims aren’t drawn to Isis because they’ve been radicalised.
They’re attracted to Isis, she says, because of sex. ‘They’re horny teenagers’, she said on BBC 5Live’s Phil Williams Show. ‘Name me one teenager that is more interested in religion than sex. I don’t know one.’
Shazia was referring specifically to the Bethnal Green school girls who left the UK to go to Syria and join the terrorist group. The girls have inspired Shazia’s latest show, The Kardashians Made Me Do It.
Isis, she said, are using their best-looking militants in order to groom impressionable young girls online, and convince them to join them in the so-called Caliphate. In this way, she added, they make themselves seem like ‘the One Direction of Islam’ to these girls.
‘These are normal teenage girls,’ she continued. ‘Just because they’re Muslim, it doesn’t mean they don’t think about and want to have sex and think about boys. They think about it more than anyone, because they’re more repressed!
‘It’s got nothing to do with religion or politics. What they do know is that these men are hot, these are the pin ups that Isis put to advertise their campaign. And this is what is sold to these young girls. ‘These girls are being groomed on line by these men who promise them they’re going to get married and live a great life, and it’s all romance and adventure. ‘They are the One Direction of Islam. They are popstars, pin-ups and sex symbols. They’ve been glamorised.’
The accompanying photo is worth reproducing too.
Secondly, I want to refer to a section of a little book by the Muslim intellectual and science journalist Ziauddin Sardar called Islam Beyond The Violent Jihadis that describes his encounter with some Sixth Form Religious Studies students at a girl’s school in Bradford in 2015:
‘I arrived early on Friday morning expecting a relatively comfortable question-and-answer session. After a casual walk through the long school corridors, I was ushered into a classroom. Over two dozen excited girls, some wearing hijabs, stood up to greet me. The teacher, Aqeela Jahan, a gracious, sublime English woman who had converted to Islam, asked them to sit down. Today’s topic, she said, was ‘everything you wanted to ask about Islam but never dared.’ Several hands shot up before she finished her sentence. I pointed towards a girl in hijab. ‘How do you determine the will of God?’ she asked in a matter-of-fact way. The question knocked me out of my comfort zone.
…When I had recovered my composure, I said: ‘That is a difficult question. Perhaps we can start with a simple question.’ Several girls raised their hands immediately, and I randomly pointed towards a pupil who oozed confidence. ‘Would you say that Islam is incompatible with postmodernism?’ she asked.
Obviously, Sardar is dealing with some pretty bright students. But what do they make of the girls who run off to join ISIS? Sardar continues...
'Misguided'. 'Brainwashed'. 'Not very educated, are they?' The answers came thick and fast. Another girl in hijab said: 'They know very little about Islam. What they know they have acquired from social media or websites run by ultra-conservative imams. They think they are learning about Islam but they are being fed propaganda and a literalist, extremist version of Islam.'
Thirdly, I want to refer to the work of neuroscientist David Eagleman and his reflections on the relationship between the brain and the law. Eagleman is just the kind of author who might be studied by students taking Philosophy courses that require them to grapple with the problem of free-will and moral agency.
First of all, let's look at a philosophical rather than a neurological perspective. A hard determinist is someone who believes that all our behaviour can be explained as effects that are caused by our brains, bodies, genes or environment.
Ted Honderich is a famous exponent of this view. He argues that the very idea of free will is meaningless because that concept only makes sense if one accepts ‘origination’- the view that there is a fully independent self that stands apart from the world of cause and effect in which we live and that can initiate actions. As there is no prior ‘self’ of this kind that could be the origin of our actions, and the mind is just a by-product of brain activity that is itself affected and shaped by the physical world around it, there can be no such thing as origination, and therefore no free-will. For this reason, the idea of us being morally responsible for what we do can have no rational justification.
To what extent are his views reflected by the neuroscience described by Eagleman? Actually, quite considerably. Let's start with a minor example: male infidelity. In one section of his book Incognito: the Secret Lives of the Brain, Eagleman draws attention to studies demonstrating that men with lower levels of a hormone called vasopressin might be less capable of being faithful. This has to do with the way in which vasopressin binds with receptors in the brain and also with the number of copies of a section of a gene called RS3 334 that a man might carry as part of his genetic profile.
