ISIS teenager wants to come home

[cullennz]

but that isn't the UK consideration here.
What is at stake is the signal that we are sending to Western fighters and supporters in the region: do you or don't you have a way back?
If we tell them that all the bridges are burned, we leave them little choice but to continue the conflict.

Not the smart move.

Sorry, but I'm giving up on the niceties.

Which bit of my multiple posts saying keeping her institutionalised till she can prove she isn't a danger did you miss?

 

[baron]

Can't help thinking that wouldn't go down to well in this case.

Too much global attention now.

Even NZers know about it on our National News.

It wouldn't go down well with foreign governments, it would go down very well with the majority populations of probably every Western country. I think the Sky News poll showed 4 in 5 people believe this woman should not be allowed back into the country. Bear in mind, foreign governments won't vote our government back into power, the people will (or might).

 

[cullennz]

It wouldn't go down well with foreign governments, it would go down very well with the majority populations of probably every Western country. I think the Sky News poll showed 4 in 5 people believe this woman should not be allowed back into the country. Bear in mind, foreign governments won't vote our government back into power, the people will (or might).

I really really doubt that in this case

And I think people should think about it individually to this case.

What it would do is say to the rest of the world a 15 year old UK kid can stupidly leave the UK on a dumb whim without anyone stopping them or with much media crap, "caring", and after being indoctrined into ISIS, when they want to come home, their country takes away their citizenship and hangs them out to dry.

It's 2019. It is what it is.

It will happen. But go for your life

 

[Worm]

A friend of mine posted this on Facebook and I thought it was an interesting perspective. I post it here for reference - no point critiquing it for me - it's not my work. I just thought people might find it an interesting take:

Take a deep breath, people. You're all getting outraged over a non-story.

This is about a girl from London who is now in a camp in Syria. A Times journalist bumped into her and realised who she was. When interviewed she expressed a desire to return to England for her baby to be born. That's it, that's the whole story, end of.

Still outraged? Let me explain further.

She has taken no steps to contact a consular official (not least because there are none in Syria, for safety reasons) and she is nine months pregnant so she certainly won’t be back in the UK for the birth. In all likelihood she won't be back in the UK for years, if ever.

If in a few years' time she somehow does manage to get to a consulate then unfortunately as a British citizen she has the right to come back. I don't like this any more than anyone else posting here, but it is international law that a country cannot leave anyone stateless. Whether we could or should allow it becomes an irrelevance as we have no choice in the matter here, like it or not she's our problem.

This sounds morally wrong I know but if it helps any, think about this the other way around: if we had say a French terrorist in the UK and wanted to deport them, and France said "non," how would we feel about that? We want unsavoury foreigners in the UK to go somewhere else yet also want unsavoury UK citizens in other countries to go somewhere else? We can't have it both ways.

Should she ever return to the UK then she will then be interviewed, probably charged, stand trial, and potentially be imprisoned for a very long time in accordance with English Law just like any other suspected criminal.

TL;DR - There is absolutely no chance whatsoever of the UK flying her back tomorrow to give her a free council house and let her start up an ISIS cell in Bethnal Green, despite how many newspapers that story might sell.

 

[cullennz]

A friend of mine posted this on Facebook and I thought it was an interesting perspective. I post it here for reference - no point critiquing it for me - it's not my work. I just thought people might find it an interesting take:

Good post, but

"Should she ever return to the UK then she will then be interviewed, probably charged, stand trial, and potentially be imprisoned for a very long time in accordance with English Law just like any other suspected criminal."

What for as a 15 year old at the time, exactly?

 

[baron]

I really really doubt that in this case

And I think people should think about it individually to this case.

They are. And the evidence shows they don't want her back.

A Sky News poll asking if Shamima Begum should be allowed to return to the UK found that 76% think she should not, 16% believe she should and 8% did not know.

What it would do is say to the rest of the world a 15 year old UK kid can stupidly leave the UK on a dumb whim without anyone stopping them or with much media crap, "caring", and after being indoctrined into ISIS, when they want to come home, their country takes away their citizenship and hangs them out to dry.

They didn't leave on a whim. They spent months planning it and executed their plan with military precision. They knew exactly what they were doing.

She is not remorseful and has no regrets about joining ISIS. She wants to return to the UK because she is homeless and pregnant and wants free housing, free NHS care and benefits in the UK. There is no evidence her mindset has changed.

Who is the 'rest of the world' you are talking about? The US has openly stated the UK is too soft on returning terrorists and, tired of the UK government's lack of concrete action, wants to stick them all in Guantanamo. Not only is there no evidence the rest of the world cares about what happens to this particular terrorist, and certainly none that they support her right to return to the UK, it makes little difference because UK governments are not voted in on the basis of what foreigners think of them.

 

[angrysoba]

but that isn't the UK consideration here.
What is at stake is the signal that we are sending to Western fighters and supporters in the region: do you or don't you have a way back?
If we tell them that all the bridges are burned, we leave them little choice but to continue the conflict.

Not the smart move.

I think that makes sense for those who were in areas overrun by ISIS who either had to throw their lot in with them or get decapitated, but not for enthusiastic followers. At the very least an expression of regret or of throwing off the illusions would be nice. But why build a bridge for unrepentant supporters who are potential if not actual terrorists?

 

[baron]

A friend of mine posted this on Facebook and I thought it was an interesting perspective. I post it here for reference - no point critiquing it for me - it's not my work. I just thought people might find it an interesting take:

Take a deep breath, people. You're all getting outraged over a non-story.

This is about a girl from London who is now in a camp in Syria. A Times journalist bumped into her and realised who she was. When interviewed she expressed a desire to return to England for her baby to be born. That's it, that's the whole story, end of.

Still outraged? Let me explain further.

She has taken no steps to contact a consular official (not least because there are none in Syria, for safety reasons) and she is nine months pregnant so she certainly won’t be back in the UK for the birth. In all likelihood she won't be back in the UK for years, if ever.

If in a few years' time she somehow does manage to get to a consulate then unfortunately as a British citizen she has the right to come back. I don't like this any more than anyone else posting here, but it is international law that a country cannot leave anyone stateless. Whether we could or should allow it becomes an irrelevance as we have no choice in the matter here, like it or not she's our problem.

This sounds morally wrong I know but if it helps any, think about this the other way around: if we had say a French terrorist in the UK and wanted to deport them, and France said "non," how would we feel about that? We want unsavoury foreigners in the UK to go somewhere else yet also want unsavoury UK citizens in other countries to go somewhere else? We can't have it both ways.

Should she ever return to the UK then she will then be interviewed, probably charged, stand trial, and potentially be imprisoned for a very long time in accordance with English Law just like any other suspected criminal.

TL;DR - There is absolutely no chance whatsoever of the UK flying her back tomorrow to give her a free council house and let her start up an ISIS cell in Bethnal Green, despite how many newspapers that story might sell.

There are a few inaccuracies / issues here. As I pointed out, nothing can force the UK government to accept her back, lawful action or otherwise. If we decide not to accept her then that's an end to it. Countries breach international law all the time, it's not a big deal.

Now we know where she is there's a chance she will be targeted by 'refugee charities' as a priority case and guided through the system that prior to this she wouldn't have had much chance of negotiating.

She will not be imprisoned for a 'very long time' if she returns. I would place a bet with anybody that she wouldn't serve more than four years. She'd be out in her mid 20s ready to spit out another dozen terrorists-in-the-making funded by the British taxpayer.

 

[cullennz]

Who is the 'rest of the world' you are talking about? The US has openly stated the UK is too soft on returning terrorists and, tired of the UK government's lack of concrete action, wants to stick them all in Guantanamo. Not only is there no evidence the rest of the world cares about what happens to this particular terrorist, and certainly none that they support her right to return to the UK, it makes little difference because UK governments are not voted in on the basis of what foreigners think of them.

Personally think it is kind of weird your go to is what the US thinks.

Can't speak for Aus or Canada, but seems a tad silly

But it is all cool.

It has just become international news

And turfing her out after this would be extremely stupid

 

[baron]

Personally think it is kind of weird your go to is what the US thinks.

Why is it weird? What 'rest of the world' were you referring to?

Can't speak for Aus or Canada, but seems a tad silly

But it is all cool.

It has just become international news

And turfing her out after this would be extremely stupid

She wouldn't be being turfed out, she'd be prevented from returning. I don't see why it would be stupid and I can't see it having any repercussions whatsoever.

 

[cullennz]

Why is it weird? What 'rest of the world' were you referring to?

Well that answers the question really

 

[GlennB]

She wouldn't be being turfed out, she'd be prevented from returning. I don't see why it would be stupid and I can't see it having any repercussions whatsoever.

For starters, Caribbean nations (among others) could prevent the return of Windrush deportees from the UK.

 

[baron]

Well that answers the question really

If you can't answer a simple question then forget it.

For starters, Caribbean nations (among others) could prevent the return of Windrush deportees from the UK.

They could, but they have that option now. They are not somehow emboldened to refuse entry to law-abiding citizens by a British precedent of not letting an ISIS terrorist return to the UK (not that it's a precedent in any case)

 

[SusanB-M1]

so many interestingpoints to consider ...

If the child were to be brought here and was brought up to be a decent, law-abiding member of society, then the high financial long-term costs might turn out to be well spent, If not, and Shamima Begum spent some years in prison, followed by long-term claims of a variety of benefits, then perhaps not.

I think it was Vixen who talked about showing what a Christian country is like- now that would really annoy me!
Decent people are so whether believers ore not.
Of course, this country needs to be far more secular, but at least it is moving in the right direction I think, albeit with two steps forward, one back.

 

[IanS]

She left at the age of 15 or 16 if my math is right. Give her a second chance. Don't get me wrong, she deserves some time in prison first, but everyone deserves to be forgiven for crimes committed before they were 18 eventually.

The problem is that hundreds of previous cases in the UK have shown that we should have little confidence that many, if any, of these individuals actually change their belief in fundamentalist Islam and the need to form Islamic religious states by jihad.

There have now been hundreds of Islamist trials in the UK, and the evidence in those cases showed that wherever it has been possible to check on the subsequent views of people who had been convicted, few if any had genuinely abandoned their "jihad".

We are not dealing here with the typical sort of violent criminal behaviour that is so often associated with a very poor parental background, poor education and few job oppurtunites, drug and alcohol addiction etc. This is major criminal behavior (it's actually deliberate mass murder) that's resulting from fundemenatlist religious beliefs .. . it's almost impossible to change the mindset of people who are acting from such deeply held religious convictions.

 

[baron]

so many interestingpoints to consider ...

If the child were to be brought here and was brought up to be a decent, law-abiding member of society, then the high financial long-term costs might turn out to be well spent, If not, and Shamima Begum spent some years in prison, followed by long-term claims of a variety of benefits, then perhaps not.

The benefits and free housing costs, whilst they stick in the craw, are nothing compared to what it costs to monitor a suspected terrorist 24/7 - an eye watering £18m per person per year.

For every Maajid Nawaz there are 23,000 Islamists who cling to their beliefs and bide their time waiting for an opportunity to strike.

 

[Butter!]

Maybe this is a really dumb thing to think (I'm assuming it must be since no one else has really brought it up), or maybe I've just seen a bit too much Homeland, but wouldn't a real concern of taking these people back be that they could then become terrorists on UK soil? Unless they're jailed literally for life upon return, couldn't they be playing the long game?

I'm NOT saying they should or would be jailed for life. I'm just asking - is this a realistic concern?

 

[baron]

Maybe this is a really dumb thing to think (I'm assuming it must be since no one else has really brought it up), or maybe I've just seen a bit too much Homeland, but wouldn't a real concern of taking these people back be that they could then become terrorists on UK soil? Unless they're jailed literally for life upon return, couldn't they be playing the long game?

Of course, that's why the security services spend £18m monitoring them, per person per year.

 

[Butter!]

Of course, that's why the security services spend £18m monitoring them, per person per year.

Okay, that's what I figured. So it seems like a perfect cover story for such an agent would be "I left as an innocent minor, I was manipulated, take me back, I'm a harmless little pregnant lady." Monitoring is great, but you can't catch everything unless you put multiple cameras in their residences and such.

That's my "on one hand" position, however. On the other, someone attempting that sort of deep cover would most likely not brag to a journalist about her indifference to baskets of severed heads.

 

[baron]

Okay, that's what I figured. So it seems like a perfect cover story for such an agent would be "I left as an innocent minor, I was manipulated, take me back, I'm a harmless little pregnant lady." Monitoring is great, but you can't catch everything unless you put multiple cameras in their residences and such.

That's right. The security services have resource to monitor about 50 suspects 24/7, and to keep general tabs on about 3000 more. That leaves over 20,000 essentially free to do what they like, and that's a conservative estimate. EDIT: And that's just the Islamist terrorists in the UK, before we even consider other forms of terrorism such as the far right.

That's my "on one hand" position, however. On the other, someone attempting that sort of deep cover would most likely not brag to a journalist about her indifference to baskets of severed heads.

My own view is she's so committed to the cause she doesn't even recognise that her views are wrong. That's why I can easily see her strapped up with dynamite down the nearest tube station as soon as she's spawned her latest kid. Or even before if she can get back quick enough, I'm sure she doesn't mind, she's already let two starve to death.