Daily Mail: UK won't block death penalty for IS 'Beatles'

[najaB]

I've only seen this report in The Mail (via the MS News App):

Britain has scrapped its opposition to the death penalty and torture camp Guantanamo Bay, it was reported last night.

It has been revealed the UK government have agreed to share information on the so-called Beatles jihadists with America so they can be prosecuted under their laws, according to the Daily Telegraph.
Alexanda Kotey and Shafee El-Sheikh have British citizenship but will be tried in the US courts for their part in Isis activities amid concern the UK lacks robust terrorism laws.

Sajid Javid, the Home Secretary, wrote in a letter to the American Attorney General Jeff Sessions that Britain will not need ‘assurances’ that the pair will avoid the death penalty, the Telegraph reported.
The terrorist group was behind the murder US journalists James Foley and Steven Sotloff, British aid workers David Haines and Alan Henning and aid worker and Iraq war veteran Peter Kassig.

I don't know how comfortable I am with the idea of the Home Office saying that UK citizens can be executed abroad, but at the same time the Foreign Office criticises governments for human rights abuses (other than the US, of course). Is this another sign of our lowering our standards to cozy up to the US since we (as a country) decided we don't want to be European?

Edit: Figured out how to get a link: https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/ukne...r-of-two-brits-and-three-americans/ar-BBKXS49

 

[The_Train]

I've only seen this report in The Mail (via the MS News App):I don't know how comfortable I am with the idea of the Home Office saying that UK citizens can be executed abroad, but at the same time the Foreign Office criticises governments for human rights abuses (other than the US, of course). Is this another sign of our lowering our standards to cozy up to the US since we (as a country) decided we don't want to be European?

I don't agree with the death penalty but if they have committed offences against the US and are being tried under their laws then who are we to say what the sentence should be?

 

[Bletchleyite]

I don't agree with the death penalty but if they have committed offences against the US and are being tried under their laws then who are we to say what the sentence should be?

Are we extraditing them? The controversy is often about whether we should do that or whether we should instead try them under UK law.

 

[najaB]

I don't agree with the death penalty but if they have committed offences against the US and are being tried under their laws then who are we to say what the sentence should be?

I agree that the US has the right to sentence them according to their laws by at least we normally at least go the motions of raising objections. If the Government is truly okay with their being executed then we should be doing it here rather than outsourcing it to the Americans.

 

[najaB]

Are we extraditing them?

The article doesn't make it clear where they're being held, but it does talk about sending them to Guantanamo Bay v returning them to the UK so I'm guessing they are still in region.

 

[AlterEgo]

I agree that the US has the right to sentence them according to their laws by at least we normally at least go the motions of raising objections. If the Government is truly okay with their being executed then we should be doing it here rather than outsourcing it to the Americans.

Agreed. This is definitely a deviation from the normal protocol when British citizens are sentenced to death in any jurisdiction.

 

[DarloRich]

I am a terrible pinko liberal snowflake social justice warrior ( apparently) but I am more than happy for someone to put them against the wall and shoot them. After we have extracted every drop of information for these traitorous terrorists. If they get roughed up in the extraction process then good.

EDIT - i will also add i do not consider them British citizens any longer. They forfeited any rights when they went off to fight for a despotic islamofacist nut job regime.

 

[The_Train]

Are we extraditing them? The controversy is often about whether we should do that or whether we should instead try them under UK law.

It doesn't really give any indication in the article. I can understand agreements being made when it comes to extradition as it is 2 countries working together to bring a criminal to justice. That said, it's still the same in the end in that if a criminal has committed offences against a country and is being tried in that country then the outcome should be based on their laws and system and not influenced by other nations.

 

[The_Train]

I agree that the US has the right to sentence them according to their laws by at least we normally at least go the motions of raising objections. If the Government is truly okay with their being executed then we should be doing it here rather than outsourcing it to the Americans.

I agree with your opening sentence and with your opening point (in your 1st post) regarding us cuddling up to America because everything to do with Brexit is falling apart.

Who actually made the arrests and took them into custody, just out of interest?

 

[AlterEgo]

I agree with your opening sentence and with your opening point (in your 1st post) regarding us cuddling up to America because everything to do with Brexit is falling apart.

Who actually made the arrests and took them into custody, just out of interest?

The Syrian Kurds arrested Jihadi John, I know that much. I'm surprised they took him alive, but I expect there was a "significant incentive" offered by the USA - and possibly the UK too - to do so.

Much as I'd love the opportunity to see Jihadi John burn in a cage while the band of the Grenadier Guards play jolly show tunes as part of the half time entertainment at this year's Community Shield... the reason Western culture and society is frankly superior to much of the developing world is our adherence to the rule of law. I consider the rule of law the cornerstone of civilised society.

