young jihadis

[Dogsauce]

Apparently so. Here's one (but "he's not a jihadi, he's a very naughty boy").

I note that it states he was out there with 'a militant group linked to IS in Syria'. This 'linked to' thing can get extremely murky - it used to be AQ that anyone and everyone that was bad was linked to, now it's IS. In the last decade the 'AQ link' thing was often exaggerated when a nation wanted the US to come and bomb their local uprising. We're all just degrees of separation away on that principle.

There have been people that went out to Syria with the prime motive to fight Assad and help a population suffering under his assault. Some have got sucked into the deeper darker world of IS, but I suspect not all are head-choppers and assholes.

 

[butchersapron]

That kid was obviously with JAN. They introduced the beheading into the Syrian conflict. They actually are the official AQ franchise in Syria.

 

[ViolentPanda]

They're using their discretion to exercise these powers. As with control orders and other kinds of terrorism related legislation.

So it matters who it is.

All exercise of power regarding application of law is "discretionary". It doesn't matter who is Home Secretary or Prime Minister, what matters is whether the individual, whichever individual decides to exercise their discretion. We know from past experience, for example, that Charles Clarke and David Blunkett decided to do so far more often than their successors.

 

[tim]

There's really nothing wrong with preparing our youth for martyrdom, is there?

 

[dylanredefined]

There's really nothing wrong with preparing our youth for martyrdom, is there?

Has he even heard of an Iron If I looked like that on parade in my day I'd be beaten to death and think myself lucky

 

[Ole]

Yes, they are dangerous. Deluded and dangerous. But if the state departs from criminal law in dealing with them it becomes as arbitrary and tyrannical as IS itself.

Any and all departure by the state from criminal law is equally tyrannical with the mass murdering, raping and enslaving IS? Why? What logic produces this sort of a moral compass?

 

[ViolentPanda]

Any and all departure by the state from criminal law is equally tyrannical with the mass murdering, raping and enslaving IS? Why? What logic produces this sort of a moral compass?

A constituted democratic state, by its' very nature, is bound to a set of laws from which it cannot resile without legislation. To do so renders the state no more valid - morally, ethically and politically - than a non-state actor such as IS. There's no moral compass to such a view, it is plainly and simply about the fact that the nature of the state means that extra- legislative action invalidates any claim - legal or moral - that the state has over the behaviour of citizens.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Has he even heard of an Iron If I looked like that on parade in my day I'd be beaten to death and think myself lucky

His beret band is wonky. He's lucky someone hasn't knocked it off his head and made him do 50 circuits of the parade ground for his sloppiness!

 

[dylanredefined]

His beret band is wonky. He's lucky someone hasn't knocked it off his head and made him do 50 circuits of the parade ground for his sloppiness!

His Beret is horrible in general you would think one of the instructors would have at least given them a look over before going out in public. It is probably a good thing we can't see his boots.

 

[Ole]

A constituted democratic state, by its' very nature, is bound to a set of laws from which it cannot resile without legislation. To do so renders the state no more valid - morally, ethically and politically - than a non-state actor such as IS. There's no moral compass to such a view, it is plainly and simply about the fact that the nature of the state means that extra- legislative action invalidates any claim - legal or moral - that the state has over the behaviour of citizens.

It's neither plainly nor simply the case that a constituted democratic state acting extra-legally can be equated with any and all tyrannical organisations of which the IS is an example, which is why I asked for the rationale behind the equation. It depends on the nature of the transgression. A slight bending of the law and democratic mandate doesn't suddenly render a constitutional liberal democracy politically and ethically equivalent to a fascist state, that's absolute bollocks.

 

[ViolentPanda]

It's neither plainly nor simply the case that a constituted democratic state acting extra-legally can be equated with any and all tyrannical organisations of which the IS is an example, which is why I asked for the rationale behind the equation. It depends on the nature of the transgression. A slight bending of the law and democratic mandate doesn't suddenly render a constitutional liberal democracy politically and ethically equivalent to a fascist state, that's absolute bollocks.

Who's mentioned comparability to a fascist state? Only you.
It's interesting that you address the possibility of illegal action by the state as "a slight bending of the law". Would you be so keen to do so if the "slight bending of the law" affected you?
Myself, I believe that holding a democratic state accountable for its' actions, and holding it to its constitutionally-allowed practices means that we minimise extra-legal activity, and the risk of "mission creep" with new legislation, so that if powers are legislated today to render persons persona non grata in the UK, they don't expand to be used as a tool of general repression. You know, the whole "with power comes responsibility" schtick.

 

[Diamond]

A constituted democratic state, by its' very nature, is bound to a set of laws from which it cannot resile without legislation. To do so renders the state no more valid - morally, ethically and politically - than a non-state actor such as IS. There's no moral compass to such a view, it is plainly and simply about the fact that the nature of the state means that extra- legislative action invalidates any claim - legal or moral - that the state has over the behaviour of citizens.

Nonsense.

 

[ViolentPanda]

His Beret is horrible in general you would think one of the instructors would have at least given them a look over before going out in public.

Then again, maybe none of his cadet instructors had slaved for hours with a steaming kettle to get their beret "just so", only to have some chippy corporal slap it off their head and tread on it!

It is probably a good thing we can't see his boots.

Probably. I was teasing one of my g-dsons about the fact that they wear boots that don't have to be bulled nowadays. He uses that liquid polish ffs!

 

[ViolentPanda]

Nonsense.

Thanks for that, mr "expert euro lawyer". Care to explain why it is a nonsense?

 

[Mr.Bishie]

I was teasing one of my g-dsons about the fact that they wear boots that don't have to be bulled nowadays. He uses that liquid polish ffs!

They don't bull anymore? Gone to the dogs!

 

[ViolentPanda]

They don't bull anymore? Gone to the dogs!

Parade boots only. They're so far gone, even the dogs don't want 'em!

 

[Diamond]

Thanks for that, mr "expert euro lawyer". Care to explain why it is a nonsense?

I can sort of see the point that you're trying to make. Is it something along the lines of - "There is an equality of illegality between actors, be they states or any other person", or, in other words, there should be the rule of law?

That would sort of make sense but to argue that the unconstitutional/illegal actions of one organ of a legally constituted state operating under the rule of law renders the entirety of that state invalid, in a manner similar to IS, which appears to have no mandate beyond that generated by its brutality, is a very odd argument to try and run.

 

[Diamond]

On the prosecution point, and depending on central questions about subject, territorial and personal jurisdiction, the crimes of IS should be prosecuted by the ICC, if that court is ever going to be taken seriously.

 

[dylanredefined]

Then again, maybe none of his cadet instructors had slaved for hours with a steaming kettle to get their beret "just so", only to have some chippy corporal slap it off their head and tread on it!



Probably. I was teasing one of my g-dsons about the fact that they wear boots that don't have to be bulled nowadays. He uses that liquid polish ffs!

They don't bull anymore? Gone to the dogs!

Some of the new issuse boots don't even need any polish