bimble
floofy
I don't think our age of consent laws extend to the caliphate.
British IS schoolgirl 'wants to return home'
- Thread starter hipipol
- Start date
Did they fuck before she turned sixteen? You seem to know more than most how this all panned out.
Athos
Well-Known Member
It's not quite that simple. For instance there are instances where things are known to police/ security services, but can't be put in evidence in criminal proceedings e.g. telephone intercepts.
If the state had overheard a call in which a dual national said he intended to bomb Wembley, the only effective way to prevent that might be to deprive them of citizenship.
bimble
floofy
No it wouldn't, surely? If so then that needs fixing.
Is pre -emptive deprival of citizenship a thing or have you just made that up?
Athos
Well-Known Member
How so?
bimble
floofy
Have you just made up a scenario in which people can be pre-emptively deprived of their british citizenship because 'we' think they are a threat?
But if we have no other way of dealing with intercepted calls where someone says they plan to blow up Wembley stadium next week, that needs fixing doesn't it. That sounds bad. Sounds like a problem that needs fixing not just for those with potential dual citizenship but for all our aspiring terrorists.
maomao
普費斯
She was fifteen and a half when she left the UK and was married ten days later. Are you suggesting he might have waited till she was 16?
maomao
普費斯
I don't bother with him anymore. Not an honest interlocutor.
Athos
Well-Known Member
Yes, in an ideal world it'd be possible to prevent terrorism without powers that might lead to injustice. But, in reality, there'll always be a trade-off between e.g. security and freedom.
It's a thing if by 'pre-emptive' you mean absent any criminal conviction. It can be based on intelligence
How do I honestly know, or you for that matter? But given of all the interviews she's given she hasn't expressed being a victim of trafficking*, even as a now adult, it's odd that internet ideologues are claiming the contrary.
*I mean by ISIS. Not the Canadian spy development.
Athos
Well-Known Member
Lol. The real reason is you get your arse handed to you every time you do.
bimble
floofy
But has it ever happened that you know of? Or are you just imagining how it could be useful to do it.
Someone having their british citizenship removed and being fucked off to some random place they've never been to, not because they've done anything but because 'we' think they may be a danger to national security?
That sounds like a very bad idea tbh, though one which certain people would love.
Athos
Well-Known Member
There is no easy fix. That's the point. And for e.g. covert human intelligence sources, where to rely on their evidence in criminal precedings would reveal their existence, which might put them at risk and close of a source of intel that saves lives. It's fine to say scrap some of those laws/powers, but we need to be honest about what that might mean.
I seem to remember one where it was decided in court that a nazi terrorist to be should read one of the Bronte sisters' books, and some posters thought it was a pretty good idea coz we need to find alternatives to retributive justice.
bimble
floofy
I think its quite simple tbh. If your system is not up to dealing with home grown terrorists you need to fix it, not just hope you can shunt a handful of them to bangladesh.
Athos
Well-Known Member
Depends by what you mean "anything they've done." But, yes, there have been dual citizens deprived of their British citizenship without being convicted of a crime. Begum for one!
And it's not what "we" think; it's the HS. That's part of the danger of it; a decision made by a politician, with wide discretion and limited oversight, is ripe for abuse.
Last edited:
_Russ_
Never not Knowingly Misunderstood
Did it work?, I mean did the Nazi Terrorist go on to repent his ways and not re-offend?
Athos
Well-Known Member
Of course, that would be ideal, if possible.
But, if not stripping British citizenship, how would you deal with a dual citizen where an agent embedded in a terrorist group reveals he's planning an atrocity on UK soil (but you don't know exactly when and where), in circumstances where a criminal prosecution would be impossible without the agent's evidence, but where a trial would reveal his existence, putting him at risk and closing of vital intel? What laws/powers would you change?
bimble
floofy
What would happen if that terrorist person were not a dual citizen, would they just have to be left go ahead and get on with it and do their atrocity?
Is that the situation we are in, we can only stop the dual citizens? Bollocks.
eta it seems that American citizens can only be deprived of their citizenship in very specific situations, and ONLY if they are 'naturalised' citizens, not born there. How are we justifying this different approach? By saying our criminal justice system is a bit crap so any lever will do needs must?
Last edited:
Athos
Well-Known Member
The police and security services would continue to try to prevent him. But it would be much harder than if he could be kept out of the country (and it would divert resources from other terrorist suspects).
Given enough of these people over a long enough period, and the need for them to get lucky once versus the state's need to get it right every day, the likelihood is that the removal of the power would eventually lead to a successful attack.
As a society, we need to decide whether that's a price worth paying to ensure that dual national terrorist suspects are treated 'fairly' i.e. the same as sole nationals.
Personally, I think there's some strong arguments - moral and pragmatic - that we should.
The reason I'm playing devil's advocate is to make the point that it's not as obvious a decision as it might initially appear, and not without some risk/cost.
Have a look at some of the decisions here (you're looking for substantive judgements in deprivation cases).
Special Immigration Appeals Commission (SIAC) - Outcomes 2007 onwards
siac.decisions.tribunals.gov.uk
Last edited:
Athos
Well-Known Member
They have the option of slinging people in Gitmo. And far fewer checks and balances on police powers in criminal investigations. They just put the security/safety trade off in a different place. For all the faults of our current system, we have far more protections.
Serge Forward
Just enjoyin' my coffee.
Probably because they were still unreconstitued neo nazis? I don't know of any mentioned on threads here who have denounced their former ideology. Maybe you've seen some?
kebabking
Not a Girly Swot, but I like them....
Perhaps the that's chasing the wrong analogy/comparison: Germany in 1945 might be better, and like the IS people, only brought about by the the territorial/military defeat of their society?
Lots of repentance, lots of 'i didn't know...' - depends on how much you believe them, and whether you think they were just parroting a line in order to avoid the noose...
Spymaster
Plastic Paddy
Oh shut up, you tit.
Has Begum denounced theirs? Or before having a desperate motivation for doing so?
Athos
Well-Known Member
And they've done away with the death penalty. Though, ironically, I suspect that's part of her motive for not doing so - the idea that her life is at risk in the camp is one argument in favour of letting her come back to the UK.
Similar threads