 

[DarloRich]

the reason Western culture and society is frankly superior to much of the developing world is our adherence to the rule of law. I consider the rule of law the cornerstone of civilised society.

taking that point as more sensible than mine: If due process is followed in a country with the death penalty and the UK do not seek to extradite the accused has the rule of law been satisfied?

 

[Up_Tilt_390]

In my personal opinion, anyone who breaks the law of another country should be tried under their justice system so long as it’s a fair trial. In this case, despite myself being against the death penalty for most cases, I respect the right of another nation to sentence terrorists to the chair or firing squad etc., and for the US I imagine it would be mostly fair trial (though I have lost a bit of confidence in the nation lately).

But in regard to your other point here

I don't know how comfortable I am with the idea of the Home Office saying that UK citizens can be executed abroad, but at the same time the Foreign Office criticises governments for human rights abuses (other than the US, of course).

This is the case for a lot of international affairs. If we don’t like a country we will condemn them for human rights abuse, but at worst we shall offer words to our allies for the same things. Case in point: Saudi Arabia and Iran. We don’t like the latter as much, so we (or at least the US) will condemn them for rights abuse, but the Saudis are fine because they’re our middle eastern chums, even for the same offences.

 

[ainsworth74]

If due process is followed in a country with the death penalty and the UK do not seek to extradite the accused has the rule of law been satisfied?

Yes (and I will lose no sleep over the matter if they are executed) I think that the rule of law would be satisfied but I can't help but agree with those that say that I'd expect that the UK Government would, at least, go through the motions of objecting to the death penalty even if no-one is particularly bothered by the idea because in this country we do not have the death penalty and they are, whether we like it or not, still British citizens.

That being said when it comes to these sorts of terrorists (and I include those of the right wing/nationalist bent not just Islamic) I can't help but feel that we would be far better served by giving them life imprisonment in a small concrete cell. Execution almost feels like an easy way out for them and carries the attendant risks of martyrdom.

 

[najaB]

I can't help but feel that we would be far better served by giving them life imprisonment in a small concrete cell. Execution almost feels like an easy way out for them and carries the attendant risks of martyrdom.

I agree with this.

 

[DarloRich]

In my personal opinion, anyone who breaks the law of another country should be tried under their justice system so long as it’s a fair trial. In this case, despite myself being against the death penalty for most cases, I respect the right of another nation to sentence terrorists to the chair or firing squad etc., and for the US I imagine it would be mostly fair trial (though I have lost a bit of confidence in the nation lately).

but the UK government would often seek to have the convicted transferred to a UK prison to serve their sentence. Should they not do the same here?

That being said when it comes to these sorts of terrorists (and I include those of the right wing/nationalist bent not just Islamic) I can't help but feel that we would be far better served by giving them life imprisonment in a small concrete cell. Execution almost feels like an easy way out for them and carries the attendant risks of martyrdom.

I think, generally, I agree but oddly I have no problem with these morons being topped. That seems a bit contradictory.

 

[Warwick]

The Syrian Kurds arrested Jihadi John, I know that much. I'm surprised they took him alive, but I expect there was a "significant incentive" offered by the USA - and possibly the UK too - to do so.

Much as I'd love the opportunity to see Jihadi John burn in a cage while the band of the Grenadier Guards play jolly show tunes as part of the half time entertainment at this year's Community Shield... the reason Western culture and society is frankly superior to much of the developing world is our adherence to the rule of law. I consider the rule of law the cornerstone of civilised society.

People who seek to inflict harm on others, people who seek to cause harm to otherwise innocents, people who seek to cause harm to inhabitants of a country that has given them shelter and succour have stepped outside of civilised society.
They should be put up against a wall and shot.

 

[AlterEgo]

People who seek to inflict harm on others, people who seek to cause harm to otherwise innocents, people who seek to cause harm to inhabitants of a country that has given them shelter and succour have stepped outside of civilised society.

They should be put up against a wall and shot.

They should, if that is the law. But it is not, at least here.

 

[Up_Tilt_390]

Execution almost feels like an easy way out for them and carries the attendant risks of martyrdom.

This is a very good point actually. Some terrorists think that they're doing a service to their cause dying afterwards, thus making themselves a martyr, so the death penalty is not only giving them a way out, but it's even giving them a victory in some respect.

but the UK government would often seek to have the convicted transferred to a UK prison to serve their sentence. Should they not do the same here?

