International [ISIS Repatriation] Yazidis plead with Canada not to repatriate ISIS members

Amber Rudd ‘perplexed’ by decision to give US option to potentially execute British-born jihadists
Mattha Busby | July 28, 2018

amber-rudd-3.jpg

Under the Extradition Act 2003, the UK is prohibited from sending someone to a country where they could face the death penalty
Amber Rudd, the former home secretary, is reportedly “perplexed” by her successor Sajid Javid’s decision to tacitly accept that two jihadists, allegedly part of the so-called “Beatles” Isis cell, could be executed in the US.

There had been no discussion about waiving death penalty assurances with regards to Alexanda Kotey and Shafee Elsheikh that Ms Rudd recalled during her time in office, according to The Daily Telegraph.

It was also reported that she does not recall seeing any legal advice on providing intelligence about the duo to US prosecutors while not seeking that they avoid the death penalty.

“The UK does not currently intend to request, nor actively encourage, the transfer of Kotey and Elsheikh to the UK to support a future UK based prosecution,” read a letter sent by Mr Javid to Jeff Sessions, the US attorney general.

“I am of the view that there are strong reasons for not requiring a death penalty assurance in this specific case, so no such assurances will be sought.”

Mr Javid’s failure to demand that the pair, who are currently being held in northern Syria, should face justice in the country of their birth provoked widespread uproar from cross-party MPs who argued that it contravenes Britain’s well established opposition to capital punishment – a practice ended in the UK in 1965.

The coalition government published a death penalty strategy in 2011 professing that the UK aims to increase the number of countries that have abolished the death penalty.

Following a legal challenge by Elsheikh’s mother on Wednesday, the Home Office has suspended cooperation with the US on the matter until the case is resolved.

However, the action might not prevent the transferral of the pair from custody in Syria to the US. “The Americans can do what the Americans want,” a government source told The Independent on Friday.

In any case, British authorities might have already shared key information from its four year counterterror investigation into Kotey and Elsheikh to their American counterparts.

Elsheikh and Kotey were raised in Britain and allegedly helped perpetrate a slew of killings of UK and US citizens, including the British aid workers Alan Henning and David Haines and the American journalists James Foley and Steven Sotloff, in territory held by Isis during the Syrian civil war.

The UK and the US governments had been negotiating where the men should be prosecuted after Syrian Kurdish soldiers captured the pair, who have been stripped of their British citizenship, in February.

Mohammed Emwazi, another member of the so-called “Beatles”, is believed to have been killed in a US airstrike in 2015; while Aine Davis was jailed in Turkey for seven and a half years after being convicted of being a member of a terrorist organisation.

Under the Extradition Act 2003, the UK is prohibited from sending someone to a country where they could face the death penalty – unless the government has received an assurance that capital punishment will not be imposed.

Elsheikh and Kotey, however, were not apprehended in a British sovereign territory and therefore have not been subject to extradition proceedings.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...-elsheikh-syria-war-sajid-javid-a8467526.html
The executions should be aired live on PPV in the US, and as a compromise, via free delay in the UK.
 
Last edited:
The executions should be aired live on PPV in the US, and as a comprise, via free delay in the UK.

Nah man, if the self-righteous Brits wants to self-destruct on their principles, let them.

We should provide free transport for every single British-born jihadist currently in custody back to the Port of London, and let the British government deal with their home-grown scum.

I'll have my popcorn ready when the bleeding hearts learn the hard way what they have done.

 
Last edited:
 
Last edited:
Let them have fights to the death. Like gladiators but to the death with only select amor and food.
Armor: Tinfoil hat(mandatory), tinfoil body gear,pig skin and feces and semen.
Food: Pork products
Arena: Soccer stadium turned into a battle arena
Rules and type of fights: No rules and you will be able to watch slap boxing extreme, and all out mega jewels warfare
 
‘The Beatles’ ISIS Members: U.K. Suspends Intelligence Cooperation After Lawsuit
By Daniel Moritz-Rabson On 7/26/18

rtx6cfhy_0.jpg

The United Kingdom said Thursday it had suspended intelligence cooperation with the United States related to the planned prosecution of two alleged Islamic State militant group members, following a lawsuit.

The U.K. typically seeks guarantees that the death penalty will not be applied in cases where its intelligence or assistance has helped capture suspects. But the government had initially dropped that requirement for Alexanda Kotey and El Shafee Elsheikh, who are under U.S. investigation, suspected of taking part in on-camera beheadings as part of a notorious Islamic State group of four that were once nicknamed The Beatles.