This is just one example but Eagleman goes on to argue that, contrary to what we usually assume, none of us truly has the command over our thoughts and emotions that we think we do.
Actually, much of our brain activity follows from completely physical and biological processes that are happening subconsciously, and you cannot affect them.
A very surprising instance of this was a man at his forties whose spouse of 20 years abruptly saw he had – apparently all of a sudden – started to get obsessed with child pornography. Through a medical test on him, doctors discovered a huge tumour in a section of the brain that deals with decision-making: the orbitofrontal cortex. After the surgeons took it out, his sexual desires became normal again.
We further assume that we have only one, unified character or ego.
However, when we look at our brains more in-depth, we notice that this isn’t that much of a straightforward thing: the human brain consists of a few subsystems each of which has different tasks and that usually fight for command over our actions. Eagleman likens this fight (which usually takes place beneath the level of our conscious awareness) to a Parliament where various parties are vying to have their policies adopted.
It's been a while since I read Eagleman's book and so I am going to let an online review do the heavy lifting at this point. Note that Eagleman is not going as far as Honderich does here.
"If our actions, decisions, and beliefs are a result of causal interactions of subsystems in our brains, is free will an illusion? Can neuroscience test for free will? He [Eagleman]brings up a fascinating example of an early test and surprising results: “In the 1960s, a scientist named Benjamin Libet placed electrodes on the heads of subjects and asked them to do a very simple task: lift their finger at a time of their own choosing. They watched a high-resolution timer and were asked to note the exact moment at which they “felt the urge” to make the move. Libet discovered that people became aware of an urge to move about a quarter of a second before they actually made the move. But that wasn’t the surprising part. He examined their EEG recordings— the brain waves— and found something more surprising: the activity in their brains began to rise before they felt the urge to move. And not just by a little bit. By over a second. In other words, parts of the brain were making decisions well before the person consciously experienced the urge.” (p. 167)
So where did the will come from? He takes this concept further to suggest that criminal action is mostly the result of processes outside of conscious control. However, he still argues that of course such criminals should be taken off the streets, but perhaps understanding this process may foster better ways of changing their brains such that their behaviour eventually becomes more socially acceptable. He does venture that the prefrontal cortex has “veto power” which perhaps can be trained.
Eagleman then appears to pull back just a bit: “Given the steering power of our genetics, childhood experiences, environmental toxins, hormones, neurotransmitters, and neural circuitry, enough of our decisions are beyond our explicit control that we are arguably not the ones in charge. In other words, free will may exist— but if it does, it has very little room in which to operate. So I’m going to propose what I call the principle of sufficient automatism. The principle arises naturally from the understanding that free will, if it exists, is only a small factor riding on top of enormous automated machinery. So small that we may be able to think about bad decision making in the same way we think about any other physical process, such as diabetes or lung disease. The principle states that the answer to the free-will question simply does not matter.” (p. 170)
He gives a compelling argument that criminal action can be placed in a spectrum similar to other brain disorders that have been characterized and treated with varying success: “What accounts for the shift from blame to biology? Perhaps the largest driving force is the effectiveness of the pharmaceutical treatments. No amount of beating will chase away depression, but a little pill called fluoxetine often does the trick. Schizophrenic symptoms cannot be overcome by exorcism, but can be controlled by risperidone. Mania responds not to talking or to ostracism, but to lithium. These successes, most of them introduced in the past sixty years, have underscored the idea that it does not make sense to call some disorders brain problems while consigning others to the ineffable realm of the psychic. Instead, mental problems have begun to be approached in the same way we might approach a broken leg.” (p. 172)
Going back to Begum, some observations about what we know about the teenage brain become salient at this point:
It doesn’t matter how smart teens are or how well they scored on the SAT or ACT. Good judgment isn’t something they can excel in, at least not yet.
The rational part of a teen’s brain isn’t fully developed and won’t be until age 25 or so.
In fact, recent research has found that adult and teen brains work differently. Adults think with the prefrontal cortex, the brain’s rational part. This is the part of the brain that responds to situations with good judgment and an awareness of long-term consequences. Teens process information with the amygdala. This is the emotional part.
