Shamima Begum

[Endy0816]

31 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

Two issues.

1 kids do dumb things, but we don't hold it against them forever.
2 the position in which she finds herself (and which led to the death of the child)  is due to the Home Secretary not following the law.

She was less than 1 yr out.

I think fair to say people leaving to aid stateless actors is complex enough legally to require the law to flex in response.

Edited March 10, 2019 by Endy0816

[zapatos]

37 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

as a child, ffs is it so difficult to understand?

Being under a certain age is not the "get out of jail free" card you seem to think it is. We hold youths accountable all the time, either under rules for minors, or as adults if the situation warrants.

[John Cuthber]

Nobody has said she should ""get out of jail free" have they?

 

46 minutes ago, Endy0816 said:

I think fair to say people leaving to aid stateless actors is complex enough legally to require the law to flex in response.

Interestingly, she also thought that the law was wrong.

Bad things happen when you decide it's time "to require the law to flex ".

That's why we should follow the law- particularly in difficult cases.
 

[zapatos]

4 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

Nobody has said she should ""get out of jail free" have they?

 

No one used those words, no.

[John Cuthber]

30 minutes ago, zapatos said:

No one used those words, no.

Nobody used any such words, did they?
They said stuff like 
 

On 2/23/2019 at 2:43 PM, John Cuthber said:

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.

 

[MigL]

You were not the only one who has suggested that, John.

But some have suggested 'consideration' of her baby's death.
And I may have ( mistakenly ? ) taken that as 'Hasn't she already suffered enough ?'

[John Cuthber]

8 minutes ago, MigL said:

You were not the only one who has suggested that, John.

I know, that's why I said "They said stuff like " rather than "I said stuff like ".

The point remains, she and her baby should have been (relatively) safe here in the UK (probably in jail), not endangered in a refugee camp.

Edited March 10, 2019 by John Cuthber

[zapatos]

20 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

Nobody used any such words, did they?
 

You always talk to people like you are chastising children. Bet you are a lot of fun to work with.

They also said stuff like 

Quote

as a child, ffs is it so difficult to understand?

 

[John Cuthber]

Well, yes, someone said that.

Did they say "get out of jail free" ?

The point that she was young should be enough to convince people that she deserves some sympathy.

That's not the same as "get out of jail free" is it?

 

5 minutes ago, zapatos said:

You always talk to people like you are chastising children.

Did it occur to you that there may be a reason for that?

[Endy0816]

10 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

Nobody has said she should ""get out of jail free" have they?

 

Interestingly, she also thought that the law was wrong.

Bad things happen when you decide it's time "to require the law to flex ".

That's why we should follow the law- particularly in difficult cases.
 

Have to set precedent at some point. Think I'd rather a mini-trial setup though.

Should toxic individuals be allowed back in? Should people be allowed to fight against their civilization and then come running back to it when things get tough? Even prison might be considered too good.

[John Cuthber]

1 minute ago, Endy0816 said:

Should toxic individuals be allowed back in?

What alternatives do you propose?

Also, better to know where they are.

[zapatos]

2 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

Well, yes, someone said that.Did they say "get out of jail free" ?
 

How many times do you want me to answer that question:

Quote

The point that she was young should be enough to convince people that she deserves some sympathy.

That's not the same as "get out of jail free" is it?

 

met·a·phor

/ˈmedəˌfôr,ˈmedəˌfər/

noun

 

1. a figure of speech in which a word or phrase is applied to an object or action to which it is not literally applicable.

Quote

Did it occur to you that there may be a reason for that?

Yes, but I was afraid if I said that about you I'd get suspended.

[John Cuthber]

The point of metaphors is that they, in some way, represent reality.

So, did anyone say anything like "get out of jail free"?

1 minute ago, zapatos said:

Yes, but I was afraid if I said that about you I'd get suspended.

I think strawmanning might have the same outcome.

[zapatos]

14 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

So, did anyone say anything like "get out of jail free"?

 

Responding to you is like drinking too much. Afterwards I'm always saying to myself "you should know better by now, it's always the same hangover".

[Endy0816]

47 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

What alternatives do you propose?

Also, better to know where they are.

Have a trial and if judged necessary, swap their citizenship to that of a willing remote host nation. They're neither left Stateless nor your citizen anymore. In one sense worse than the death penalty, so would need substantial checks against abuse.

I'm not sure she'd even do much time. UK has a wanted list. Clearly people can fall off the radar.

 

[John Cuthber]

This seems to be a reasonable summary of what happened.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/mar/09/we-dont-get-to-un-british-those-we-dont-like-mr-javid?CMP=fb_cif&fbclid=IwAR2bmsTj410uDN-glqAuGK5Sp6sXj1zC4Wg6pvRbj59xTr4ibb8Jg7GC-fk

[dimreepr]

20 hours ago, zapatos said:

Being under a certain age is not the "get out of jail free" card you seem to think it is. We hold youths accountable all the time either under rules for minors, or as adults if the situation warrants.

1

1

yes, in a court of law where her age is taken into account, not from an armchair or refugee camp.

children are vulnerable to grooming, that usually makes them the victim.

Edited March 11, 2019 by dimreepr

[iNow]

I understand the desire for retribution and punishment. I feel it myself and it’s powerful. It crowds out my reason and logic.

When I give sufficient space to my logic and reason, however, it’s clear that we need to be cautious around how we frame these issues. Specifically: Our main objective is to limit terrorism and to shrink their ranks. 

In that context, we need to encourage more of them to leave these terrorist organizations, to walk away and return to society as a productive member who has matured beyond their previous errors. 

To meet our goal, we need to provide MORE off ramps for people to leave terrorist networks and we need to provide MORE paths away from their mistaken choices of the past. 

It seems obvious to me that within any terrorist groups, there are sure to be members who don’t want to be there, who quickly realized they made a horrible mistake and who want to leave.

By revoking citizenship and preventing thoughtful cautious methods of reintegration, we show them only that they’re stuck, that there is no hand reaching back when they reach out for help, and there’s no reason to abandon the cause... There are no alternatives so best to keep doing what they’re doing.

This approach of making exit from terrorist organizations harder is shortsighted. It’s an obvious mistake.

Let’s be authentic with our desire for revenge and retribution, let’s appreciate it for being valid and justified, but let’s also be wise enough to choose the better long-term path of having MORE options for these people to walk away from their mistaken decision, not fewer. 

[CharonY]

In a similar case, Ireland decided to go a different way, though a major difference is that the person in question has single citizenship from the looks of it. 

Quote

An Irish woman detained in Syria on suspicion of association with Islamic State can return to Ireland with her two-year-old child, the country’s prime minister has said.

Leo Varadkar said he did not believe removing Lisa Smith’s citizenship was the “right or compassionate thing to do”, but warned she would face investigation and potentially prosecution if she had been involved in any crimes.

Edit: awesome post, iNow.

[John Cuthber]

2 hours ago, iNow said:

I understand the desire for retribution and punishment. I feel it myself and it’s powerful. It crowds out my reason and logic.

When I give sufficient space to my logic and reason, however, it’s clear that we need to be cautious around how we frame these issues. Specifically: Our main objective is to limit terrorism and to shrink their ranks. 

In that context, we need to encourage more of them to leave these terrorist organizations, to walk away and return to society as a productive member who has matured beyond their previous errors. 

To meet our goal, we need to provide MORE off ramps for people to leave terrorist networks and we need to provide MORE paths away from their mistaken choices of the past. 

It seems obvious to me that within any terrorist groups, there are sure to be members who don’t want to be there, who quickly realized they made a horrible mistake and who want to leave.

By revoking citizenship and preventing thoughtful cautious methods of reintegration, we show them only that they’re stuck, that there is no hand reaching back when they reach out for help, and there’s no reason to abandon the cause... There are no alternatives so best to keep doing what they’re doing.

This approach of making exit from terrorist organizations harder is shortsighted. It’s an obvious mistake.

Let’s be authentic with our desire for revenge and retribution, let’s appreciate it for being valid and justified, but let’s also be wise enough to choose the better long-term path of having MORE options for these people to walk away from their mistaken decision, not fewer. 

All good points.
There's something else we might want to do in addition to giving people a way back.
We might want to avoid driving them down that route in the first place.

ISIS thinks the West is "Evil" and massively biassed against people who are not white + Christian.
One of our senior politicians just flouted international law in order to stop a British citizen returning home (presumably to trial) and this led- fairly predictably- to the death of a newborn baby.

Perhaps we should  stop writing ISIS' propaganda for them.

 

 

[MigL]

All valid points INow.

Offering a 'way back' does seem reasonable.
But I have to wonder, how many Germans, after WW2, claimed they were not NAZIs, or were simply following orders.
Should we have just given them a hug and said " All's well; Too bad about the 60 million dead in Europe"
I would be willing to bet every surviving ISIS member is now scurrying like a rat trying to hide amongst the general population, and claiming they never belonged to that group, or were duped into joining it.
But I do agree, it looks bad to strip her citizenship, and not bringing her back to trial.

John, ISIS doesn't think the West is evil; Nor biased against non-Christian and non-whites.
They think ANYONE who doesn't share their ideology ( medieval religious zealotry ) is evil.
Did you not notice how many fellow countrymen were murdered in mass graves, and how many fellow countrywomen were enslaved ?
ISIS was never about striking back at western oppressors ( no matter what 'bleeding heart apologists' tell you ), it was about forming a new Caliphate and forcing a whole area of the world to live by their oppressive rules.

Its too bad there is no law against stupidity, otherwise Shamima Begum,  and her ilk, would be easily tried and convicted.     

[iNow]

8 minutes ago, MigL said:

Should we have just given them a hug and said " All's well; Too bad about the 60 million dead in Europe"

No, and that’s not what I’ve advocated, either. 

[MigL]

I know, but the point I was trying to make wouldn't have 'jumped out' as much, unless I threw in an 'over-the-top' exaggeration in there.
( just being honest )

[iNow]

It’s probably easier for them to dehumanize us when we dehumanize them. We can’t say we’re better than they are if we don’t also act better.

Many terrorists have felt alone and cutoff from the world for much of their lives. They've been isolated and felt deficient empathy toward them from others for years, and that’s a huge part of what drives them into terrorist recruiters hands in the first place. They’ve often felt that terror cells were the only group that would accept them. The terror group WAS the way out.

Then, they realize it wasn’t. They realize the reality doesn’t live up to the marketing videos; that they fell victim to the hype. 

That’s when it’s good for us and becomes a huge opportunity for us to win in a much bigger way... hearts and minds. We can obviously still prosecute crimes and we have a justice system that does an excellent job at it, but we have to start by letting them back. That’s a gating factor.

By remembering they’re humans who made mistakes in their past and can still grow and improve in their present and future, and by finding ways to bring them home and adjudicate their wrongdoings like we would any other human, we win. By reminding ourselves NOT to dehumanize them, we win.

We’re able to both lead by example AND remind others who may be considering joining a terror group tomorrow why our principles are actually worth fighting for (instead of against).

That’s how we win.

We don’t abandon our principles in response to terrorism. We instead must bolster and stand firmly behind them. We must convince others through our own choices just how fundamental, crucial, and important these principles are. We demonstrate through our actions that we support these principles so fiercely that we also apply them equally to both our actual and to our perceived enemies. 

We stand up on principle. That’s how we win. 

Edited March 12, 2019 by iNow

[John Cuthber]

6 hours ago, MigL said:

it was about forming a new Caliphate and forcing a whole area of the world to live by their oppressive rules.

And where did that come from?
How was it "justified"?