Elsheikh's mother had filed the legal challenge to prohibit the U.K. assistance. The British Home Office said it had temporarily halted information sharing until a judge has reviewed the challenge.

Lawyers representing Elsheikh's mother said the home secretary's decision to coordinate with the U.S. government represented "a clear and dramatic departure from the U.K.'s long-standing international and domestic commitment to oppose the continued exercise of the death penalty."

The prime minister's office acknowledged the U.K.'s opposition to capital punishment but said the government had "a priority to make sure that these men face criminal prosecution."

The decision had prompted criticism, and accusations that Britain was changing its policy on the death penalty.

"We do not extradite people to countries where there is a death penalty unless there is an assurance the death penalty will not be carried out," former independent reviewer of terrorism legislation Lord Carlile told the BBC. "This is a unilateral change of policy without any consultation, and I would be amazed if this had been approved explicitly by the Prime Minister.

"The Beatles," so-called because of their British accents, were responsible for the murders of American journalist James Foley and British aid workers David Haines and Alan Henning. Kotey and Elsheikh are accused of being the last two members of the cell.

The other members of the group were Mohamed Emwazi, known as Jihadi John, and Aine Davis. A U.S. drone strike killed Emwazi in 2015, while Davis was sentenced to more than seven years in jail in Turkey after being convicted of terrorism charges.

Kotey and Elsheikh were captured in Syria in January and are being held by Syrian Kurdish forces. The BBC reported that the U.K. does not think it can legally extradite the men to Britain for a trial. The British government stripped Kotey and Elsheikh of their citizenship.

All four members of The Beatles cell came from West London.

https://www.newsweek.com/beatles-isis-death-penalty-lawsuit-stops-intelligence-1044356
 
Islamic State ‘Beatles’ case: Britain criticized for ‘outsourcing’ justice system to the U.S.
by Karla Adam | July 27, 2018

EKWSHY27MQ5APOCVTNTDL4IHZU.jpg

Iraqi special forces troops hold a flag of the Islamic State group during a parade to celebrate the fully liberation of the eastern side of Mosul, Iraq, in 2017.

LONDON — Should Britain waive its opposition to the death penalty for the so-called Islamic State “Beatles,” whose members were allegedly involved in the torture and killings of Western hostages?

It’s a question hotly debated in Britain after leaked documents indicated Britain was willing to share intelligence with the United States to help with the possible prosecution of El Shafee Elsheikh and Alexanda Kotey without seeking assurances that they would not face the death penalty.

Elsheikh and Kotey, who were stripped of their British citizenship, were captured in Syria earlier this year and are held by U.S.-backed Syrian Kurdish forces. They are suspected of being involved in the execution of Western hostages, including British aid workers David Haines and Alan Henning, and American journalists James Foley and Steven Sotloff.

It remains unclear when the two former Islamic State fighters could face prosecution. But many countries, including members of the European Union, routinely demand that the United States drop capital punishment options in exchange for turning over suspects.

Britain abolished the death penalty in 1969, and there is a long-standing convention that Britain would not help foreign governments that allow capital punishment without assurances it would not be applied.

Lawmakers from all parties condemned the British government for not insisting on such a provision with the Islamic State case.

Alex Carlile, the government's former reviewer of terrorism legislation, called the move “completely wrong.” He told LBC Radio that Britain’s Home Secretary Sajid Javid “should not have secretly changed the policy of decades without it being discussed in Parliament first.”

After days of fierce criticism, the British Home Office said Thursday that it was temporarily pausing its cooperation with U.S. authorities following a legal challenge from the family of one of the suspects.

“We have agreed to a short-term pause,” Britain’s Home Office said in a statement. “The government remains committed to bringing these people to justice and we are confident we have acted in full accordance of the law.”

The legal challenge was filed on Wednesday by lawyers representing Elsheikh’s mother.

El Shafee Elsheikh and Alexanda Kotey were part of what the media dubbed the Islamic State's “Beatles,” named because of their British accents. The group’s ringleader, Mohammed Emwazi, also known as “Jihadi John,” was notorious for his grisly, televised beheadings. He was killed in a drone strike in 2015. Aine Davis, the fourth member of the group, was jailed in Turkey.

In a leaked letter published Monday in the Daily Telegraph, Javid made it clear to Attorney General Jeff Sessions that Britain did not want to prosecute the pair at home, but that Britain would waive opposition to the death penalty if they were convicted in the United States.

But even U.S. federal prosecutors appear conflicted about what to do. Sessions chided the British government in April for its reluctance to prosecute the men. “I have been disappointed, frankly, that the British . . . are not willing to try the cases but pretend to tell us how to try them,” he said during congressional testimony.