In teens' brains, the connections between the emotional part of the brain and the decision-making center are still developing—and not always at the same rate. That’s why when teens have overwhelming emotional input, they can’t explain later what they were thinking. They weren’t thinking as much as they were feeling.
www.urmc.rochester.edu
On the basis of the above, it might even be possible to portray Begum as a rather pathetic, naive, hormonal, and not terribly bright individual (though I don't know anything about her academic school record) who made some unimprovably stupid decisions and is now paying the price for them.
However, now suppose that some new information came to light. Suppose that it was found that Begum was an active member of the notorious, all-female al-Khansaa brigade and went around administering punishments with what was known as 'the Biter' in ISIS territory? This might increase her level of moral culpability (which can already be derived from even her non-combatant status).
Also, when I read the more vitriolic comments about Begum on here, I am not unaffected by them and do start to veer more in the direction of an unwillingness to largely think away the possibility of free-will and therefore choice in human action.
But overall, I am still conflicted about this and that's all I'm saying. In the light of the different perspectives that I have outlined above, I feel that I still don't know quite enough about her at this point to consign Begum to stateless oblivion.
I am also very surprised by the very many on here who think they do and that's why I have been critical of them in my previous post.
Given the complexity of this issue, a bit more humility might be in order instead of a rush to claim the moral high ground in order to broadcast one's views from the summit of it.
There's one last thing: a lot of us assume that we would never be capable of committing the kind of atrocities perpetrated by ISIS.
This overlooks the fact that the 20th Century could be described as the ‘mass murder century’. During it, more than 50 million people were systematically murdered on the direct instructions of various governments, with both soldiers and civilians willing to carry out the kill orders.
The Nazis, for example, killed 6 million Jews, 3 million Soviet prisoners of war, 2 million Poles, and hundreds and thousands of others who were considered ‘undesirable’.
And this is just one example of mass murder. In 1915, Ottoman Turks slaughtered 1.5 million Armenians, and since then Stalin’s Soviet empire resulted in the deaths of 20 million Russians, while Mao Zedong’s government policies caused an even greater number of deaths, up to 30 million of China’s own citizens. The Communist Khmer Rouge regime killed off 1.7 million citizens of its own nation in Cambodia, while Saddam Hussein’s Ba’ath Party was accused of killing 100,000 Kurds in Iraq. Lastly, a report by the United Nations estimates that between 800,000 and one million Tutsi Rwandans were systematically massacred by their Hutu neighbours over the course of just three months, one of the most ferocious acts of slaughter ever known.
If you are looking for the reasons why this keeps happening, watch this documentary, taking note of the fact that there is only the psychological equivalent of a cigarette paper's width between ourselves and those who are responsible for the worst acts of evil.
Once again, I want to emphasise that although I am disinclined to view Begum's situation favourably, I am also not quite willing to cast her into the outer darkness as yet.
Here's why.
First of all, I want to draw attention to Muslim comedian Shazia Mirza's remarks about girls who run off to join ISIS. This is from the online version of the Metro.
'Comedian Shazia Mirza has claimed some young Muslims aren’t drawn to Isis because they’ve been radicalised.
They’re attracted to Isis, she says, because of sex. ‘They’re horny teenagers’, she said on BBC 5Live’s Phil Williams Show. ‘Name me one teenager that is more interested in religion than sex. I don’t know one.’
Shazia was referring specifically to the Bethnal Green school girls who left the UK to go to Syria and join the terrorist group. The girls have inspired Shazia’s latest show, The Kardashians Made Me Do It.
Isis, she said, are using their best-looking militants in order to groom impressionable young girls online, and convince them to join them in the so-called Caliphate. In this way, she added, they make themselves seem like ‘the One Direction of Islam’ to these girls.
‘These are normal teenage girls,’ she continued. ‘Just because they’re Muslim, it doesn’t mean they don’t think about and want to have sex and think about boys. They think about it more than anyone, because they’re more repressed!
‘It’s got nothing to do with religion or politics. What they do know is that these men are hot, these are the pin ups that Isis put to advertise their campaign. And this is what is sold to these young girls. ‘These girls are being groomed on line by these men who promise them they’re going to get married and live a great life, and it’s all romance and adventure. ‘They are the One Direction of Islam. They are popstars, pin-ups and sex symbols. They’ve been glamorised.’
The accompanying photo is worth reproducing too.