That's a pretty interesting question actually, but I'm not sure I think the UK government should ask foreign countries to transfer their inmates to the UK to serve their sentence, but then having said that, maybe the lives or well being of either the convicted inmate or fellow convicts could be at stake, or in fact if we believe there is an unjust cause, then it may be a reasonable discussion. I mean if there is no fair trial under the justice system of another nation then I wouldn't object to intervention. I think it's still reasonable to believe one should be tried under the justice system of a country whose law they broke unless their or someone else's well being is at stake and/or there is an unjust cause or unfair trial. But then I also appreciate the question even because it does get you thinking about these kind of things as well...

 

[Drogba11CFC]

Oh dear, how sad, never mind.

 

[Smethwickian]

Bit puzzled because the initial report quoted in the first post of the thread says the pair are British citizens (which thus leads to the train of thought that they could be tried in the UK or that the UK ought to object to their extradition to possible capital punishment) - but the BBC maintains (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-44925638 and a previous report linked therefrom) that they have been stripped of British citizenship (which means the UK can say ''nowt to do with us what happens to them, guvnor"). Anyone know which is correct?

 

[najaB]

...but the BBC maintains (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-44925638 and a previous report linked therefrom) that they have been stripped of British citizenship (which means the UK can say ''nowt to do with us what happens to them, guvnor"). Anyone know which is correct?

I'm not aware that there is actually a process for stripping a born Brit of his/her citizenship. Can anyone confirm?

 

[AlterEgo]

I'm not aware that there is actually a process for stripping a born Brit of his/her citizenship. Can anyone confirm?

Looks like the Times reported this months ago... I expect there is no process other than the Secretary of State on behalf of the Queen declaring someone no longer a citizen.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/two-isis-beatles-are-stripped-of-british-citizenship-7q8f633ks

Britain has stripped two Islamic State hostage-killers from London of their British citizenship and is not expected to try to bring them to the UK to stand trial, The Times understands.

Alexanda Kotey and El Shafee Elshiekh, the two remaining members of a notorious Isis cell nicknamed “the Beatles” who were captured in Syria last month, lost their right to a UK passport in the wake of a series of hostage executions in Syria that began in 2014.

The highly unusual step was taken by the Home Office.

 

[najaB]

Looks like the Times reported this months ago... I expect there is no process other than the Secretary of State on behalf of the Queen declaring someone no longer a citizen.

Does that apply to born-Brits though? I know Wikipedia isn't a primary source, but it says that this process only applies to people who hold dual citizenship.

 

[AlterEgo]

Does that apply to born-Brits though? I know Wikipedia isn't a primary source, but it says that this process only applies to people who hold dual citizenship.

Various papers claim these people are now stateless upon the declaration of the Home Office. I honestly don’t know even if there is a process at all.

 

[Ianno87]

Various papers claim these people are now stateless upon the declaration of the Home Office. I honestly don’t know even if there is a process at all.

I thought it was against some convention or other (Geneva?) to make anybody stateless.

 

[Mag_seven]

Various papers claim these people are now stateless upon the declaration of the Home Office. I honestly don’t know even if there is a process at all.

I was thinking it was odd to strip someone of their citizenship if they don't have another one to fall back on. And under what law was this done?

 

[whhistle]

... since we (as a country) decided we don't want to be European?

*yawn*
We're leaving a union of different countries together in some sort of club.
We're not leaving Europe.
Stop trying to blame everything that happens on a referendum that didn't end in the result you voted for.

In my personal opinion, anyone who breaks the law of another country should be tried under their justice system so long as it’s a fair trial.

And this is why I'll probably never visit Dubai.
So many laws that would seem stupid here in the UK - I'd rather not get tried with their system and miss out on a stupidly hot country.
Besides, many other places on my list before that area of the world anyway!

 

[AlterEgo]

I thought it was against some convention or other (Geneva?) to make anybody stateless.

So did I, and a couple of articles said the UK has drawn ire for doing this in the past.

 

[najaB]

Stop trying to blame everything that happens on a referendum that didn't end in the result you voted for.

A large part of the reason that many people voted to leave was the belief that the ECHR had too much sway over the UK. That the USA has lower standards of Human Rights protections than the majority of Western European countries. Which of these two statements is incorrect?

 

[whhistle]

A large part of the reason that many people voted to leave was the belief that the ECHR had too much sway over the UK. That the USA has lower standards of Human Rights protections than the majority of Western European countries.

I'd suggest a large part of the reason people wanted to leave is because they didn't want the EU to tell us what we could and couldn't do, or how to run our own courts.
Just because we're leaving, it doesn't mean we'll ignore any new rights or laws that come in for Europe, under the Union. As I understood it, we'll look at them and decide if they're good for our country or not, instead of being forced to accept them no matter what.
Sorry, that's all I'll say on the subject.