Reprieve, a human rights organization, said that Britain was trying to “outsource” its justice system, adding “there is no reason why people accused of murdering British citizens should not face British justice in a British court.”

Britain’s former foreign secretary Boris Johnson, who jointly made the decision not to seek assurances, has defended the move.

Writing in the Spectator magazine, Johnson said: “We had to balance two risks: the risk that they would be simply set loose, like so many other jihadis, to roam the streets of London again, or the small risk that they might receive the death penalty under the U.S. system. Sajid Javid and I decided that the first risk was worse than the second. Who really believes we were wrong?”

Peter Neumann, the director of the London-based International Centre for the Study of Radicalisation, said that one of the reasons Britain may be pushing for U.S. prosecution is because it has higher conviction rates and longer sentences for terrorism cases.

“In America, sending $200 to someone in Somalia who ends up with al-Shabab, you can get 30 years in a 'supermax' prison. In Britain, you’d get maximum of 2-3 years and you’d be out after two. In America, the sentences have been much longer and conviction rates are much higher.”

Nonetheless, Neumann said many were still surprised that Britain didn’t first seek assurances on the death penalty.

“It now makes it easier for some countries to undermine human rights standards on the basis that ‘even Britain does so in terrorism cases,’” he said.

“I think that’s a lot to give away in a case where that wasn’t really necessary.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ice-system-to-the-u-s/?utm_term=.cdc3f3813457
 
Justin Trudeau would gladly re-invite ISIS fighters back into Canada and pay billions of dollars to re-integrate them into society.
And if any of those captured ISIS fighters were mistreated by a foreign country, he'd gladly pay them a settlement that is approximately equal to what the average Canadian would earn over the course of six lifetimes as an apology.

#TrudeauBless

(Not joking)
 
There's a lot of histronics from the usual suspects about it being the thin end of the wedge that will somehow see the return of the death penalty here , but the general attitude to the remaining 'Beatles' seems to be fuck them let em hang,fry or whatever .
 
There's a lot of histronics from the usual suspects about it being the thin end of the wedge that will somehow see the return of the death penalty here , but the general attitude to the remaining 'Beatles' seems to be fuck them let em hang,fry or whatever .

As an Brit, do you believe...

1) British-born Jihadists, especially those who have murdered other British citizens, should be brought back and put on trial in the U.K?

2) The British justice system is strong enough to bring heinous criminals of this caliber to justice?

I have been reading my share of the British press in the last couple of months on this subject, and even on the most self-righteous pieces on the liberal bastions that is the Guardian and Independent, the readers' consensus seems to be that if put trial by feeble and PC-laden British Justice system, British-born jihadists will more than likely walk free and manage to extort some serious taxpayer's money from the British government over their "mistreatment" oversea in the process, and thus it is in Britain's best interest to do exactly what the cowardly British government is doing: wash their hands on the whole thing and let American Justice deal with their home-grown jihadists instead, most likely in the world-famous Guantanamo Bay that liberal Brits love to rags on.

If both the British government AND the British people agree that British laws are woefully inadequate and incapable of dealing with terrorists, clearly something must be done NOW before the thousands of British nationals who went to the Middle East to join ISIS' cause will inevitably try to sneak back in now that the caliphate is no more.
 
Last edited:
1) It's unlikely they've only murdered Brits so we don't necessarily have first dibs on them in that regard .
2) I think they might not ever see the light of day again if convicted in British courts , I suppose its a matter of opinion if that 'strong enough' .

Not sure how 'PC-laden' our justice system is again I suppose that's quite subjective , the ideal solution would be for the criminals to be prosecuted and punished in the countries that the crimes took place in and be denied the publicity afforded them by a show trial by extradition to either the big or little satan .
 
join a murdering Islamic death cult, win stupid prizes
 
If that doesn't tell you what country a Britain is, nothing will.
 
A mere 5 years sentence for U.K-based ISIS recruiters, holy shit. Who would have thought there would be a day when treasonous acts would get a slap on the wrist on the British isle?

The Brits' lack of confidence in their justice system's ability to deal with known terrorists may stems from things like these.

----

Dozens of convicted terrorists are about to be released in Britain
Andrew Koubaridis | July 30, 2018

5e5d427dac4ff2f4be6c9feea99c1634

Anjem Choudary is eligible for parole this year.

As many as 80 convicted terrorists will be free to roam British streets by the end of the year, including an Islamist preacher who urged people to join the Islamic State.

The extraordinary situation has arisen because about 40 per cent of the sentences for terrorism issued between 2007 and 2016 will have ended by Christmas — meaning police are powerless to stop them walking free.

Police and the government have admitted more resources will have to be pumped into keeping a close eye on the terrorists, at a time when resources are already stretched coping with a crime wave that has seen 80 killings in London so far this year.

UK Security Minister Ben Wallace said police would focus on getting them to “disengage” from extremism, but that would require a different approach than trying to prevent them being radicalised in the first place.

“It is a concern because what we are seeing nowadays is a large group of people who have effectively crossed the Rubicon to becoming radicalised. That is the mindset that they have now accepted or adapted,” he told BBC Radio.

To deal with the influx, police would be putting resources into efforts to “to try and make them disengage — that is slightly different from ‘deter them in the first place’ … and into how we effectively supervise them if they are released back into the community”.

That meant monitoring the terrorists, which inevitably would come at a cost both financial and through rediverting staff from other duties.

The actual number released could even be higher than 80, as some prisoners are eligible for release halfway through their sentences.

Those eligible for parole include Anjem Choudary, an Islamist preacher, who was jailed for five years in 2016 for inviting people to support Islamic State.

All the sentences given to people for financing terrorism, having terrorist information, or not disclosing information about terrorist acts, will have expired by the end of the year. Another two dozen will have lapsed by next year.


db10a6b656a61d14136e0b2bda446cac

Khalid Mohammed Omar Ali was jailed for planning an attack on Westminster. He is said to have been radicalised while in jail.


The discovery of the end of the sentences for 40 per cent of those issued between 2007-2016 was made by The Guardian last month. A former head of counter-terrorism, Richard Walton, told the paper the release of so many convicted terrorists was “worrying” — and any attempt to monitor them was “time-intensive” especially when the individuals knew they were being watched, so “often lie low for a period”.

Terrorist prisoners released on licence place a resource burden on both specialist counter-terrorism detectives and on mainstream policing. A risk-management process is used to monitor those released on licence and the monitoring of high-risk offenders is extremely resource-intensive.”

He went on to say: “Intelligence is often insufficient to gauge whether they have any intent to reoffend owing to their recent incarceration.”

That made monitoring them after their release even more difficult, especially as they were aware of the close attention security agencies were paying to them.

A program already exists to try to integrate terrorists back into the community, but so many returning to the community means extra vigilance will be needed.

To add to the problem the probation union has already warned its resources were stretched, while a 2016 review found extremism in British jails — where 700 inmates are considered to have extremist views — meant there was a real risk prisoners could be radicalised while they were behind bars.

02ef0506f9ecc4f0ee7ea950dfd1f36d

The Manchester Arena bombing was one off several deadly attacks in Britain last year.


News.com.au asked police what steps were being taken to ensure public safety given Mr Walton’s view and that of Mr Wallace, who believed there were challenges ahead.

A spokesman from the Met Police would only say they and intelligence agencies were working “tirelessly and at pace” to keep the public safe from terrorism.

“This includes monitoring and assessing existing and emerging threats and risks, including the release of convicted terrorists, and putting into place actions to mitigate them through a range of operations and activities.”

A Home Office spokesman told news.com.au national security would always be the government’s “main priority”.

“Terrorists released on licence are closely managed by the National Probation Service. They are subject to very restrictive licence conditions including, for example, living in approved premises; restrictions on movement and stringent curfews. Failure to adhere to conditions results in enforcement action, including prison recall.”

Terrorists are managed by multiple agencies and preparations begin months before their release. But the Home Office would not discuss specifics, and refused to say how many were being released.

“All offenders of extremist or terrorist concern are managed actively as part of a comprehensive counter-terrorism case management process. It would not be appropriate to release figures for how many of those offenders due to be released this year are deemed to be high risk.”

Since March last year there have been 12 terror plots thwarted and four other extreme far-right plots, and there can be up to 500 active investigations at any one time.

Meanwhile, this week a UK think tank urged the Government to replace laws surrounding treason that date back to 1351.

In a statement, Policy Exchange said a new treason law updated for modern times was needed, and argued a workable law of treason would mean offenders could be convicted and jailed for much longer.

“Many of them will … have betrayed this country. If they had been convicted of treason and imprisoned for life, the UK would be considerably safer,” the statement said.

 
Last edited:
A mere 5 years sentence for U.K-based ISIS recruiters, holy shit. Who would have thought there would be a day when treasonous acts would get a slap on the wrist on the British isle?

The Brits' lack of confidence in their justice system's ability to deal with known terrorists may stems from things like these.

