Shamima Begum

[dimreepr]

14 minutes ago, koti said:

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.

1

Just now, dimreepr said:

I’m surprised were having this talk

me too

Edited February 24, 2019 by dimreepr

[MigL]

Oh, I see, Dimreepr is trying to repeal Dunning-Kruger.
When you make stupid choices in your life, everyone else is responsible for the consequences.
No wonder some people never learn from their mistakes.
They are never held accountable, so they never have to.

And in cases of war, John, the participating states grant their combatants some leeway in what would otherwise be considered criminal.
IOW killing an enemy combatant is not murder; hadn't you noticed ?
Even if ISIS was a state...
If she is not a combatant, she can't use that defense and must face the music for any crimes committed.
If she is a combatant, she is a prisoner of war, and can be repatriated with ISIS once a peace treaty is signed.
Either way, she has some acts to answer for.

[dimreepr]

14 minutes ago, MigL said:

Oh, I see, Dimreepr is trying to repeal Dunning-Kruger.
When you make stupid choices in your life, everyone else is responsible for the consequences.
No wonder some people never learn from their mistakes.
They are never held accountable, so they never have to.

And in cases of war, John, the participating states grant their combatants some leeway in what would otherwise be considered criminal.
IOW killing an enemy combatant is not murder; hadn't you noticed ?
Even if ISIS was a state...
If she is not a combatant, she can't use that defense and must face the music for any crimes committed.
If she is a combatant, she is a prisoner of war, and can be repatriated with ISIS once a peace treaty is signed.
Either way, she has some acts to answer for.

2

2

Oh no, I was way off.

Edited February 24, 2019 by dimreepr

[MigL]

Brevity and sarcasm.
No wonder no-one knows WTF you're talking about half the time.

[dimreepr]

1 minute ago, MigL said:

Brevity and sarcasm.
No wonder no-one knows WTF you're talking about half the time.

[dimreepr]

22 hours ago, koti said:

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.

3

why more courts and more expert witnesses? in case you don't get what you want, no judgment I'm sure.

[koti]

34 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

why more courts and more expert witnesses? in case you don't get what you want, no judgment I'm sure.

Dim, you have to work on expressing more clearly what you mean, there are several ways to interpret what you posted above, what do you mean? 

[dimreepr]

1 minute ago, koti said:

Dim, you have to work on expressing more clearly what you mean, there are several ways to interpret what you posted above

and they are?

I can only think of two 

[koti]

2 hours ago, dimreepr said:

and they are?

I can only think of two 

I’m not liking your idea of clearing up your statement, try again. 

[John Cuthber]

On 2/24/2019 at 4:23 PM, MigL said:

Oh, I see, Dimreepr is trying to repeal Dunning-Kruger.
When you make stupid choices in your life, everyone else is responsible for the consequences.
No wonder some people never learn from their mistakes.
They are never held accountable, so they never have to.

And in cases of war, John, the participating states grant their combatants some leeway in what would otherwise be considered criminal.
IOW killing an enemy combatant is not murder; hadn't you noticed ?
Even if ISIS was a state...
If she is not a combatant, she can't use that defense and must face the music for any crimes committed.
If she is a combatant, she is a prisoner of war, and can be repatriated with ISIS once a peace treaty is signed.
Either way, she has some acts to answer for.

Well, it's the funniest thing; but I'm not the one who called it a "War on terror".
So I'm not the one who made her a combattant.

I recognized this problem some while back, albeit, looking at a different aspect.
But, since others did decide it was a war, she may well think she's a soldier.
Now "the war's over", she's entitled to settle where she chooses.

 

[MigL]

I don't know about 'entitled to settle where she chooses', John.
How many Germans were allowed to settle in England after WW2 ?
Or even German Jews ( surviving ones ), after WW2 ?

[StringJunky]

22 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

Now "the war's over", she's entitled to settle where she chooses.

Where did you get that idea, as of this point in time, she's not a British citizen. Or is that just your opnion?

[John Cuthber]

OK, strictly; she's entitled to ask to settle where she likes.
As plenty of people did post WWII.

Plenty of Americans, Poles etc stayed here.
The point is that she's entitled to "come home", now the "war" is " over".

 

[Endy0816]

I'm conflicted on this one.

• Blameless children in the mix.
• There's the issue of making anyone Stateless.
• There's the fact that she was a minor herself at the time.
• There's the fact that she still appears to support their ideology.

I don't know. If an adult at the time I'd be much less sympathetic, if remorseful I'd more.

[Strange]

6 minutes ago, Endy0816 said:

There's the fact that she still appears to support their ideology.

Don't forget, she is surrounded by people who could kill her and/or her child if she says the "wrong thing". Plus you are hearing her views filtered through the (possibly hostile) press.

 

[CharonY]

On 2/22/2019 at 8:35 PM, MigL said:

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.

What you are missing is that CSIS agents have violated Khardr's rights in various aspects. The Security Intelligence Committee highlights several of these, including the fact that they were obligated to take several aspects into account before deciding to conduct the interview. These include the fact that Khadr was a youth at that time, the fact that there were allegations of abuse in Guantanamo bay. I.e. it remains the fact that according to Canadian Law, CSIS has to operate within the framework of human rights, even when operating under intelligence operations. Since CSIS failed to act that way. As a whole the Canadian government denied Omar, a Canadian citizen, the right to due process. There was no extradition, process and the trial conducted by the Americans were highly suspect. According to the Charter, the Canadian government should not have let a Canadian to be tortured by the Americans (or "dispense justice" as you call it). Note that sleep deprivation and other torture preceeded the interrogation and CSIS were aware of it. In addition,  when Canadian officials interrogated him, he should have had legal representation (again, he was a youth). So again, Canada messed up by not following their own rules.

With regard to OP, it also really depends on the legal situation, which, on a cursory view does not seem to be quite settled. After all, if the government can suspend due process only by labeling someone a terrorist, we are going to be in deep trouble.

[Raider5678]

On 2/24/2019 at 9:11 AM, dimreepr said:

Not too many kids get life for their mistakes.

If I install a stupid thing on a computer just because I want to, and I get a virus on it that ruins it, I'm responsible for paying it. Yes, I made a "mistake", and I pay the consequences. In this case, actual money.

If I forget to dot the I on a letter, and someone mistakes it for an L, then I simply explain it. Yes, I made a "mistake" and I pay the consequences. In this case, I have to explain it.

If I rape someone, I got to jail. Yes, I made a "mistake", and I pay the consequences. In this case, I go to jail.

If I leave the country and join a terrorist organization that beheads people, trades child sex slaves, and calls for the total destruction and enslavement of my country, I get kicked out of my country. Yes, I made a "mistake", and I pay the consequences. In this case, I get kicked out.

 

 

@dimreepr We all make mistakes. However, not all mistakes are equal, and likewise, we're still responsible for our own actions. 

If you want to disagree with how it's handled, and feel she should get a trial(as she is), and that it should follow the law, then I'd agree. She deserves her trial.

However, if you disagree with her getting consequences this severe for her actions, I'd disagree with you. 

[Endy0816]

41 minutes ago, Strange said:

Don't forget, she is surrounded by people who could kill her and/or her child if she says the "wrong thing". Plus you are hearing her views filtered through the (possibly hostile) press.

Don't want to presume to know what the situation on the ground is like, but not seeing where she couldn't have discreetly cut interviews short or indicated she didn't feel free to answer particular questions. She comes across as unapologetic in them.

[Strange]

8 hours ago, Endy0816 said:

Don't want to presume to know what the situation on the ground is like, but not seeing where she couldn't have discreetly cut interviews short or indicated she didn't feel free to answer particular questions. She comes across as unapologetic in them.

