• robert posted an update 4 months, 2 weeks ago

    UK IS duo stripped of UK status.. Personally I agree with their UK citizenship being removed however, the IS suspects feel this infringes their human rights.


    • Not much to discuss. I suppose you could argue that they are suspects and alleged etc.

    • Bloods still boiling to discuss rationally. However, whilst I fear we need to prove ourselves better than these servile scum, examples need to be made.

      • I’ve heard there are rooms still available at Guantanamo…

        • Which is an affront to all right minded people. Many people in Gitmo are there without charge.

          Surely, even for they bastards they deserve a trial and a very long sentence.

          Not sure about removing their citizenship, since they weren’t born here, but supposing you removed their citizenship and they were returned to their country of birth, only to be free men?

          So I’m torn between doing something alien to our constitution (Gitmo) or bringing them here. I suppose the best thing might be to pay some country to take responsibility for their trial, the country they committed their crimes in, and make sure they don’t get out. Though I think this might be difficult since we’re talking about Syria!!

          I’m against the death penalty, but I might make an exception for these two. But that doesn’t mean they shouldn’t stand trial somewhere.

    • ‘Personally I agree with their UK citizenship being removed ‘

      I totally don’t. Citizenship is not the gift of government, the can’t bestow it or withdraw at will. If you are a UK citizen that’s it.

      And as for these scumbags; great. They are UK citizens, so subject them to UK law, which will result in them being locked up forever. Nor martyred; just pathetic.

      • Depends on the nature of their citizenship. Citizenship can be bestowed; naturalisation, etc.

    • Removing citizenship, from British born citizens, before guilt is ascertained through due legal process.

      What do I think of that? I think it’s an incredibly dangerous precedent to set, that is typical of the current government’s short sited pandering to media driven public opinion.

      I would sooner support public execution then revocation of citizenship without due process.

      My gut feeling is that if we have the evidence, try them as anyone else, lend them to the Americans and Israelies for questioning then leave their corpses hanging off tower bridge to feed the ravens.

      My sensible voice tells me that we have to be better than the scum if we are ever going to prevail, and that having a trial then housing and feeding two scroats until they either genuinely and fully repent and work against radicalization, or die forgotten is what we must do.

    • As I understand it, the legal power to remove one’s citizenship can only be applied where it has been granted by the Government throughout the process of naturalisation.

      The individual will have been a citizen of another state prior to this, and although it is a sweeping generalisation will have applied for citizenship following immigration to the UK either through seeking asylum or another legitimate process.

      Thinking about the individuals involved, if it is the former, to take arms against the UK would be contrary to the doctrine of sanctuary from the Quran.

      Whatever the circumstances, or the additional issues, if citizenship is granted by the state, it can be revoked by the state.

    • Their crimes were committed in Syria, most of their victims were Syrian and they are still in Syria in the custody of a Syrian militia. Syrian laws regarding murder and war crimes should be applied by whoever has them in custody. That will render the citizenship question moot fairly quickly.

      • That sounds an ideal solution.

        • Not really as there is a big chance that they could be released/broken out in Syria which is after all a very unstable war torn country. Best to send them to Guantanamo bay never to be seen again.

    • Although I have no empathy whatsoever for these guys and as far as I am concerned they can rot in hell, I am very much firmly against removing citizenship to anyone, especially at the discretion of the state and without due legal process.

      Not only it’s pointless and unworkable, but it creates the precedent of a “two tier citizenship”.

      Before you know it we will be removing citizenship of naturalised Brits for minor offences, and it sends a message to all naturalised Brits that they are, after all, still lesser citizens than their counterparts who were born into it.

      Unfortunately this is part of larger move to undermining access to proper justice for foreigners.

      The latest immigration exceptions in the data protection bill are another example of how something initially meant for hardened criminals and terrorists suddenly becomes a tool for the government to bypass the justice system used against innocent people.

    • As I understand it citizenship was given to these two individuals by the government so I don’t see why they can’t take it away.

    • I have a vague recollection that it’s a violation of the Univeral Declaration on Human Rights to render someone stateless.

      A quick google cites Article 15. Anyone here who actually understands these things?

    • I can never understand why people like this just don’t disappear.

      • I suspect quite a few have, and TBH I think that’s the best thing all round.

        Unfortunately some will find their way back, and the likes of Matrix Chambers will be desperate to have them as clients. What better way to display your social conscience, (and maybe in time make a couple of million off the backs of the British taxpayer), by protecting the rights of mass murders and sadists?

      • I think that I am the only person who openly admits to wanting Capital Punishment on these forums. However, on this occasion, if the two remaining Beatles are found guilty of the alleged crimes then I would like them to be confined to solitary confinement for the rest of their natural lives. And I mean solitary, not even seeing their guards. I believe that this would be the most effective torture which could go on for decades.

    • In principle if you aspire to citizenship of a country and you then commit acts of terrorism against your host, the country which has protected, educated and sheltered you, you should be made to face the justice system of that country. In this case I can only think that a deal must have been struck with somebody who desperately wants to get their hands on the two.

    • “… in the custody of a Syrian militia.”

      There’s the rub. Who are this militia and do we recognize them as fit for applying the rule of Syrian law?

      If, say, an Australian had traveled to Northern Ireland, joined the UVF, allegedly committed murder in their name, and was captured by the IRA, would the Australian government say, “well he’s in the custody of a militia so let them deal with it”?

    • The other surviving ‘Beatle’, Aine Davis, was jailed for seven years in Turkey. Davis was involved in the torture and brutalisation of hostages, not to mention the execution of 27 captives whose ‘crimes’ included being aid workers and journalists. Ankara refused extradition requests from both the UK and the US.

      Regardless of the jurisdiction this pair end up in, I hope their many victims see a bit more in the way of justice than seven years.

      • Presumably he would receive a life sentence in either the U.K. or the U.S. Still can of course, once he has served his sentence in Turkey, which won’t be a holiday.

        • Turkey have set a precedent by refusing extradition once, wouldn’t put it past them to do so again, especially in light of Erdogan’s continued antipathy to the West.

    • They are in the country they are accused of committing crimes in, however they are being held by an anti-Government militia, Kurds. They are happy to hand them to the British, probably not so much the Syrian Government.

      • UK law does provide the facility to prosecute serious crimes committed abroad by British subjects doesn’t it? We use it against sex-abuse tourists and IIRC it was originally conceived to deal with Brits who killed business rivals abroad where laws were weaker or not properly enforced. Presumably where evidence is available we could prosecute fighters returned from the middle east, the risk I suppose is the evidence is weak, witnesses dead or unavailable etc, trials collapse or cases can’t be made then they go back into the general population to cause more problems. The alternative then is internment or treat them as prisoners of war but it’s debatable whether the end would even justify the means, it’s proven counterproductive before and it likely would again looking at the popular response to Guantanamo. It’s convenient where we can to turn a blind eye, leave the problem for others to handle or disappear into a hole in the desert as they see fit. It’s not really a long term solution if we want to see the middle east nations return to stability and eventually open up, they’re going to need help dealing properly with the destabilising forces imported from all over by IS.