----

Dozens of convicted terrorists are about to be released in Britain
Andrew Koubaridis | July 30, 2018

5e5d427dac4ff2f4be6c9feea99c1634

Anjem Choudary is eligible for parole this year.

As many as 80 convicted terrorists will be free to roam British streets by the end of the year, including an Islamist preacher who urged people to join the Islamic State.

The extraordinary situation has arisen because about 40 per cent of the sentences for terrorism issued between 2007 and 2016 will have ended by Christmas — meaning police are powerless to stop them walking free.

Police and the government have admitted more resources will have to be pumped into keeping a close eye on the terrorists, at a time when resources are already stretched coping with a crime wave that has seen 80 killings in London so far this year.

UK Security Minister Ben Wallace said police would focus on getting them to “disengage” from extremism, but that would require a different approach than trying to prevent them being radicalised in the first place.

“It is a concern because what we are seeing nowadays is a large group of people who have effectively crossed the Rubicon to becoming radicalised. That is the mindset that they have now accepted or adapted,” he told BBC Radio.

To deal with the influx, police would be putting resources into efforts to “to try and make them disengage — that is slightly different from ‘deter them in the first place’ … and into how we effectively supervise them if they are released back into the community”.

That meant monitoring the terrorists, which inevitably would come at a cost both financial and through rediverting staff from other duties.

The actual number released could even be higher than 80, as some prisoners are eligible for release halfway through their sentences.

Those eligible for parole include Anjem Choudary, an Islamist preacher, who was jailed for five years in 2016 for inviting people to support Islamic State.

All the sentences given to people for financing terrorism, having terrorist information, or not disclosing information about terrorist acts, will have expired by the end of the year. Another two dozen will have lapsed by next year.


db10a6b656a61d14136e0b2bda446cac

Khalid Mohammed Omar Ali was jailed for planning an attack on Westminster. He is said to have been radicalised while in jail.


The discovery of the end of the sentences for 40 per cent of those issued between 2007-2016 was made by The Guardian last month. A former head of counter-terrorism, Richard Walton, told the paper the release of so many convicted terrorists was “worrying” — and any attempt to monitor them was “time-intensive” especially when the individuals knew they were being watched, so “often lie low for a period”.

Terrorist prisoners released on licence place a resource burden on both specialist counter-terrorism detectives and on mainstream policing. A risk-management process is used to monitor those released on licence and the monitoring of high-risk offenders is extremely resource-intensive.”

He went on to say: “Intelligence is often insufficient to gauge whether they have any intent to reoffend owing to their recent incarceration.”

That made monitoring them after their release even more difficult, especially as they were aware of the close attention security agencies were paying to them.

A program already exists to try to integrate terrorists back into the community, but so many returning to the community means extra vigilance will be needed.

To add to the problem the probation union has already warned its resources were stretched, while a 2016 review found extremism in British jails — where 700 inmates are considered to have extremist views — meant there was a real risk prisoners could be radicalised while they were behind bars.

02ef0506f9ecc4f0ee7ea950dfd1f36d

The Manchester Arena bombing was one off several deadly attacks in Britain last year.


News.com.au asked police what steps were being taken to ensure public safety given Mr Walton’s view and that of Mr Wallace, who believed there were challenges ahead.

A spokesman from the Met Police would only say they and intelligence agencies were working “tirelessly and at pace” to keep the public safe from terrorism.

“This includes monitoring and assessing existing and emerging threats and risks, including the release of convicted terrorists, and putting into place actions to mitigate them through a range of operations and activities.”

A Home Office spokesman told news.com.au national security would always be the government’s “main priority”.

“Terrorists released on licence are closely managed by the National Probation Service. They are subject to very restrictive licence conditions including, for example, living in approved premises; restrictions on movement and stringent curfews. Failure to adhere to conditions results in enforcement action, including prison recall.”

Terrorists are managed by multiple agencies and preparations begin months before their release. But the Home Office would not discuss specifics, and refused to say how many were being released.

“All offenders of extremist or terrorist concern are managed actively as part of a comprehensive counter-terrorism case management process. It would not be appropriate to release figures for how many of those offenders due to be released this year are deemed to be high risk.”

Since March last year there have been 12 terror plots thwarted and four other extreme far-right plots, and there can be up to 500 active investigations at any one time.

Meanwhile, this week a UK think tank urged the Government to replace laws surrounding treason that date back to 1351.

In a statement, Policy Exchange said a new treason law updated for modern times was needed, and argued a workable law of treason would mean offenders could be convicted and jailed for much longer.

“Many of them will … have betrayed this country. If they had been convicted of treason and imprisoned for life, the UK would be considerably safer,” the statement said.

https://amp.news.com.au/world/europ...d/news-story/700298b36112f71b224ed4f973b3b026
Jesus H Christ! What happened to our self preservation instincts in the west?
 
Jesus H Christ! What happened to our self preservation instincts in the west?

But wait, there's more!

Just 1 in 10 British Jihadis Returning From Syria and Iraq Have Been Prosecuted
By Larisa Brown | June 13, 2018

GettyImages-455949730-700x420.jpg


Only 40 of the 400 British jihadis who fought in Syria and Iraq have been prosecuted on their return home.

At least 360 battle-hardened fanatics are being allowed to go free because there is too little evidence to convict them.

The figures, disclosed by security minister Ben Wallace, will raise concerns over whether the authorities can keep track of all the dangerous extremists on our streets.

Police chiefs have repeatedly warned of the severity of the terror threat facing Britain – particularly from those who have been radicalised by fighting abroad.



John Woodcock, the Labour MP who had pressed for the release of the figures, said: ‘It’s no wonder the Government tried to keep secret that it has only managed to prosecute one in ten of the British jihadis returning from Syria.

‘It is an affront to our country that the difficulty of amassing admissible evidence means there is no comeuppance for people who went to aid an evil regime that wanted to slaughter British civilians.’

He said it should be made illegal to travel to terror hotspots without good excuse. This would mean evidence would not have to be produced to prosecute suspected fanatics.

The last time the Home Office revealed the number of returning foreign fighters taken to court was in 2016. Then it stood at 14. Speaking in a Commons debate on Monday, Mr Wallace said: ‘Approximately 40 have been prosecuted so far – either because of direct action they have carried out in Syria or, subsequent to coming back, linked to that foreign fighting.’

The 40 figure refers to successful prosecutions. More will have faced charges that did not stick.

Mr Woodcock, a member of the Home Affairs select committee, said the low prosecution rate showed ‘how urgently we need to toughen our terror laws’.

He cited Australia’s declared areas offence, under which its citizens risk ten years in jail for travelling to Iraq or Syria.

Home Secretary Sajid Javid said he would be ‘looking at just that’, adding: ‘There’s a bit more work to do on it, it’s not as straightforward as it might sound.’

‘The honourable gentleman mentions the Australian extraterritorial offence that has been created, and I am looking at just that. If it is to become a legislative proposal, I obviously want to make sure that we have considered it properly.’

Around 850 Britons are believed to have travelled to Syria or Iraq and at least 15 per cent of them are thought to be dead.

Security service chiefs and counter-terrorism officers fear those still there might try to return to the UK as the so-called caliphate is wiped out.

Several have also been detained in the region and their fate remains uncertain. They include Alexanda Kotey and El Shafee Elsheikh, suspected members of the group nicknamed ‘The Beatles’, which murdered British and American hostages as well as Syrian soldiers.

Ministers are yet to agree on what to do with captured foreign fighters. If they are brought back to face trial there is a risk that there will not be enough evidence to convict them.

The low figure of those prosecuted when they return demonstrates the scale of the challenge facing the Government.

Ex-jihadi gets handed job and a flat

A jihadi returned from fighting on the frontline in Syria to take up a job as a food delivery driver in London.

The only sanction the 34-year-old faced was the cancellation of his British passport, ensuring he can now never leave.

4D2B0C4400000578-5836841-Despite_once_being_a_right_hand_man_of_hate_preacher_Anjem_Choud-a-1_1528840971661.jpg


Despite once being a right-hand man of hate preacher Anjem Choudary he was not put on trial

Despite once being a right-hand man of hate preacher Anjem Choudary he was not put on trial. Instead the man, who can be identified only by his pseudonym Abu Rayah, was given a council flat in east London.

He took up a job working as a driver for a restaurant, delivering takeaways to the homes of customers via food app Just Eat.

Rayah, who once worked for the NHS, travelled to Turkey in February 2014 under the guise of a two-week family holiday.

From there, he entered Syria for up to four months to engage in terrorism-related activity, probably including warfare.

 
No Germans were way worse. Liquidated whole towns, races, and responsible for 80-100 million who died in WW2. ISIS is small potatoes.

Anyway they can be rehabilitated too like Germans were. Like I said we need a Marshall plan, plurality and justice or this back and forth in Iraq will continue forever in response to injustice.

All these Extrajudicial killings and Kangaroo courts they are doing in Iraq right now is just setting up ISIS part 2.

comparing the nazis and IS is a little dishonest imho. the reason is mainly because the nazis were a short lived ideology whereas IS are actually following a correct form or perhaps interpretation of islam.

some say ww1 and ww2 were just extensions of the franco prussian war.
 
anyway these IS fighters are given leniency so they can carry out atracks and render the left defunct.
 
Grandstanding in the Commons over the ISIS Beatles
By Quentin Letts | 24 July 2018

4E8737AA00000578-5984597-Labour_s_Hilary_Benn_pictured_in_the_House_of_Commons_yesterday_-a-6_1532419043947.jpg

Labour’s Hilary Benn (pictured in the House of Commons yesterday) claimed that ‘we have to show we are better’ than Islamic State in our morals


Should we tell the Americans what we know about two deadly fighters for Islamic State? Or should the ‘principle’ (as some of the House’s more daintily cerebral MPs called it yesterday) of opposing the death penalty oblige us to withdraw such cooperation from our United States allies?

Sajid Javid, new Home Secretary, has chosen to help the US build a case against Alexanda Kotey and Shafee Elsheikh, two thugs who were part of an Islamic State execution squad.

It is said they sawed off their victims’ heads with serrated knives. They have not yet been tried for the crimes that have attracted such global horror.

It was ‘abhorrent and shameful’ to help the Americans, said Miss Abbott. Consistency demanded that we were either opposed to the death penalty in totality or not at all.

Dominic Grieve (Con, Beaconsfield) seemed to agree with her. Mr Javid’s decision represented ‘a major departure from normal policy’, he intoned in that punctilious, metallic voice.

4E8737AF00000578-5984597-image-a-8_1532419064618.jpg

Diane Abbott, Labour’s home affairs spokesman, yesterday led criticisms of Sajid Javid


Where was the precedent for the decision? They love a precedent, do lawyers. ‘This issue is going to haunt the Government,’ predicted scrivener Grieve.That may depend on what the public thinks of the matter. If voters think Mr Javid was quite right to help the US chase two unusually horrid men, this could help the Government.

Any suggestion that Mr Grieve and other prominent Europhiles were driven by lower motives – eg distaste for Americans, who are so much more vulgar than Europeans – would be most improper, I am sure.

But it was striking that among those attacking the Javid decision was Labour’s Hilary Benn, pro-Brussels chairman of the Brexit select committee. He claimed that ‘we have to show we are better’ than Islamic State in our morals, and should therefore have nothing to do with capital punishment.’

With the Cabinet in Gateshead on a meaningless stunt, Mr Javid was not present to defend himself. That job therefore fell to Ben Wallace, security minister.

Mr Wallace is an ex-Army officer and a solid, unlawyerly figure at the despatch box. There is no tang of political sneakiness about him. Can we say the same about Mr Javid? I hope so but I am not yet entirely sure.

Mr Wallace listened with mounting impatience to the likes of Yvette Cooper (Lab, Normanton, Pontefract & Castleford), Andrew Mitchell (Con, Sutton Coldfield) and the SNP’s unrivalled Joanna Cherry – unrivalled, that is, for the sort of verbose pomposity that can make you a fortune as a barrister.

‘Principles mean nothing to the Government any more,’ claimed Ms Cherry, swallowing her chin like an amphibian ingesting a delicious, fat bluebottle.

When Mr Benn made his virtuous little sally, Mr Wallace’s patience snapped and he said he was not prepared to take lectures from a man who supported New Labour when it was helping countries to torture people. Benn didn’t like that. Smarted like a spanked bottom. Tom Tugendhat (Con, Tonbridge & Malling), wet as washed lettuce, said the Islamic State duo had ‘undermined community cohesion’.

Is that worse than chopping off innocents’ heads? Support for Mr Javid’s decision came from former defence secretary Michael Fallon and a few others. Jack Lopresti (Con, Filton & Bradley Stoke) said we needed to stay as close as possible to the United States for strategic reasons.

Kwasi Kwarteng (Con, Spelthorne) thought it ‘essential’ to bring these men to justice’. And Andrew Percy (Con, Brigg & Goole) erupted in a snorting, straight-talking contribution which attacked the ‘unrepresentative grandstanding’ of the likes of Abbott and Grieve and Benn and Cooper. It was, said Mr Percy, quite right to help the prosecution of ‘these murderous, terrorist scum’.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...tches-grandstanding-Commons-ISIS-Beatles.html
 
Thread Index:

The captured ISIS fighters that nobody wants

Analysis by Nick Paton Walsh, CNN | February 13, 2018


Thread Index:

The captured ISIS fighters that nobody wants

Analysis by Nick Paton Walsh, CNN | February 13, 2018



The final stages of the anti-ISIS battle swept up a large number of ISIS fighters, including many foreigners. Some may have been allowed to leave Raqqa, the so-called capital of the caliphate, in the final deal agreed between the Syrian Kurds and ISIS to reduce civilian casualties, under which dozens of ISIS fighters, foreign and Syrian, fled with civilians into the desert.

Other ISIS fighters have been on the run longer. Some are unknown players, but some are also noted criminals, like the so-called "Beatles" -- British ISIS fighters who taunted western audiences as they tortured and executed bound, unarmed hostages kneeling before them.

Notably, five days after their capture, the UK has made no public statement about what it wants to do with the two surviving "Beatles," named by US intelligence sources as El Shafee Elsheikh and Alexanda Kotey. There is clearly a reluctance to put them on public trial in the UK. Perhaps it is out of a fear that it would give them a platform for their extremist beliefs. But there is also a risk of failure -- it may be hard to gather convincing evidence of crimes committed in a far away land. The remains of many victims have yet to be located.

There is one possible solution. When US forces detain someone on the anti-ISIS battlefield, they sometimes hand them over to Iraqi security forces. Iraq is the only functional state where ISIS has territory, and with which the US has a diplomatic relationship. They have also been trying those ISIS fighters caught in their territory quickly and putting many on death row. Many detainees may have been to Iraq as well as Syria, perhaps putting their conduct under Iraqi jurisdiction.

In the meantime, the legal complications are mounting -- as is the number of detainees -- in a detention facility that's far from ideal. It is extraordinary that after nearly 17 years since the September 11 attacks, and after four years combating ISIS at home and abroad, Europe's capitals still stumble when working out what to do with this latest variation of defeated extremist.



Let me get this straight: Politicians in liberal Europe refuses to strip Citizenship from their own terrorists who fought for ISIS, yet don't want anything to do with the aforementioned Citizens after they're captured? o_O

I better not see any fake outrage from those countries when their home-grown jihadists start swinging from the ropes, after they refused to do anything about it. :rolleyes:


Update: What the fuck?! o_O



Britain isn't confident that their justice system is robust enough to deal with with own British-born terrorist, and now they want to give us instruction on how to do the job? o_O



The final stages of the anti-ISIS battle swept up a large number of ISIS fighters, including many foreigners. Some may have been allowed to leave Raqqa, the so-called capital of the caliphate, in the final deal agreed between the Syrian Kurds and ISIS to reduce civilian casualties, under which dozens of ISIS fighters, foreign and Syrian, fled with civilians into the desert.

Other ISIS fighters have been on the run longer. Some are unknown players, but some are also noted criminals, like the so-called "Beatles" -- British ISIS fighters who taunted western audiences as they tortured and executed bound, unarmed hostages kneeling before them.

Notably, five days after their capture, the UK has made no public statement about what it wants to do with the two surviving "Beatles," named by US intelligence sources as El Shafee Elsheikh and Alexanda Kotey. There is clearly a reluctance to put them on public trial in the UK. Perhaps it is out of a fear that it would give them a platform for their extremist beliefs. But there is also a risk of failure -- it may be hard to gather convincing evidence of crimes committed in a far away land. The remains of many victims have yet to be located.

There is one possible solution. When US forces detain someone on the anti-ISIS battlefield, they sometimes hand them over to Iraqi security forces. Iraq is the only functional state where ISIS has territory, and with which the US has a diplomatic relationship. They have also been trying those ISIS fighters caught in their territory quickly and putting many on death row. Many detainees may have been to Iraq as well as Syria, perhaps putting their conduct under Iraqi jurisdiction.

In the meantime, the legal complications are mounting -- as is the number of detainees -- in a detention facility that's far from ideal. It is extraordinary that after nearly 17 years since the September 11 attacks, and after four years combating ISIS at home and abroad, Europe's capitals still stumble when working out what to do with this latest variation of defeated extremist.



Let me get this straight: Politicians in liberal Europe refuses to strip Citizenship from their own terrorists who fought for ISIS, yet don't want anything to do with the aforementioned Citizens after they're captured? o_O

I better not see any fake outrage from those countries when their home-grown jihadists start swinging from the ropes, after they refused to do anything about it. :rolleyes:


Update: What the fuck?! o_O



Britain isn't confident that their justice system is robust enough to deal with with own British-born terrorist, and now they want to give us instruction on how to do the job? o_O



The Stalinist left in the UK has turned this once great nation into a giant hell hole. They are a broken down nation and are beyond pathetic. They are not an ally to us anymore but a puppet state of the NEW Stalinist World Order
 
Back
Top