• 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
Depends on if can be captured alive or not, and if they are willingly coming home or not.

Do you know how illogical that is. "If they are willing to come home ", so they are so altruistic that they are fighting for the creation of a 'home ' for someone else's benefit :doh Better dead.
 
Do you know how illogical that is. "If they are willing to come home ", so they are so altruistic that they are fighting for the creation of a 'home ' for someone else's benefit :doh Better dead.

Its important to remember that American leftists are much more bound by PC than say europeans. You likely last saw this divide during the Paris attacks.
 
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.

I disagree with your statement and the bolded sentence above is inconsistent with your comments. It's the only part of your statement I do agree with. Clearly, a person who takes up arms against his own country and his country's armed forces is not "cooperating with the state" and thus forfeits their citizenship. Many who choose to join ISIS have dual citizenships of convenience, taking advantage of our generosity and our lifestyle - let the caliphate protect their rights and privileges.
 
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

Yes, and out of the other side of your mouth, along with other liberals, you're bitching that Gitmo is a recruiting tool for Islamic extremists and should be closed.
 
Last edited:
Depends on if can be captured alive or not

Think it through - who will go capture them for you? How expendable do you think your country's security people are and the legality (and practicality) of sending small groups of western boots into such a zone to capture these people?

I read another poster on another thread talking of hunting these people down - again this brings in the problems we have legally / logistically and practically of hunting western jihadis down in Syria / Iraq / Somalia etc.


if they are willingly coming home or not.

Why should we let them back in - willingly or not? We already know ISIS and similar groups want some of their operatives to come and create havoc here so why should we help ISIS with this?
 
If an American went to Iran to fight with the Kurds against ISIS, is that illegal?

I can't speak for your Laws but i can tell you that an Australian (Ashley Johnston) was killed a week or so ago fighting Islamic State alongside Kurds. Under Australian Law, he died a criminal.
 
I can't speak for your Laws but i can tell you that an Australian (Ashley Johnston) was killed a week or so ago fighting Islamic State alongside Kurds. Under Australian Law, he died a criminal.

What's your view on that?
 
I can't speak for your Laws but i can tell you that an Australian (Ashley Johnston) was killed a week or so ago fighting Islamic State alongside Kurds. Under Australian Law, he died a criminal.

I'm sorry to hear that. Did he seek permission from the Australian government to do so before he joined the Kurds?

During the Vietnam war, as an example, many Canadians received permission from the Canadian government to join US forces fighting a war that Canada was not part of and when they returned after the Vietnam war ended they were welcomed back into the country without problem.

Iraq is a bit of a different problem. I don't think the Kurdish Peshmerga forces are recognized as legitimate by the central Iraqi government and are not controlled by the Iraqi forces or government so that might be seen as joining a militia. And if Australia is participating in the coalition efforts to fight ISIS, it might be a problem that Mr. Johnston didn't join the Australian forces to help the Kurds.

In any event, Mr. Johnston died in a noble cause and he should be honored and respected for such.
 
Kill them. IF any are captured they should be "accidentally given to Iraqi government forces".
 
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.

My own beliefs are pretty simple and brutal. Kill them over there.

This is a war, not law enforcement. If somebody goes over to the enemy and takes up arms for their cause, then they are no different then anybody else. And they should be treated as any other enemy combatant on the battlefield. Bullet in the head and move on out.

We had Americans and people from other nations join the opponant from the beginning of our country. In the Civil War many from both North and South went to fight ffor the other side for philosophical reasons. Many Americans joined both Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy. This is nothing new, and I have no problem with it.

But if somebody does so, they should not expect to be treated any differently then those they are fighting for. If that means getting shot up in a battlefield or attacked by an aircraft, then so freaking be it. Just as we often have people who leave their nation and fight for us. They are following their beliefs, and should be treated just like anybody else on our side who puts on a uniform.

We are not cops, we are soldiers. Shoot them all, let God sort them out. This recent concept of "arresting" enemy combatants and putting them on trial to me is absolute nonsense. If an airstrike called in lands and blows up a car full of ISIS fighters from Syria or Iraq, or ISIS fighters from Canada and the US I really could not care less. All are the enemy to me and I will not shead any tears because they were born or lived in the same country as I do or one that is an ally. They made their choices, they are then answering for those choices.
 
