• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

ISIS teenager wants to come home

Vixen said:
My initial thought was let her rot, but then callow youth does do stupid things - the Icarus syndrome - and I thought perhaps she deserves to be given a chance. However, her attitude irritates me and I can't help wondering if she is some kind of psychopath.
Click to expand...


That depends. Has she done any cartwheels?
 
She should be allowed to return and tried in a court. I'm not sure the kid should be allowed to stay with her regardless.
 
I have no hesitation in wishing the worst possible outcome for her. We should clandestinely execute the piece of **** if she gets within a channels width of "home".
 
As a rule, I'm in favor of giving former 16 year old ******** an out from their ******* choices. She doesn't actually seem to regret those ******* choices. I'm not sure what to do with someone that says they are "unfazed" by bins full of severed heads.
 
Teenage rebellion is dyeing your hair, smoking cigarettes, spraypainting graffiti, and shoplifting. Anything with baskets of severed heads involved is something else entirely.
 
She's in a refugee camp, close to giving birth, of course she wants to go back to the UK.

Seems to me if she's a citizen she should be allowed back in (not sure who should pay her transport), tried for laws broken and hopefully there are relatives that would raise the child.

IOW, just follow the law, distaste for the girl shouldn't be part of it. And yes, the age she was when she went on her 'adventure' matters. But so does any potential she has of carrying out a terrorist act.
 
MikeG said:
Consequences for what? Should people face consequences from the state if they haven't broken any laws?

I'll be honest, I don't want her back in the country, or anyone like her, but I also don't want the state to able to punish people for legal activities.
Click to expand...

Being at war isn't necessarily "illegal" in the usual sense. But it does entitle the people you're at war with to impose extreme sanctions on you - including lethal sanctions.

POW camps are quite rightly regulated by laws, but they are not part of the due process of their nation's criminal justice system. Because POWs aren't criminals in that sense. They're just enemy combatants, and the conventions for their due process are entirely different from the conventions of the criminal justice system.

Also, it's hard to imagine anything more obviously "giving aid and comfort to the enemy" than marrying an enemy soldier.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
:confused:

I don't see how you figure this.
Click to expand...

If that kid survives, it's almost certain to become a terrorist to some degree.
Enlightened self-interest suggests that the world is safer when more people get some education instead of growing up in terrorist-controlled refugee camps.
 
Was any mention made of the husband of the girl and, presumably, the father of her children?
 
Not sure if it has been mentioned, but did she have her citizenship revoked?

If so, who gives a ****

If not, the UK is under a moral obligation to take her back, or at least make sure she isn't harmed.

Personally my opinion would be to take her back, but under the proviso it is to monitored detainment indefinitely (probably add a pretend trial to make it look nice). This will give them a lengthy period to see if she can be rehabilitated, keep her kid and evaluate whether she could/should be released to the public.

Again. Forgive me if I missed it as I only have time to skim, but from what I understand she didn't actually kill anyone, just got treat like a play toy for the nutty blokes with the bombs and guns.
 
SusanB-M1 said:
Was any mention made of the husband of the girl and, presumably, the father of her children?
Click to expand...

From what I have read, the girls going over there found out it was for their recreation, not for soul partnerships, if you know what I mean.

She might have been different though
 
MikeG said:
It's illegal in international law to declare someone stateless.
Click to expand...
"International law" is a set of opt-in conventions. It has no legal jurisdiction or enforcement authority. Maybe the UK has domestic laws that embody some of the principles of "international law"? I don't know. But if they do, then it would be illegal in UK law, which is actually a thing.

We can't and won't do that.
Click to expand...

I don't know about won't, but I'm pretty sure you can. If not de jure, then certainly de facto. Just refuse to repatriate her. Would probably piss off whichever country is stuck hosting her. They'd probably raise a fuss and complain about "international law". But the actual operative laws would be the domestic laws and treaty agreements of the two nations involved. Plus the domestic laws of any other nation that also wanted to get involved via sanctions or whatever.

---

ETA: If pressed, I'd say that the only real "international law" is the Resolutions of the UN Security Council. The only enforcement authority is whatever a UNSC member nation chooses to do under the banner of a UNSC Resolution. We've seen how well that works in practice. It's also just the fundamental law of molon labe, which is the only real law between nation states.
 
Last edited:
I can't help but feel that "You're not welcome back in a country (as a normal, private citizen) after you've declared yourself to an enemy of that country" is just one of those things that in any sane world we would haven't to spell out.

But there's nothing in the rule book that says a golden retriever can't play football yet again I guess.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom