ISIS teenager wants to come home

[theprestige]

They're all over the place in the US. But no contract signed by anyone under the age of 18 is enforceable. They are wards of their parents or the state.

I guess I'm curious though. What English law did she break? Seems to me that those who want to punish her can't show the crime she committed. Or was some ex post facto law created?

The way I see it, national security concerns don't have to be attached to anything in the criminal code. They can simply be valid concerns in their own right.

 

[acbytesla]

The way I see it, national security concerns don't have to be attached to anything in the criminal code. They can simply be valid concerns in their own right.

Then by that logic, Biden would have had every right to arrest and incarcerat Trump on January 21st 2021. You're either a nation of laws, or you're not.

 

[theprestige]

Then by that logic, Biden would have every right to arrest and incarcerated Trump on January 21st 2021. You're either a nation of laws, or you're not.

I agree with that logic, but you're leaving out one part: While national security concerns can be valid in their own right, they can also be invalid. My actual logic is that you have to impeach a claimed national security concern on some other basis than whether a specific criminal law has already been broken.

Unless your nation has a law that everyone is entitled to enter its jurisdiction unless they have committed a crime in that jurisdiction, there's not really a "nation of laws" issue here.

 

[acbytesla]

Then by that logic, Biden would have had every right to arrest and incarcerat Trump on January 21st 2021. You're either a nation of laws, or you're not.

To take this further, IMV, the most important clauses in the US Constitution are Article I, Sections 9 & 10. It specifically prohibits ex post facto laws or bill of attainder.

This girl not only doesn’t appear to have committed a crime, there seems to be very little reason to believe she constitutes any security risk.

 

[acbytesla]

I agree with that logic, but you're leaving out one part: While national security concerns can be valid in their own right, they can also be invalid. My actual logic is that you have to impeach a claimed national security concern on some other basis than whether a specific criminal law has already been broken.

Unless your nation has a law that everyone is entitled to enter its jurisdiction unless they have committed a crime in that jurisdiction, there's not really a "nation of laws" issue here.

My understanding is that this person is a British Citizen. She did not break any UK law. And it seems highly unlikely she is any security risk. It's more, we don't like the cause you left the country for so we're going to make up on the fly why we'll take away your citizenship. Not to mention she appears to have been just a dumb impressionable kid when she left.

 

[P.J. Denyer]

To take this further, tIMV, the most important clauses in the US Constitution are Article I, Sections 9 & 10. It specifically prohibits ex post facto laws or bill of attainder.

This girl not only doesn’t appear to have committed a crime, there seems to be very little reason to believe she constitutes any security risk.

Well, supporting a terrorist group we were actually at war with, however the defense that she'd been groomed while underage has legs as does the fact that western security services helped traffic her to them and once there she was under coertion. Of course the way to resolve these issues would be to allow her back and test them in court.

 

[acbytesla]

Well, supporting a terrorist group we were actually at war with, however the defense that she'd been groomed while underage has legs as does the fact that western security services helped traffic her to them and once there she was under coertion. Of course the way to resolve these issues would be to allow her back and test them in court.

Maybe I'm soft. And maybe I haven't thought this thoroughly through. But it seems to me that written statutes should be made. Not just seat of the pants decision making. Was she an actual enemy combatant? Did she fire weapons at allied forces? Or was she just a dumb stupid kid?

 

[theprestige]

My understanding is that this person is a British Citizen. She did not break any UK law. And it seems highly unlikely she is any security risk. It's more, we don't like the cause you left the country for so we're going to make up on the fly why we'll take away your citizenship. Not to mention she appears to have been just a dumb impressionable kid when she left.

Yes, I agree with all of this. Note that all of the attempts to impeach the national security rationale have not been based on whether she committed a crime. They've all been based on whether she's a plausible security risk. I don't think she is.

 

[P.J. Denyer]

Maybe I'm soft. And maybe I haven't thought this thoroughly through. But it seems to me that written statutes should be made. Not just seat of the pants decision making. Was she an actual enemy combatant? Did she fire weapons at allied forces? Or was she just a dumb stupid kid?

Aiding an enemy in a time of war is an offence on the statuate books. William Joyce was hung for it and he wasn't a combatant and didn't fire a weapon. I'm not prejudging the outcome of a trial and I think the removal of her passport was seat of the pants decision making, but I think there is potentially a charge to answer but if so it should be through the courts and not a summary judgement by a politician with one eye on the press.

 

[acbytesla]

Aiding an enemy in a time of war is an offence on the statuate books. William Joyce was hung for it and he wasn't a combatant and didn't fire a weapon. I'm not prejudging the outcome of a trial and I think the removal of her passport was seat of the pants decision making, but I think there is potentially a charge to answer but if so it should be through the courts and not a summary judgement by a politician with one eye on the press.

Yes, it is. But what exactly does it mean to aid the enemy? I don't think giving some soldier a blowjob is what is meant by that statute. Hard to say this 15 year old girl is the equivalent of a 34 year old man becoming a NAZI citizen in 1940. Joyce was also far more than that. He fled to Germany where he wrote and read German propaganda in English. Sort of like a British version of Tokyo Rose.

And it's arguable whether the UK was at war with ISIS. The same can not be said about Joyce in 1940. The UK had been at war with Germany for more than a year.

 

[P.J. Denyer]

Yes, it is. But what exactly does it mean to aid the enemy? I don't think giving some soldier a blowjob is what is meant by that statute. Hard to say this 15 year old girl is the equivalent of a 34 year old man becoming a NAZI citizen in 1940. Joyce was also far more than that. He fled to Germany where he wrote and read German propaganda in English. Sort of like a British version of Tokyo Rose.

And it's arguable whether the UK was at war with ISIS. The same can not be said about Joyce in 1940. The UK had been at war with Germany for more than a year.

And that would be why I've already pointed out the mitigating factors of her age etc and said that if it is to be decided it should be decided by a court and not by a politician. I'm not sure exactly what activities when's alleged to have been involved in while with ISIS, but I doubt that would be part of a prosecution case. Unless such a case were brought I don't think there's a lot else to add.

 

[acbytesla]

And that would be why I've already pointed out the mitigating factors of her age etc and said that if it is to be decided it should be decided by a court and not by a politician. I'm not sure exactly what activities when's alleged to have been involved in while with ISIS, but I doubt that would be part of a prosecution case. Unless such a case were brought I don't think there's a lot else to add.

I agree it should be decided by a judge. Not a politician. But unfortunately, far too many judicial decisions are affected by politics.

 

[Darat]

To my way of thinking, what happened when she was fifteen nullifies arguments about much of what she did when she became an adult. If not, then the place to make the argument is in a British court, once she returns there.

That's my thoughts as expressed earlier in the thread. She was 100% for certain "groomed", how we have treated her is shameful. Unfortunately she is a political hot-potato and given the racism that is in our society at the moment since she is an example of "the muslim" no government is going to do the right thing, reinstate her British citizenship and bring her home.