Kill them. IF any are captured they should be "accidentally given to Iraqi government forces".

Hell, to me there should be nothing accidental about it.

They are in Iraq (or Syria, or Egypt, or Libya) and committing crimes over there and killing their citizens, let them deal with them as the murderers they are. WTF could we charge them with really, passport fraud?

This bringing such people to the US or another country is pure nonsense.
 
Kill them. IF any are captured they should be "accidentally given to Iraqi government forces".

Hell, let me even flip this around and see what the reaction would be.

If somebody from Grand Fenwick came over here and shot an American to death, should we simply smile and say "Oh yes, we are turning him over to you for justice back home, take him Grand Fenwick and handle him under your own legal system"?

Hell no, we would tell them to go pound sand and have a trial under our own legal system, where the crime happened.

So why in the hell should we treat these people any different?

I have no more pitty for them then I do some drug runner who gets caught with a pound of grass in a country that punishes such crimes by death. They are not in the US, they should have absolutely no illusion that they are protected by it's legal system. They are in a country where crimes such as killing civilians and blowing up schools is handled with a short trial and a prison sentence that ends with either a rope or sword.
 
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?

I think you may be making too much of it. This is not cops and robbers, but war--and against people who flagrantly ignore all the rules of war. The goal should be to kill as many of them as possible, as fast as is practical, regardless of what nationality they claim. If the U.S. took this seriously for the war it is, it would long ago have bombed every facility of any kind in northern Syria and Iraq that could be of any military use to these people. And it would not have let punctilious fretting about civilian casualties hinder its efforts.

There is a federal law that makes a crime of seditious conspiracy, and it has been used in prosecuting some Muslim jihadists here. Its standards are less demanding than with the federal crime of treason, which makes it easier to get convictions. And the maximum sentence is twenty years. There is also the option of prosecuting these bastards in military tribunals, where they would have no right to a jury or to a grand jury indictment. But don't look for anything so harsh under President Limpwrist--he wants to get the SOB's jobs.
 
I feel that we as a society, if the opportunity presents itself, should hold these folks accountable for their actions but I certainly would not risk any lives to intentionally try and capture any of them.

Anyone, who knowingly travels abroad and was impressed or coerced by the Islamic States propaganda is clearly someone who we don't want in society.

End of story.

You go abroad to join a group such as that, you have given up your right to be treated as an equal citizen.
 
I think you may be making too much of it. This is not cops and robbers, but war--and against people who flagrantly ignore all the rules of war. The goal should be to kill as many of them as possible, as fast as is practical, regardless of what nationality they claim. If the U.S. took this seriously for the war it is, it would long ago have bombed every facility of any kind in northern Syria and Iraq that could be of any military use to these people. And it would not have let punctilious fretting about civilian casualties hinder its efforts.

There is a federal law that makes a crime of seditious conspiracy, and it has been used in prosecuting some Muslim jihadists here. Its standards are less demanding than with the federal crime of treason, which makes it easier to get convictions. And the maximum sentence is twenty years. There is also the option of prosecuting these bastards in military tribunals, where they would have no right to a jury or to a grand jury indictment. But don't look for anything so harsh under President Limpwrist--he wants to get the SOB's jobs.

Yet another person dishonestly distorting the "jobs" comment for political hay. Pathetic.
 
I feel that we as a society, if the opportunity presents itself, should hold these folks accountable for their actions but I certainly would not risk any lives to intentionally try and capture any of them.

And I have no problem with that. We are not murderers who kill everybody just because we can.

But they should not be brought to the US and tried under our laws. Leave them where they were captured, and let that country try them. After all, that is where their crimes were committed.
 
Think it through - who will go capture them for you?
Our military, other countries militaries, rebel forces, etc.

How expendable do you think your country's security people are and the legality (and practicality) of sending small groups of western boots into such a zone to capture these people?
Saying that we are currently doing that...

I read another poster on another thread talking of hunting these people down - again this brings in the problems we have legally / logistically and practically of hunting western jihadis down in Syria / Iraq / Somalia etc.
I never said we should be "actively hunting them down".



Why should we let them back in - willingly or not? We already know ISIS and similar groups want some of their operatives to come and create havoc here so why should we help ISIS with this?
So they can face a trial instead of just dropping a cruise missile on their heads.
 
Our military, other countries militaries, rebel forces, etc.

You are aware of the political cost of putting our militaries into the Middle East to track down Western jihadis? Then if we put our troops on the ground - what kind of ROE do you support or suppose we would have?

Bearing in mind the first captured soldier beheaded on video will have a drastic effect on public support.. As for other countries militaries - who are they and how would we work with them? Some of these countries may be the kind to ignore western conventions like Geneva Codes. I know my position but what is yours? You are highly unlikely to find Jordan's military capturing and transporting ISIS fugitives in ways that would satisfy some quarters here in the west.

As for rebel forces - why would we limit their ability to move quickly and fight by labouring them with live prisoners to safeguard back to our forces?

-- Saying that we are currently doing that...

Link and specifics?

I never said we should be "actively hunting them down".

I know, it was another poster but the end result is the same. If you demand these people are brought to justice then somehow you have to go and get them, capture them and bring them back. Or - just leave a wide open door at home for their return so they can "face trial instead of having cruise missiles dropped on their heads..."

So they can face a trial instead of just dropping a cruise missile on their heads.

So you are happy for our over stretched security forces (facing cuts across Europe) to have to pick this up instead? The "open door to jihadi's" approach is not a good one I can tell you.
 
So they can face a trial instead of just dropping a cruise missile on their heads.

Sorry, I am not a policeman. It is not my job to capture bad guys to put them on trial.

I am a soldier, and it is my job to protect others, and to kill those who try to harm others. Now if they surrender I will take them prisoner. But I am not going out to "capture" them, not my job.

If they are a threat, I say drop a cruise missile on their heads. I guess you do not comprehend what a war is.
 
You are aware of the political cost of putting our militaries into the Middle East to track down Western jihadis? Then if we put our troops on the ground - what kind of ROE do you support or suppose we would have?

I say we simply beat them into submission, killing any that do not immediately put their arms and surrender.

And any captured in the region, local or foreigner alike (including US and coalition citizens) be turned over to the local authorities to deal with as they would any other that was killing it's citizens.

I do not forgive murderers simply because of what countries they have lived in.
 
And I have no problem with that. We are not murderers who kill everybody just because we can.

But they should not be brought to the US and tried under our laws. Leave them where they were captured, and let that country try them. After all, that is where their crimes were committed.
Trials if they make it to trial are short and the sentence in quickly imposed.
One problem is the death sentences many would receive will cause an uproar with some in the west.

Not the best comparison, but best I could do.


Australia complains over Indonesia's treatment of death row prisoners | Reuters


Australia complains over Indonesia's treatment of death row prisoners

By Lincoln Feast and Eveline Danubrata

SYDNEY/JAKARTA Fri Mar 6, 2015 2:07am EST

Share this
Email
Print

Australians Andrew Chan (L) and Myuran Sukumaran wait in a temporary cell for their appeal hearing in Denpasar District Court in Indonesia's resort island of Bali in this September 21, 2010 file photo. REUTERS/Murdani Usman/Files

Australians Andrew Chan (L) and Myuran Sukumaran wait in a temporary cell for their appeal hearing in Denpasar District Court in Indonesia's resort island of Bali in this September 21, 2010 file photo.

Credit: Reuters/Murdani Usman/Files

(Reuters) - Australia has complained about the treatment of two drug smugglers, who face execution in Indonesia, and wants to lodge a formal protest after a smiling Indonesian police chief was photographed posing with the men, officials said on Friday.

The planned executions of Myuran Sukumaran, 33, and Andrew Chan, 31, have ramped up diplomatic tension between Australia and Indonesia after repeated pleas for mercy on their behalf. They are among a group of up to 11 convicts, mostly foreigners, due to be executed on the prison island of Nusakambangan.
 
Back
Top Bottom