• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Are Western Fighters Who Join ISIS Better Dead or Facing Trial Back Home?

Are Western Fighters Who Join ISIS Better Dead or Facing Trial Back Home?

  • Total voters
    31
Carjosse

Carjosse

Sit Nomine Digna
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 14, 2012
Messages
16,508
Reaction score
8,172
Location
Montreal, QC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
I was reading this article (in English) from the Netherlands. For those who do not want to read the article, it is about comments by the prime minister of the Netherlands, Mark Rutte, that Dutch fighters who join ISIS are better dead than returning to the Netherlands. According to the article he received criticism from the leader of D66, an opposition party, saying that these fighters should face persecution and the rule of law in the Netherlands.

During the debate, D66 leader Alexander Pechtold said he was shocked by the prime minister’s position. ‘I think as prime minister you should put the rule of law first, but you are saying “go and die in the desert rather than face your responsibilities in court”,’ Pechtold said. Rutte retaliated by saying that ‘people who go there know what they are part of’. ‘The only aim is to kill as many people as possible. Those people will soon be back to carry out attacks here as well. As prime minister, I am here to protect our people.’
Click to expand...

I wanted to know what DebatePolitics thinks, are western fighters for ISIS better of dead in the Middle East or should they face persecution back home? I can personally understand both positions and am torn between them.

Note: Votes are public.
 
Carjosse said:
I was reading this article (in English) from the Netherlands. For those who do not want to read the article, it is about comments by the prime minister of the Netherlands, Mark Rutte, that Dutch fighters who join ISIS are better dead than returning to the Netherlands. According to the article he received criticism from the leader of D66, an opposition party, saying that these fighters should face persecution and the rule of law in the Netherlands.



I wanted to know what DebatePolitics thinks, are western fighters for ISIS better of dead in the Middle East or should they face persecution back home? I can personally understand both positions and am torn between them.
Click to expand...


Certainly their citizenship should be rescinded. That way when they are killed on the battle field the President won't be accused of killing American citizens without due process.
 
In my book, this is the equivalent of treason and defection. If you choose to take up arms against your own country, you forfeit every and all benefits of your citizenship and your citizenship as well.

Either rot in hell or dance with your 70 virgins - I don't care which - just don't set foot in Canada ever again.
 
This is the personal opinion of the prime-minister, not as prime-minister even though he as a prime-minister agrees with his statement, but he had made that comment in a political debate that was held because of upcoming elections in the Netherlands. And he made that comment as the leader of the VVD, his political party.
 
They are enemies of the state and should be treated as such... dead IMO
 
I don't understand the second choice ...'facing persecution back home'. If you meant to say prosecution, then perhaps you should ask the moderators to change it. If persecution is what you meant, then your poll is bogus.

In any event, the sooner such people are dead, the better.
 
Carjosse said:
I was reading this article (in English) from the Netherlands. For those who do not want to read the article, it is about comments by the prime minister of the Netherlands, Mark Rutte, that Dutch fighters who join ISIS are better dead than returning to the Netherlands. According to the article he received criticism from the leader of D66, an opposition party, saying that these fighters should face persecution and the rule of law in the Netherlands.





I wanted to know what DebatePolitics thinks, are western fighters for ISIS better of dead in the Middle East or should they face persecution back home? I can personally understand both positions and am torn between them.

Note: Votes are public.
Click to expand...
Let them die for their beliefs. They are each and everyone guilty and or complicit in crimes against humanity. I include men and women.
 
Wiggen said:
I don't understand the second choice ...'facing persecution back home'. If you meant to say prosecution, then perhaps you should ask the moderators to change it. If persecution is what you meant, then your poll is bogus.

In any event, the sooner such people are dead, the better.
Click to expand...

I meant prosecution, so if a mod could change it that would be nice.
 
Depends on if can be captured alive or not, and if they are willingly coming home or not.
 
Peter King said:
This is the personal opinion of the prime-minister, not as prime-minister even though he as a prime-minister agrees with his statement, but he had made that comment in a political debate that was held because of upcoming elections in the Netherlands. And he made that comment as the leader of the VVD, his political party.
Click to expand...

From my understanding of the article it was the deputy prime minister that said he was speaking for the VVD not Rutte himself and the article made it sound like he was speaking as prime minster. I can read some Dutch but I am nowhere near proficient enough to read a NOS article on it. It might just be a bad translation. I do think it may be an attempt to maybe take some votes from the PVV either way.
 
Last edited:
Carjosse said:
From my understanding of the article it was the deputy prime minister that said he was speaking for the VVD not Rutte himself and the article made it sound like he was speaking as prime minster. I can read some Dutch but I am nowhere near proficient enough to read a NOS article on it. It might just be a bad translation. I do think it may be an attempt to maybe take some votes from the PVV either way.
Click to expand...

Well, he was making his statement in an election debate with other political party leaders. So in all honesty, he was there fighting for votes for his political party.

The governments point a view is different to the prime-ministers views so the already agreed strategy/point of view is still valid and will remain valid. And I think it is also because during an election campaign, the prime minister is wearing 2 different hats/serving 2 different masters. He is both prime-minister and he is also the leader of his political party.
 
Carjosse said:
I was reading this article (in English) from the Netherlands. For those who do not want to read the article, it is about comments by the prime minister of the Netherlands, Mark Rutte, that Dutch fighters who join ISIS are better dead than returning to the Netherlands. According to the article he received criticism from the leader of D66, an opposition party, saying that these fighters should face persecution and the rule of law in the Netherlands.



I wanted to know what DebatePolitics thinks, are western fighters for ISIS better of dead in the Middle East or should they face persecution back home? I can personally understand both positions and am torn between them.

Note: Votes are public.
Click to expand...

Ejecting someone from the rolls of citizenship (under any circumstances) sets a very dangerous precedent; Cicero bringing the practice to Rome contributed greatly to the decline of republican principle in Roman society, and Cicero himself was killed by much the same process when his political rivals transformed Rome into an imperial state. The relationship between citizen and state is supposed to be inviolate on the state's part. Only citizens can renounce their citizenship.

Generally speaking, citizens of Western states that are also proven enemy combatants don't need to lose their citizenship to be justifiable military targets. They are the military equivalent of armed and dangerous suspects resisting arrest; if they surrender they should be taken according to the rules of war and accorded their legal rights as citizens, but if they continue resisting, the threat they pose as enemy combatants supersedes their right to due process.

A citizen's right to due process and rule of law is contingent on them cooperating with the state. The state has to scale the forcefulness of their efforts to detain a suspect with the degree of threat the suspect poses.
 
Last edited:
One thing I just don't get is the reaction to people going to join ISIS, especially people from the west. Are people not welcome to do what they want to do? If people want to give up their citizenship and go join ISIS, so be it. I don't care. In fact, as far as I'm concerned, why should we treat them any differently than we treat anyone else who goes to fight for a foreign power? They become traitors, enemies of the state and open to execution. Why all the whining and crying about it?
 
US Conservative said:
Better off dead, for them and us.
Click to expand...

That's what you would think. However, one of these sickos dying in battle could spur even more attacks and recruits for ISIS. This is the martyrdom culture that these groups thrive in, and only when absolutely necessary should ISIS members be killed. Send them to Gitmo and let them rot
 
dmvpolitical said:
That's what you would think. However, one of these sickos dying in battle could spur even more attacks and recruits for ISIS. This is the martyrdom culture that these groups thrive in, and only when absolutely necessary should ISIS members be killed. Send them to Gitmo and let them rot
Click to expand...

or send them to secretly sleep with the fishes. Jimmy Hoffa them
 
dmvpolitical said:
That's what you would think. However, one of these sickos dying in battle could spur even more attacks and recruits for ISIS. This is the martyrdom culture that these groups thrive in, and only when absolutely necessary should ISIS members be killed. Send them to Gitmo and let them rot
Click to expand...

Yes lets kiss them on the forehead, give them Obama-jobs, and give them a backrub. They are truly precious little treasures, aren't they? We dont want to piss them off.
 
Cephus said:
One thing I just don't get is the reaction to people going to join ISIS, especially people from the west. Are people not welcome to do what they want to do? If people want to give up their citizenship and go join ISIS, so be it. I don't care. In fact, as far as I'm concerned, why should we treat them any differently than we treat anyone else who goes to fight for a foreign power? They become traitors, enemies of the state and open to execution. Why all the whining and crying about it?
Click to expand...

There are those amongst us (cough, liberals) who want this to be something different than what it is-enemies of the US who are absolutely subject to execution.
 
Not such a simple legal question. There is no declared state-of-war between the USA and ISIS. Does the USA even formally acknowledge that ISIS exists?

Americans historically have fought for other militaries, other countries and other organizations from the past (such as the Flying Tigers for China) to various mercenary ventures and for other countries. People who are citizens of other countries can enlist in our military and that isn't all that rare.

So... if someone goes to Syrian to fight against the Syrian government or against the Syrian rebels, or goes to join ISIS to fight against the Kurds or Iranians, what crime was committed against the USA?

If an American went to Iran to fight with the Kurds against ISIS, is that illegal?
 
Carjosse said:
I was reading this article (in English) from the Netherlands. For those who do not want to read the article, it is about comments by the prime minister of the Netherlands, Mark Rutte, that Dutch fighters who join ISIS are better dead than returning to the Netherlands. According to the article he received criticism from the leader of D66, an opposition party, saying that these fighters should face persecution and the rule of law in the Netherlands.



I wanted to know what DebatePolitics thinks, are western fighters for ISIS better of dead in the Middle East or should they face persecution back home? I can personally understand both positions and am torn between them.

Note: Votes are public.
Click to expand...

If you leave to go fight for a faction that actively wants your own country dead, then you just committed treason. Dead by sites, dead by tribunal it hardly makes a difference (other than logistics).
 
joko104 said:
Not such a simple legal question. There is no declared state-of-war between the USA and ISIS. Does the USA even formally acknowledge that ISIS exists?

Americans historically have fought for other militaries, other countries and other organizations from the past (such as the Flying Tigers for China) to various mercenary ventures and for other countries. People who are citizens of other countries can enlist in our military and that isn't all that rare.

So... if someone goes to Syrian to fight against the Syrian government or against the Syrian rebels, or goes to join ISIS to fight against the Kurds or Iranians, what crime was committed against the USA?

If an American went to Iran to fight with the Kurds against ISIS, is that illegal?
Click to expand...

ISIS is listed as a Foreign Terrorist Organization. Foreign Terrorist Organizations

"It is unlawful for a person in the United States or subject to the jurisdiction of the United States to knowingly provide "material support or resources" to a designated FTO. (The term "material support or resources" is defined in 18 U.S.C. § 2339A(b)(1) as " any property, tangible or intangible, or service, including currency or monetary instruments or financial securities, financial services, lodging, training, expert advice or assistance, safehouses, false documentation or identification, communications equipment, facilities, weapons, lethal substances, explosives, personnel (1 or more individuals who maybe or include oneself), and transportation, except medicine or religious materials.” 18 U.S.C. § 2339A(b)(2) provides that for these purposes “the term ‘training’ means instruction or teaching designed to impart a specific skill, as opposed to general knowledge.” 18 U.S.C. § 2339A(b)(3) further provides that for these purposes the term ‘expert advice or assistance’ means advice or assistance derived from scientific, technical or other specialized knowledge.’’"
 
FreedomFromAll said:
ISIS is listed as a Foreign Terrorist Organization. Foreign Terrorist Organizations

"It is unlawful for a person in the United States or subject to the jurisdiction of the United States to knowingly provide "material support or resources" to a designated FTO. (The term "material support or resources" is defined in 18 U.S.C. § 2339A(b)(1) as " any property, tangible or intangible, or service, including currency or monetary instruments or financial securities, financial services, lodging, training, expert advice or assistance, safehouses, false documentation or identification, communications equipment, facilities, weapons, lethal substances, explosives, personnel (1 or more individuals who maybe or include oneself), and transportation, except medicine or religious materials.” 18 U.S.C. § 2339A(b)(2) provides that for these purposes “the term ‘training’ means instruction or teaching designed to impart a specific skill, as opposed to general knowledge.” 18 U.S.C. § 2339A(b)(3) further provides that for these purposes the term ‘expert advice or assistance’ means advice or assistance derived from scientific, technical or other specialized knowledge.’’"
Click to expand...


OK, you answered my question. What is the potential penalty?
 
joko104 said:
OK, you answered my question. What is the potential penalty?
Click to expand...

Honestly I dont know. I guess though that once you go and join ISIS you are now a member of ISIS, just like any other ISIS member. SO at the very least you are fair game in the field. ANd once you come back to the US you are a terrorist on the loose in the US. Off to GITMO probably to face a military tribunal.
 
US Conservative said:
There are those amongst us (cough, liberals) who want this to be something different than what it is-enemies of the US who are absolutely subject to execution.
Click to expand...

They make their choices, if they want to stand with ISIS, bullets work just as well on them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom