Shamima Begum

[MigL]

Um no.
We didn't violate his rights.
We turned him over to the Americans as per existing extradition treaties.

If the Americans violated his rights, they should give him 10 Mill and apologize.

 

I can just imagine how much we'll have to pay Meng Wanzhou of Huawei, for trying to extradite her to the US as treaty demands.

Edited February 22, 2019 by MigL

[CharonY]

6 minutes ago, MigL said:

Um no.
We didn't violate his rights.
We turned him over to the Americans as per existing extradition treaties.

If the Americans violated his rights, they should give him 10 Mill and apologize.

 

I can just imagine how much we'll have to pay Meng Wanzhou of Huawei, for trying to extradite her to the US as treaty demands.

It is getting off-topic, but I will simply add this . 

Quote

, a Canadian, has been detained by the U.S. military at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, since 2002, when he was a minor.  In 2004, he was charged with war crimes, but the U.S. trial is still pending.  In 2003, agents from two Canadian intelligence services, CSIS and DFAIT, questioned K on matters connected to the charges pending against him, and shared the product of these interviews with U.S. authorities.  In 2004, a DFAIT official interviewed K again, with knowledge that he had been subjected by U.S. authorities to a sleep deprivation technique, known as the “frequent flyer program”, to make him less resistant to interrogation.  In 2008, in Canada (Justice) v. Khadr (“Khadr 2008”), this Court held that the regime in place at Guantanamo Bay constituted a clear violation of Canada’s international human rights obligations, and, under s. 7  of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms , ordered the Canadian government to disclose to K the transcripts of the interviews he had given to CSIS and DFAIT, which it did.  After repeated requests by K that the Canadian government seek his repatriation, the Prime Minister announced his decision not to do so.  K then applied to the Federal Court for judicial review, alleging that the decision violated his rights under s. 7  of the Charter .  The Federal Court held that under the special circumstances of this case, Canada had a duty to protect K under s. 7  of the Charter  and ordered the government to request his repatriation.  The Federal Court of Appeal upheld the order, but stated that the s. 7  breach arose from the interrogation conducted in 2004 with the knowledge that K had been subjected to the “frequent flyer program”.

Quote

Canada actively participated in a process contrary to its international human rights obligations and contributed to K’s ongoing detention so as to deprive him of his right to liberty and security of the person, guaranteed by s. 7  of the Charter , not in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.  Though the process to which K is subject has changed, his claim is based upon the same underlying series of events considered in Khadr2008.  As held in that case, the Charter  applies to the participation of Canadian officials in a regime later found to be in violation of fundamental rights protected by international law.  There is a sufficient connection between the government’s participation in the illegal process and the deprivation of K’s liberty and security of the person.  While the U.S. is the primary source of the deprivation, it is reasonable to infer from the uncontradicted evidence before the Court that the statements taken by Canadian officials are contributing to K’s continued detention.  The deprivation of K’s right to liberty and security of the person is not in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.  The interrogation of a youth detained without access to counsel, to elicit statements about serious criminal charges while knowing that the youth had been subjected to sleep deprivation and while knowing that the fruits of the interrogations would be shared with the prosecutors, offends the most basic Canadian standards about the treatment of detained youth suspects.

Feel free to disagree with the Supreme Court of Canada, but frankly, I think they have more authority on that matter than you.

[MigL]

Of course they do.
But that doesn't mean they are not 'political'.
IOW, I don't agree with their decision.
( but I'm just a shmuck on a forum )

[CharonY]

3 hours ago, MigL said:

Of course they do.
But that doesn't mean they are not 'political'.
IOW, I don't agree with their decision.
( but I'm just a shmuck on a forum )

It does see, that you got the basic facts wrong, however. 

 

3 hours ago, MigL said:

We turned him over to the Americans as per existing extradition treaties.

That never happened. First, he was captured by American troops. If Canada has just kept their hands off it, it might have been the end of it (there were similar issues with foreign nationals captured by US troops and brought to Guantanamo with various outcomes, so I am not sure). However, while in American custody he was interrogated by CSIS officers, and in that function they violated his Charter rights and collusion with the States in a number of aspects, including torture. So essentially the did not:

3 hours ago, MigL said:

I say let them come back, have a trial, and jail them for any crimes.

Unanimously it was decided his Charter rights were violated and there is really no different legal assessment of the situation. Due process was not followed. And just to be clear it was also decided earlier that the Charter also applies if Canadian official operate on foreign territory. IOW, for Canadian officials engaging in procedures that are against the Charter (with full knowledge of the circumstances) led to the 2010 decision. What you are saying is basically that in cases where you dislike the person, you are fine with suspending Charter rights and/or are willing to come up with alternate sequence of events to justify that. Which is a rather odd position to take and contradicts your previous assessment of how these things should be handled.

Alternatively you may just be misinformed on the background events, but also seem somewhat reluctant to inform yourself on them, despite the rather strong opinion you have on the legal issue. 

 

 

[MigL]

So, he is in American custody in Guantanomo, CharonY, where he is interrogated by CSIS operatives.
He relays certain information to the CSIS operatives, who, in turn, are compelled by treaty, to hand over this information to the Americans.
And, Guantanomo being American territory, they are free to dispense justice, based on that information, as they see fit.

I guess I'm no Supreme Court Justice, because that's how I interpret events.

[dimreepr]

16 hours ago, MigL said:

Apparently we have Canadian ( and American ) ISIS war brides wanting to be repatriated.
I say let them come back, have a trial, and jail them for any crimes.

1

The very definition of prejudice.

[MigL]

Your terse posts are really starting to annoy, Dimreepr.
Care to explain what exactly, is prejudicial about the sentence in my post which you highlighted ?

[dimreepr]

47 minutes ago, MigL said:

Your terse posts are really starting to annoy, Dimreepr.
Care to explain what exactly, is prejudicial about the sentence in my post which you highlighted ?

1

1

satire needs a target, and your subtext is prety clear.

Edited February 23, 2019 by dimreepr

[John Cuthber]

On 2/20/2019 at 3:13 PM, Prometheus said:

Due process is being followed, i understand; the government have declared their intent and the courts will decide the legality of this situation. 

Due process does it the other way round.The action taken (stripping her citizenship) is manifestly illegal under international law.

On 2/20/2019 at 2:56 PM, StringJunky said:

Bollocks. She subscribes (present tense) to a belief that that is totally antithetical to what we hold as fair and just.

Well, strictly speaking...

While surrounded by a bunch of people who may well be sympathetic to ISIS,  she still says that she supports them.
However, she is asking for passage back home to the UK.
Who can tell what she will say when she's no longer in among  that bunch?
 

On 2/20/2019 at 4:03 PM, Raider5678 said:

And she will. It's already in the process. 

What Process?
The one which the Home Secretary has ignored?

 

On 2/20/2019 at 4:03 PM, StringJunky said:

She can be Dutch or Bangledeshi, so, nowhere near stateless.

Except she's not. She's British.

On 2/20/2019 at 4:05 PM, Raider5678 said:

But until then, she's already been convicted of high treason against the United Kingdom.

No

Odd as it may seem, you need a trial before you have a conviction.

 

 

On 2/20/2019 at 6:57 PM, StringJunky said:

It's common knowledge and she acknowledges it. Conviction wrt to that should just be a formality; realistically. The question now is whether her lawyers and bleeding hearts can wangle her out of it.

Unless, of course, a court remembers that she was a minor when she made that decision and has not subsequently been in a position to change her mind.
She's now trying to do so. But, for some reason, you seem to have decided to forbid that option.

On 2/21/2019 at 12:09 AM, Raider5678 said:

. At the moment, according to Bangladesh law, she is a citizen of Bangladesh.

 The government of Bangladesh had never heard of her. She is not, nor has she ever been a bangladeshi citizen. She has never visited the place.