Secondly, I want to refer to a section of a little book by the Muslim intellectual and science journalist Ziauddin Sardar called Islam Beyond The Violent Jihadis that describes his encounter with some Sixth Form Religious Studies students at a girl’s school in Bradford in 2015:
‘I arrived early on Friday morning expecting a relatively comfortable question-and-answer session. After a casual walk through the long school corridors, I was ushered into a classroom. Over two dozen excited girls, some wearing hijabs, stood up to greet me. The teacher, Aqeela Jahan, a gracious, sublime English woman who had converted to Islam, asked them to sit down. Today’s topic, she said, was ‘everything you wanted to ask about Islam but never dared.’ Several hands shot up before she finished her sentence. I pointed towards a girl in hijab. ‘How do you determine the will of God?’ she asked in a matter-of-fact way. The question knocked me out of my comfort zone.
…When I had recovered my composure, I said: ‘That is a difficult question. Perhaps we can start with a simple question.’ Several girls raised their hands immediately, and I randomly pointed towards a pupil who oozed confidence. ‘Would you say that Islam is incompatible with postmodernism?’ she asked.
Obviously, Sardar is dealing with some pretty bright students. But what do they make of the girls who run off to join ISIS? Sardar continues...
'Misguided'. 'Brainwashed'. 'Not very educated, are they?' The answers came thick and fast. Another girl in hijab said: 'They know very little about Islam. What they know they have acquired from social media or websites run by ultra-conservative imams. They think they are learning about Islam but they are being fed propaganda and a literalist, extremist version of Islam.'
Thirdly, I want to refer to the work of neuroscientist David Eagleman and his reflections on the relationship between the brain and the law. Eagleman is just the kind of author who might be studied by students taking Philosophy courses that require them to grapple with the problem of free-will and moral agency.
First of all, let's look at a philosophical rather than a neurological perspective. A hard determinist is someone who believes that all our behaviour can be explained as effects that are caused by our brains, bodies, genes or environment.
Ted Honderich is a famous exponent of this view. He argues that the very idea of free will is meaningless because that concept only makes sense if one accepts ‘origination’- the view that there is a fully independent self that stands apart from the world of cause and effect in which we live and that can initiate actions. As there is no prior ‘self’ of this kind that could be the origin of our actions, and the mind is just a by-product of brain activity that is itself affected and shaped by the physical world around it, there can be no such thing as origination, and therefore no free-will. For this reason, the idea of us being morally responsible for what we do can have no rational justification.
To what extent are his views reflected by the neuroscience described by Eagleman? Actually, quite considerably. Let's start with a minor example: male infidelity. In one section of his book Incognito: the Secret Lives of the Brain, Eagleman draws attention to studies demonstrating that men with lower levels of a hormone called vasopressin might be less capable of being faithful. This has to do with the way in which vasopressin binds with receptors in the brain and also with the number of copies of a section of a gene called RS3 334 that a man might carry as part of his genetic profile.
This is just one example but Eagleman goes on to argue that, contrary to what we usually assume, none of us truly has the command over our thoughts and emotions that we think we do.
Actually, much of our brain activity follows from completely physical and biological processes that are happening subconsciously, and you cannot affect them.
A very surprising instance of this was a man at his forties whose spouse of 20 years abruptly saw he had – apparently all of a sudden – started to get obsessed with child pornography. Through a medical test on him, doctors discovered a huge tumour in a section of the brain that deals with decision-making: the orbitofrontal cortex. After the surgeons took it out, his sexual desires became normal again.
We further assume that we have only one, unified character or ego.
However, when we look at our brains more in-depth, we notice that this isn’t that much of a straightforward thing: the human brain consists of a few subsystems each of which has different tasks and that usually fight for command over our actions. Eagleman likens this fight (which usually takes place beneath the level of our conscious awareness) to a Parliament where various parties are vying to have their policies adopted.
It's been a while since I read Eagleman's book and so I am going to let an online review do the heavy lifting at this point. Note that Eagleman is not going as far as Honderich does here.