So you expect a naive teenager who was fooled by ISIS propaganda, and has since been cut off from Western media,  to show some sort of natural insights into handling the world's press when in a stressful situation?

(I don't want to defend what she says, but on the other hand I would be very dubious about what the press, who will not be unbiased, says about her.)

[koti]

34 minutes ago, Strange said:

So you expect a naive teenager who was fooled by ISIS propaganda, and has since been cut off from Western media,  to show some sort of natural insights into handling the world's press when in a stressful situation?

(I don't want to defend what she says, but on the other hand I would be very dubious about what the press, who will not be unbiased, says about her.)

If you cut her slack on the basis of her being a kid tricked by ISIS into this whole situation you would need to cut slack on all minor killers, serial killers and other minor offenders. We need to take care of our offspring as a species and we all have that embeded in our instincts but this right here is a very rare case and a purely pollitical one; Do we issue a „rebutal” to ISIS and any future potential Shamima Begum’s by taking care of her, putting her in a program and treating her like a victim instead of an offender? 

[Strange]

5 minutes ago, koti said:

If you cut her slack on the basis of her being a kid tricked by ISIS

I'm not cutting her any slack. 

I'm just pointing out that it is idiotic to expect someone that young, from that background, to have the instinctive ability to handle the press in a way that many politicians don't learn after a lifetime of experience (with professional help and training).

[koti]

2 minutes ago, Strange said:

I'm not cutting her any slack. 

I'm just pointing out that it is idiotic to expect someone that young, from that background, to have the instinctive ability to handle the press in a way that many politicians don't learn after a lifetime of experience (with professional help and training).

I’m trying to answer my own question and I can’t. Its a classical pradox - treat her as a victim and we end up with thinking we did the „right thing” while sending a message to ISIS: „Go ahead, do what you please and we will turn the other cheek” We treat her as a terrorist and we end up stigmatized as heartless. I still think there is a way to avoid the paradox - Dim could take care of her. 

[Strange]

6 minutes ago, koti said:

I’m trying to answer my own question and I can’t. Its a classical pradox - treat her as a victim and we end up with thinking we did the „right thing” while sending a message to ISIS: „Go ahead, do what you please and we will turn the other cheek” We treat her as a terrorist and we end up stigmatized as heartless.

Both of these are real risks. And they are both made worse by the absence of due process. 

[dimreepr]

10 hours ago, Raider5678 said:

If I install a stupid thing on a computer just because I want to, and I get a virus on it that ruins it, I'm responsible for paying it. Yes, I made a "mistake", and I pay the consequences. In this case, actual money.

If I forget to dot the I on a letter, and someone mistakes it for an L, then I simply explain it. Yes, I made a "mistake" and I pay the consequences. In this case, I have to explain it.

If I rape someone, I got to jail. Yes, I made a "mistake", and I pay the consequences. In this case, I go to jail.

If I leave the country and join a terrorist organization that beheads people, trades child sex slaves, and calls for the total destruction and enslavement of my country, I get kicked out of my country. Yes, I made a "mistake", and I pay the consequences. In this case, I get kicked out.

@dimreepr We all make mistakes. However, not all mistakes are equal, and likewise, we're still responsible for our own actions. 

If you want to disagree with how it's handled, and feel she should get a trial(as she is), and that it should follow the law, then I'd agree. She deserves her trial.

However, if you disagree with her getting consequences this severe for her actions, I'd disagree with you. 

1

the bottom line is. She deserves her human rights.

[dimreepr]

3 hours ago, koti said:

I’m trying to answer my own question and I can’t. Its a classical pradox - treat her as a victim and we end up with thinking we did the „right thing” while sending a message to ISIS: „Go ahead, do what you please and we will turn the other cheek” We treat her as a terrorist and we end up stigmatized as heartless. I still think there is a way to avoid the paradox - Dim could take care of her. 

2

yes, be the better man.