Imagine it was the other way round- she was born to british parents in Bangladesh and now wanted to go back there.
Imagine the Bangladeshi government was trying to claim she was British.

How would that play out in the UK?

 

On 2/21/2019 at 12:09 AM, Raider5678 said:

Stateless or not, I don't see why the UK can't just revoke her citizenship. 

Because, if we decide to ignore the rule of law, we might as well invite ISIS to run the place for us.
Don't you see that we have to show that we are better than them?

 

18 hours ago, MigL said:

We didn't violate his rights.
We turned him over to the Americans as per existing extradition treaties.

Handing him over to the Americans, knowing what would happen, makes Canada responsible for what happened to him at their hands.
They shouldn't have done it; they didn't have to. 
The difference is that what the Americans did was legal under US law, but what Canada did was illegal under Canadian law.

 

Fundamentally it looks like she's a criminal.

We should treat her the same as any other criminal who went abroad and is now wishing to return.
Bring them back, and take them to court.

 

[dimreepr]

a very coherent rant, plus one.

[MigL]

John Cuthber:
"Bring them back and take them to court"
According to Dimreepr, 'very coherent'.

Me:
"I say let them come back, have a trial, and jail them for any crimes"
According to Dimreepr, 'the definition of prejudice'.

All because my 'subtext is pretty clear'.
I think you'd better look up the definition of 'prejudice', Dim.
( you can't blame this on stuck keys on your keyboard )

 

[koti]

I just watched a couple interviews with this kid (Shamima Begum), she seems completely clueless about this whole precedent and she doesn’t seem too smart (aka she’s a plainly dumb kid) The question is whether tax payers money should be used to keep her in the UK under constant supervision for the rest of her life or throw her out. If it was Norway or Sweden she’d probably already be enrolled in some cosy program, she definitely chose the wrong country for her actions. @dimreepr, you could always try and get her a temporary visa and take care of her in your home while cuddling her to sleep every evening.

[John Cuthber]

13 hours ago, MigL said:

John Cuthber:
"Bring them back and take them to court"
According to Dimreepr, 'very coherent'.

Me:
"I say let them come back, have a trial, and jail them for any crimes"
According to Dimreepr, 'the definition of prejudice'.

All because my 'subtext is pretty clear'.
I think you'd better look up the definition of 'prejudice', Dim.
( you can't blame this on stuck keys on your keyboard )

 

Well, odd as it may seem, I doubt I was being praised for that line of my post being coherent with itself. I reckon it might have referred to my whole screed. Possibly even wrt my other postings here.
And, I think Dimreeper has misunderstood your post as presupposing that there were crimes which would be prejudice (pretty much by definition).

I am, on the other hand, not sure  how he managed to interpret it that way.

I'd not like to be the one who has to rule out... prejudice as an explanation.

 

17 minutes ago, koti said:

I just watched a couple interviews with this kid (Shamima Begum), she seems completely clueless about this whole precedent and she doesn’t seem too smart (aka she’s a plainly dumb kid) The question is whether tax payers money should be used to keep her in the UK under constant supervision for the rest of her life or throw her out.

Well, yes. She's not the sharpest knife in the drawer. And that may explain how she got conned into thinking ISIS was a  good thing.
So now, among other things, we have to decide if letting ISIS raise her baby is a good thing.

You might want to take some time over that decision (or it might be bloody obvious).



 

[koti]

4 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

Well, odd as it may seem, I doubt I was being praised for that line of my post being coherent with itself. I reckon it might have referred to my whole screed. Possibly even wrt my other postings here.
And, I think Dimreeper has misunderstood your post as presupposing that there were crimes which would be prejudice (pretty much by definition).

I am, on the other hand, not sure  how he managed to interpret it that way.

I'd not like to be the one who has to rule out... prejudice as an explanation.

 

Well, yes. She's not the sharpest knife in the drawer. And that may explain how she got conned into thinking ISIS was a  good thing.
So now, among other things, we have to decide if letting ISIS raise her baby is a good thing.

You might want to take some time over that decision (or it might be bloody obvious).



 

Let Dim take care of her and the baby.

[John Cuthber]

8 minutes ago, koti said:

Let Dim take care of her and the baby.

Why just Dim?
It's pretty clear that I too think she should come back here.

Incidentally, I gather she would prefer her parents to be involved.

That may be a better option than me or Dim, and it's certainly a better bet than ISIS (or even Sajid Javid).

[koti]

2 hours ago, John Cuthber said:

Why just Dim?
It's pretty clear that I too think she should come back here.

Incidentally, I gather she would prefer her parents to be involved.

That may be a better option than me or Dim, and it's certainly a better bet than ISIS (or even Sajid Javid).

I hope you realise that I’m just teasing by saying Dim could take care of her and the baby. It might as well be you, her parents, Sajid Javid or anyone else as long as that person will take responsibility for any of her future moronic actions.

[dimreepr]

15 minutes ago, koti said:

I just watched a couple interviews with this kid (Shamima Begum), she seems completely clueless about this whole precedent and she doesn’t seem too smart (aka she’s a plainly dumb kid) The question is whether tax payers money should be used to keep her in the UK under constant supervision for the rest of her life or throw her out. If it was Norway or Sweden she’d probably already be enrolled in some cosy program, she definitely chose the wrong country for her actions. @dimreepr, you could always try and get her a temporary visa and take care of her in your home while cuddling her to sleep every evening.

2

She was is just a child but society must have its petty revenge. 

41 minutes ago, koti said:

I hope you realise that I’m just teasing by saying Dim could take care of her and the baby. It might as well be you, her parents, Sajid Javid or anyone else as long as that person will take responsibility for any of her future moronic actions.

1

even clever kids take moronic actions.

[koti]

32 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

even clever kids take moronic actions.

I’m sory but no. Kids in vast majority of cases put sheds on fire, steal Dads car or get pregnant at 15. Not too many kids do what she did. 

Edited February 24, 2019 by koti

[dimreepr]

1 minute ago, koti said:

I’m sory bu no. Kids in vast majority of cases put sheds on fire, steel Dads car or get pregnant at 15. Not too many kids do what she did. 

3

Not too many kids get life for their mistakes.

[koti]

24 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Not too many kids get life for their mistakes.

Yes, thats exactly how it works.

[dimreepr]

23 minutes ago, koti said:

Yes, thats exactly how it works.

good job you didn't make a mistake.

[koti]

6 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

good job you didn't make a mistake.

You see, I made an error there but I won’t get life for confusing steel with steal. 

[dimreepr]

1 minute ago, koti said:

You see, I made an error there but I won’t get life for confusing steel with steal. 

  how do you know?

or do you decide?

[John Cuthber]

2 hours ago, koti said:

I hope you realise that I’m just teasing by saying Dim could take care of her and the baby. It might as well be you, her parents, Sajid Javid or anyone else as long as that person will take responsibility for any of her future moronic actions.

You do realise that, in general, society takes care of children, don't you?

What would clearly be the wrong thing would be to, for example, leave the baby in a refugee camp in Syria  along with ISIS.

1 hour ago, koti said:

I’m sory but no. Kids in vast majority of cases put sheds on fire, steal Dads car or get pregnant at 15. Not too many kids do what she did. 

Plenty of kids lied about their age to sign up for the army in WWII

I can't imagine it was any different on the German's side.
Should we have imprisoned them all when they came home?

[koti]

25 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

  how do you know?

or do you decide?

The supreme court, geez. It doesn’t state in the rules that typos, dyslexia or spelling like a 12 year old gives you life in prison. I’m surprised were having this talk. 

4 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

Plenty of kids lied about their age to sign up for the army in WWII

I can't imagine it was any different on the German's side.
Should we have imprisoned them all when they came home?

This is semi good analogy and I feel in no position to give judgment. Im sure of one thing though, every case should be thurally examined by courts, expert witnesses, then more courts and more expert witnesses.