"If our actions, decisions, and beliefs are a result of causal interactions of subsystems in our brains, is free will an illusion? Can neuroscience test for free will? He [Eagleman]brings up a fascinating example of an early test and surprising results: “In the 1960s, a scientist named Benjamin Libet placed electrodes on the heads of subjects and asked them to do a very simple task: lift their finger at a time of their own choosing. They watched a high-resolution timer and were asked to note the exact moment at which they “felt the urge” to make the move. Libet discovered that people became aware of an urge to move about a quarter of a second before they actually made the move. But that wasn’t the surprising part. He examined their EEG recordings— the brain waves— and found something more surprising: the activity in their brains began to rise before they felt the urge to move. And not just by a little bit. By over a second. In other words, parts of the brain were making decisions well before the person consciously experienced the urge.” (p. 167)
So where did the will come from? He takes this concept further to suggest that criminal action is mostly the result of processes outside of conscious control. However, he still argues that of course such criminals should be taken off the streets, but perhaps understanding this process may foster better ways of changing their brains such that their behaviour eventually becomes more socially acceptable. He does venture that the prefrontal cortex has “veto power” which perhaps can be trained.
Eagleman then appears to pull back just a bit: “Given the steering power of our genetics, childhood experiences, environmental toxins, hormones, neurotransmitters, and neural circuitry, enough of our decisions are beyond our explicit control that we are arguably not the ones in charge. In other words, free will may exist— but if it does, it has very little room in which to operate. So I’m going to propose what I call the principle of sufficient automatism. The principle arises naturally from the understanding that free will, if it exists, is only a small factor riding on top of enormous automated machinery. So small that we may be able to think about bad decision making in the same way we think about any other physical process, such as diabetes or lung disease. The principle states that the answer to the free-will question simply does not matter.” (p. 170)
He gives a compelling argument that criminal action can be placed in a spectrum similar to other brain disorders that have been characterized and treated with varying success: “What accounts for the shift from blame to biology? Perhaps the largest driving force is the effectiveness of the pharmaceutical treatments. No amount of beating will chase away depression, but a little pill called fluoxetine often does the trick. Schizophrenic symptoms cannot be overcome by exorcism, but can be controlled by risperidone. Mania responds not to talking or to ostracism, but to lithium. These successes, most of them introduced in the past sixty years, have underscored the idea that it does not make sense to call some disorders brain problems while consigning others to the ineffable realm of the psychic. Instead, mental problems have begun to be approached in the same way we might approach a broken leg.” (p. 172)
Going back to Begum, some observations about what we know about the teenage brain become salient at this point:
It doesn’t matter how smart teens are or how well they scored on the SAT or ACT. Good judgment isn’t something they can excel in, at least not yet.
The rational part of a teen’s brain isn’t fully developed and won’t be until age 25 or so.
In fact, recent research has found that adult and teen brains work differently. Adults think with the prefrontal cortex, the brain’s rational part. This is the part of the brain that responds to situations with good judgment and an awareness of long-term consequences. Teens process information with the amygdala. This is the emotional part.
In teens' brains, the connections between the emotional part of the brain and the decision-making center are still developing—and not always at the same rate. That’s why when teens have overwhelming emotional input, they can’t explain later what they were thinking. They weren’t thinking as much as they were feeling.
Understanding the Teen Brain - Health Encyclopedia - University of Rochester Medical Center
www.urmc.rochester.edu
On the basis of the above, it might even be possible to portray Begum as a rather pathetic, naive, hormonal, and not terribly bright individual (though I don't know anything about her academic school record) who made some unimprovably stupid decisions and is now paying the price for them.
However, now suppose that some new information came to light. Suppose that it was found that Begum was an active member of the notorious, all-female al-Khansaa brigade and went around administering punishments with what was known as 'the Biter' in ISIS territory? This might increase her level of moral culpability (which can already be derived from even her non-combatant status).
Also, when I read the more vitriolic comments about Begum on here, I am not unaffected by them and do start to veer more in the direction of an unwillingness to largely think away the possibility of free-will and therefore choice in human action.
But overall, I am still conflicted about this and that's all I'm saying. In the light of the different perspectives that I have outlined above, I feel that I still don't know quite enough about her at this point to consign Begum to stateless oblivion.
I am also very surprised by the very many on here who think they do and that's why I have been critical of them in my previous post.
Given the complexity of this issue, a bit more humility might be in order instead of a rush to claim the moral high ground in order to broadcast one's views from the summit of it.
There's one last thing: a lot of us assume that we would never be capable of committing the kind of atrocities perpetrated by ISIS.
This overlooks the fact that the 20th Century could be described as the ‘mass murder century’. During it, more than 50 million people were systematically murdered on the direct instructions of various governments, with both soldiers and civilians willing to carry out the kill orders.
The Nazis, for example, killed 6 million Jews, 3 million Soviet prisoners of war, 2 million Poles, and hundreds and thousands of others who were considered ‘undesirable’.
And this is just one example of mass murder. In 1915, Ottoman Turks slaughtered 1.5 million Armenians, and since then Stalin’s Soviet empire resulted in the deaths of 20 million Russians, while Mao Zedong’s government policies caused an even greater number of deaths, up to 30 million of China’s own citizens. The Communist Khmer Rouge regime killed off 1.7 million citizens of its own nation in Cambodia, while Saddam Hussein’s Ba’ath Party was accused of killing 100,000 Kurds in Iraq. Lastly, a report by the United Nations estimates that between 800,000 and one million Tutsi Rwandans were systematically massacred by their Hutu neighbours over the course of just three months, one of the most ferocious acts of slaughter ever known.
If you are looking for the reasons why this keeps happening, watch this documentary, taking note of the fact that there is only the psychological equivalent of a cigarette paper's width between ourselves and those who are responsible for the worst acts of evil.
Last edited:
gordondaviesmoustache
Well-Known Member
From a criminal justice point of view, I completely disagree. Sentences have markedly gone up, as has the prison population, significantly - and many of the protections afforded to defendants back then have gone.
We are far more punishment oriented as a society than we were back then, although from where I’m stood, it doesn’t appear to be having the desired effect.
Mr Kobayashi
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 1 Oct 2020
- Messages
- 16,828
Did you type that one handed whilst fantasising about her being hanged? There is nothing in my post that says she shouldn't be punished or that the Syrian Kurds don't have the right to decide on the appropriate punishment.
Syrian Kurds to put Isis fighters from dozens of countries on trial
Decision follows exasperation at failure to reach international agreements over prisoners
www.theguardian.com
As it happens the Kurds have decided that they won't be using the death penalty on even the male fighters, however life time imprisonment or long sentences is likely. There are 4000 women in their custody and around 9,500 children. Why should they bear the costs for imprisoning people? The UK government (and others) could arrange for the minor offenders to be repatriated after trials or come to an agreement to conduct them in their own jurisdiction.
Getting all parties around the table and hammering out a plan to go forward would be the sensible and proper thing to do, rather than let the problem spill over and create more mess. There are dangerous people in the camps and they need to be in high security prisons away from the vulnerable and children.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/20...leeper-cells-blamed-string-beheadings-syrian/
Metal Biker
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 3 Jul 2009
- Messages
- 21,319
- Team supported
- Manchester City (and McLaren F1)
I'm struggling to see your position on this issue.Did you type that one handed whilst fantasising about her being hanged? There is nothing in my post that says she shouldn't be punished or that the Syrian Kurds don't have the right to decide on the appropriate punishment.
Syrian Kurds to put Isis fighters from dozens of countries on trial
Decision follows exasperation at failure to reach international agreements over prisoners
As it happens the Kurds have decided that they won't be using the death penalty on even the male fighters, however life time imprisonment or long sentences is likely. There are 4000 women in their custody and around 9,500 children. Why should they bear the costs for imprisoning people? The UK government (and others) could arrange for the minor offenders to be repatriated after trials or come to an agreement to conduct them in their own jurisdiction.
Getting all parties around the table and hammering out a plan to go forward would be the sensible and proper thing to do, rather than let the problem spill over and create more mess. There are dangerous people in the camps and they need to be in high security prisons away from the vulnerable and children.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/20...leeper-cells-blamed-string-beheadings-syrian/
If she is guilty of being complicit in the suffering of others, then that suffering occured in Syria, which is where she should face trial and be incarcerated for life. If you don't agree with that then shouldn't Sacoolas face trial in the US instead of the UK then?
If she HASN'T committed any crime, then why does she need to be extradited back to the UK to face trial here? So much concern and consideration over a woman whose actions would make Hindley seem like a saint in comparison. She's not vulnerable, recent footage showed her walking around with a spring in her step and appeared in fine health. She wants to escape justice by coming to the UK, nothing more.
Last edited: