Ban on UK jihadists returning home?[W:27]

The government is considering temporary bans on British-born jihadists in Iraq and Syria from returning to the UK.
The BBC understands UK nationals suspected of being involved in terrorist acts would be allowed to keep their British citizenship. Link.

Click to expand...

Not good enough Mr Cameron.

Why a "temporary" ban and why let them keep their citizenship?

The third issue is Tpims - which replaced control orders; these are possibly going to be strengthened to.... equate the control orders that were replaced by the current coalition government. Our govt is behind the curve and public mood here.

Re: Ban on UK jihadists returning home?

The best course of action would be to grab them and interrogate them and find out more about the jihadist recruiting network.

Behind every single one of those people that went to join the jihad there may be one or ten or a hundred people in a network that supports, both financially and with recruitment, ISIS. These people are usually very charismatic people, usually muslim community leaders or imams or just people with influence and some money. And this isn't me talking, this is pretty much what that muslim ex-jihadist guy from quilliam in the UK says coz that's how he and many other muslims in the UK are radicalized.

Re: Ban on UK jihadists returning home?

Totally agree, IC. I have said as much in another thread. They should be stripped of their citizenship, put at the top of all international terrorist lists and never allowed back on European soil, let alone the UK.

Re: Ban on UK jihadists returning home?

If they have dual citizenship, then remove the European based one and hence they cant enter the EU.

If they only have British citizenship.. arrest them on arrival.

End result will be that they wont want to go back, and hence a bigger chance they will get killed.

Re: Ban on UK jihadists returning home?

Arcana XV said:

Totally agree, IC. I have said as much in another thread. They should be stripped of their citizenship, put at the top of all international terrorist lists and never allowed back on European soil, let alone the UK.

Click to expand...

The only argument I've come across is "to make them stateless is immoral" against some form of 'rights'! How pathetic and self defeating. Like we can reason with these barbaric knuckle draggers. Yet some sadly, will try.

Paul

Re: Ban on UK jihadists returning home?

gunner said:

The only argument I've come across is "to make them stateless is immoral" against some form of 'rights'! How pathetic and self defeating. Like we can reason with these barbaric knuckle draggers. Yet some sadly, will try.

Paul

Click to expand...

That's certainly not the argument that i've made here. There needs to be safeguards in place to ensure that you are targeting the right people. My concern had always been that due process needs to be followed to show that correct assessments are being made before suspects are stripped of citizenship. Conspiracy to commit terrorism is a crime. If there is evidence of terrorism, then those suspected of terrorism should be charged, put on trial, show evidence that supports any claim and then gain a conviction. After that, if guilty, they can rot for all i care.

Having said that, i no longer have a lot of sympathy for anyone these days who travels to these regions without taking the necessary precautions in advance to show legitimate reasons for being there before they leave the Country. (That wasn't necessary when i was in the ME 4 years ago, but it clearly is now as a result of the increase in hostilities and people going there for the wrong reasons.) Recent dealings with the Foreign Affairs Department here have reassured me that they are targeting the right people and that they are fantastic to deal with when they see you are doing things the right way. They want to know where you are going, why, how long for, where you will be staying, contactable reputable referees that can verify this information, what agency you will be associated with, date and time of return etc.

They will also advise you to stay off social media, don't use facebook, twitter etc where some "friend" says something ridiculous because they think they are "funny" ( because people can be idiots on those sites, even good people, we've all seen it) etc which was good advice and they reassure you that if you get into difficulty they will do what they can to assist you. (Not that their support would be expected, still the acknowledgement was appreciated.)

Re: Ban on UK jihadists returning home?

gunner said:

The only argument I've come across is "to make them stateless is immoral" against some form of 'rights'! How pathetic and self defeating. Like we can reason with these barbaric knuckle draggers. Yet some sadly, will try.

Paul

Click to expand...

Don't get me wrong, I think the right to statehood is a fundamental human right and that all precautions should be taken to avoid rendering a human being stateless. However, I also think that this right can be revoked if said human being's actions clearly show him/her to have committed treason or directly conspired to harm the homeland or joined a foreign enemy army.

Re: Ban on UK jihadists returning home?

gunner said:

The only argument I've come across is "to make them stateless is immoral" against some form of 'rights'! How pathetic and self defeating. Like we can reason with these barbaric knuckle draggers. Yet some sadly, will try.

Paul

Click to expand...

It is not only immoral but also illegal and especially disgusting if they are "natural born" citizens. An argument can be made for naturalized citizens, but not for "natural born".

Re: Ban on UK jihadists returning home?

PeteEU said:

It is not only immoral but also illegal and especially disgusting if they are "natural born" citizens. An argument can be made for naturalized citizens, but not for "natural born".

Click to expand...

I think Arcana said it best:

Arcana XV said:

Don't get me wrong, I think the right to statehood is a fundamental human right and that all precautions should be taken to avoid rendering a human being stateless. However, I also think that this right can be revoked if said human being's actions clearly show him/her to have committed treason or directly conspired to harm the homeland or joined a foreign enemy army.

Click to expand...

Historically, revocations of citizneship, even "native born" are permissable in certain circumstances.

As Aracana implied though, the concept can be abused via expulsions of minority groups, or majority groups (Palestinians) or by the Cuban expulsion of criminals, the mentally ill, or those deemed to be simply "problematic" during the Mariel boat lift.

Re: Ban on UK jihadists returning home?

Strip them of citizenship and send them to Bagdad for questioning/trial...

Are our countries making a list by the way, so everybody knows who's who ? It would kind of suck if banned UK jihadis can just go somewhere else in Europe with their British pasports and without us knowing threatening us (or the other way around ofcourse)

Re: Ban on UK jihadists returning home?

It seems like it was only a year ago that individuals who went to take up arms against the evil monstrous Assad regime were lauded as heroes. Given the recent atrocities in Gaza, what's to be done about those who go to join for the IDF?

Re: Ban on UK jihadists returning home?

Manc Skipper said:

-- what's to be done about those who go to join for the IDF?

Click to expand...

Australia has considered a blanket ban on anyone with Australian citizenship going to fight for another country or organisation. This is laudable but I see no reason to equate going to serve in the IDF with traveling to Syria or Iraq. From my point of view, if someone with Israeli links can clear it with the UK foreign office before going to serve in Israel with the IDF, I have no problem as they can demonstrate a legitimate reason for going.

Rainman05 said:

The best course of action would be to grab them and interrogate them and find out more about the jihadist recruiting network.

Click to expand...

This arrest should be done at the departure airport as a last resort. Anyone who has gone overseas to such countries must prove why they went. If they are not part of an aid agency or similar (newspapers/ health / security etc etc) and have had their travel arranged and agreed beforehand then they have no business being there - especially if there are no ties or historical links to the country.

Serenity said:

That's certainly not the argument that i've made here. There needs to be safeguards in place to ensure that you are targeting the right people. My concern had always been that due process needs to be followed to show that correct assessments are being made before suspects are stripped of citizenship. Conspiracy to commit terrorism is a crime. If there is evidence of terrorism, then those suspected of terrorism should be charged, put on trial, show evidence that supports any claim and then gain a conviction. After that, if guilty, they can rot for all i care.

Click to expand...

Hi Serenity, while I agree this – due process becomes so much harder to follow if the evidence is overseas.

Serenity said:

Having said that, i no longer have a lot of sympathy for anyone these days who travels to these regionswithout taking the necessary precautions in advance to show legitimate reasons for being there before they leave the Country. (That wasn't necessary when i was in the ME 4 years ago, but it clearly is now as a result of the increase in hostilities and people going there for the wrong reasons.) Recent dealings with the Foreign Affairs Department here have reassured me that they are targeting the right people and that they are fantastic to deal with when they see you are doing things the right way. They want to know where you are going, why, how long for, where you will be staying, contactable reputable referees that can verify this information, what agency you will be associated with, date and time of return etc.

Click to expand...

This is on the grounds of the argument I made in the citizenship thread; most proper trips to such danger zones will be because people are going with the engagement of aid agencies and will have legitimate reason for going. Nobody should be going on an ad-hoc basis anymore and anyone who goes to Turkey on a seeming one-way trip must accept they will place themselves under great suspicion; especially if the Turks have made no such arrangements. People generally heading out via Turkey will be trying to avoid the security forces and are very suspect.

Re: Ban on UK jihadists returning home?

PeteEU said:

It is not only immoral but also illegal and especially disgusting if they are "natural born" citizens. An argument can be made for naturalized citizens, but not for "natural born".

Click to expand...

I respect democracy far too much to differentiate, to be honest. I think you must be reading some very obscure news source, if you fail to understand IS intentions. 500 plus have left UK shores, to be part of the rebirth of a caliphate, what that entails is the most barbaric acts imaginable to anyone with a semblance of human decency. That you wish to defend an ideology to extreme for AQ, says much about you, as a person.

Paul

Re: Ban on UK jihadists returning home?

gunner said:

I respect democracy far too much to differentiate, to be honest. I think you must be reading some very obscure news source, if you fail to understand IS intentions. 500 plus have left UK shores, to be part of the rebirth of a caliphate, what that entails is the most barbaric acts imaginable to anyone with a semblance of human decency. That you wish to defend an ideology to extreme for AQ, says much about you, as a person.

Paul

Click to expand...

Has absolutely nothing to do with their beliefs but our fundamental democratic principles and the rule of law.

First off it is claimed that 500 have left.. no one knows. I suspect the government is pulling that number out of its ass because of inconvenient political truths in other areas, that they need the distraction. It is amazing to me, how unified governments are when throwing out these numbers.. the Danish government also claims a few hundred, so do the Germans and French.. but when asked for some sort of proof, well. I am highly skeptical on the numbers and their intentions when they come back home.

Secondly, it is not the first time people leave to fight overseas for another cause. They did it in Spain during the Spanish Civil war, they did it in Bosnia, and they did/do in Iraq and Afghanistan. Not once in all those cases and plenty more, have there been a push to revoke citizenship or mass arrest and suspicion of a whole minority. Did men come home from the Spanish civil war, or Bosnia or hell even Afghanistan and else where and conduct terror? No... then why the hell should it suddenly change with Syria/Iraq/ISIS?

If we start revoking citizenship natural born citizens and making them stateless, then we open a can of worms we dont want to open up. What is next.. revoke Jews and Muslims en mass because we dont like them? How about gypsies born in the UK? Or communists? How about UKIP members?

Now when it comes to dual citizenship people, then throw the book at them, since they can just go back to where they came from and it does not go against any basic democratic principle of not leaving people stateless.

No we do not fight assholes like ISIS with draconian methods that emulate the very thing we are fighting.

Re: Ban on UK jihadists returning home?

Cryptic said:

Historically, revocations of citizneship, even "native born" are permissable in certain circumstances.

As Aracana implied though, the concept can be abused via expulsions of minority groups, or majority groups (Palestinians) or by the Cuban expulsion of criminals, the mentally ill, or those deemed to be simply "problematic" during the Mariel boat lift.

Click to expand...

Which is my point.. anything is permissible, but it is part of basic human rights, democratic principles and law and order, that we do NOT remove native born citizenship because it can be abused.

Look at the internment of the Japanese.. that was a war crime, based on racism and going against every single democratic principle and the rule of law, but it was justified and hence permissible by the sitting government. Today, that would hopefully never happen in any democratic country... and certainly not in the US.

Re: Ban on UK jihadists returning home?

PeteEU said:

Which is my point.. anything is permissible, but it is part of basic human rights, democratic principles and law and order, that we do NOT remove native born citizenship because it can be abused.

Click to expand...

Revoking the native citizenship of somebody who voluntarily joins an enemy army is not an abuse of human rights. The individual simply becomes a citizen of the nation whose army he joined. The fact the he joined an enemy army that is not part of a recognized state is his problem, not say, Great Britain's.

Re: Ban on UK jihadists returning home?

Cryptic said:

Revoking the native citizenship of somebody who voluntarily joins an enemy army is not an abuse of human rights. The individual simply becomes a citizen of the nation whose army he joined. The fact the he joined an enemy army that is not part of a recognized state is his problem, not say, Great Britain's.

Click to expand...

Yes but ISIS is not a recognized nation and hence not a recognized military aka army. I know it is a technicality, but it is an important one legally.

Re: Ban on UK jihadists returning home?

Arcana XV said:

Don't get me wrong, I think the right to statehood is a fundamental human right and that all precautions should be taken to avoid rendering a human being stateless. However, I also think that this right can be revoked if said human being's actions clearly show him/her to have committed treason or directly conspired to harm the homeland or joined a foreign enemy army.

Click to expand...

They wouldn't be 'stateless'. They have a state. It's called ISIS. They have chosen it.

Re: Ban on UK jihadists returning home?

PeteEU said:

Which is my point.. anything is permissible, but it is part of basic human rights, democratic principles and law and order, that we do NOT remove native born citizenship because it can be abused.

Look at the internment of the Japanese.. that was a war crime, based on racism and going against every single democratic principle and the rule of law, but it was justified and hence permissible by the sitting government. Today, that would hopefully never happen in any democratic country... and certainly not in the US.

Click to expand...

While illegal and very sad, calling the internment of the Japanse a war crime puts it on par with the Holocaust. As much as you on the left would like to do that, it wasn't anywhere close to that.

Re: Ban on UK jihadists returning home?

Wiggen said:

While illegal and very sad, calling the internment of the Japanse a war crime puts it on par with the Holocaust. As much as you on the left would like to do that, it wasn't anywhere close to that.

Click to expand...

And to be frank.. it was. The only difference is the magnitude. The internment camps the Americans set up for their own citizens were no holiday retreat.. far far from it. And these American citizens were treated like dirt all because they did not look like the rest of white America.

Re: Ban on UK jihadists returning home?

Infinite Chaos said:

Not good enough Mr Cameron.

Why a "temporary" ban and why let them keep their citizenship?

The third issue is Tpims - which replaced control orders; these are possibly going to be strengthened to.... equate the control orders that were replaced by the current coalition government. Our govt is behind the curve and public mood here.

Click to expand...

Sorry, but from my perspective this is a cop-out and I would hope it never gets formal approval of the British Parliament. No other person, born in Britain, loses their citizenship no matter what their heinous crime against society may be. The British education system, British society, and British law enforcement are all partially to blame when a child born in the country leaves to take up arms and commit crimes elsewhere. The responsible thing to do, in my view, would be to arrest any known jihadist who returns home to Britain and extradite them directly to the country in which they committed crimes to be tried and prosecuted under the laws in place in that country. Why should a deranged person raised in Britain be left to wonder the world simply because Britain doesn't want to get dirty with the trash they created? If Canada tried to do this, and we have some Canadian young men who've been involved this way, I'd be equally opposed and appalled.

Now, it would be different if the person in question came to Britain as a young man or teenager and acquired British citizenship along the way and then left to fight. To me, that person gave up the special privilege Britain offered him and his country of birth can take him back.

Re: Ban on UK jihadists returning home?

Wiggen said:

They wouldn't be 'stateless'. They have a state. It's called ISIS. They have chosen it.

Click to expand...

I realize that. I was speaking from a broader, generalized perspective, not referring specifically to IS fighters in my post.

Re: Ban on UK jihadists returning home?

PeteEU said:

And to be frank.. it was. The only difference is the magnitude. The internment camps the Americans set up for their own citizens were no holiday retreat.. far far from it. And these American citizens were treated like dirt all because they did not look like the rest of white America.

Click to expand...

What seems to escape your ability to understand is that what made the internment wrong was the fact they had not actually fought on the side of the Japanese.

I realize you will stoop to any level by way of false equivalences, but the only way you would have an actual point here would be if there were some suggestion all Arabs or all Muslims should be banned. Nobody has suggested that, as the only people under consideration are those who have made the voluntarily choice to wage war on western civilization.

Re: Ban on UK jihadists returning home?

And once again Pete EU reveals his hatred of the United States and his total ignorance of what actually happened. There were no mass exterminations - or exterminations of any kind. No medial experiments. No daily beatings or tortures. It wasn't a holiday camp, but they had schools and stores and the ability to have a social life. But he isso consumed by hatred of this country that he is willing to make ridiculous comparisons like this.

'The only difference was magnitude'? Laughable. But predictable.

Re: Ban on UK jihadists returning home?

Wiggen said:

And once again Pete EU reveals his hatred of the United States and his total ignorance of what actually happened. There were no mass exterminations - or exterminations of any kind. No medial experiments. No daily beatings or tortures. It wasn't a holiday camp, but they had schools and stores and the ability to have a social life. But he isso consumed by hatred of this country that he is willing to make ridiculous comparisons like this.

'The only difference was magnitude'? Laughable. But predictable.

Click to expand...

And nice way to twist words and it was you that brought up the holocaust, so it must have been a vain attempt to deflect and I refuse to be drawn into such a pathetic attempt to derail the thread.

No this whole discussion is about abusing the rights of citizens because of an issue with an ideology, religion, race or similar. The removal of citizenship should never be taken lightly, and it should certainly not make someone stateless. The comparison to the Japanese internment, where a minority or parts of a minority was singled out for group punishment that went totally against basic law and principles of democracy, shows how badly it can go if we are not careful. Another example is the treatment of Northern Irish during the troubles by the British Government and how people of Northern Ireland were not considered equal citizens of the United Kingdom.

Removing citizenship from Muslims that go to fight in Syria is one thing, but the next step is removing citizenship for all Muslims, and hence the slippery slope argument. Once you open up that can of worms then you better make sure you have the ability to choose what worms and the ability to close that can again.