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

[najaB]

...or how to run our own courts.

Which was never an EU power. EHCR ≠ EU.

 

[Bromley boy]

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?

I don’t think that’s true, I think (hope!) most voters are aware the ECHR isn’t anything to do with EU membership.

Personally I don’t see the ECHR is particularly beneficial or necessary and would be happy to leave it. Why can’t we simply decide on our own human rights (or equivalently named) law?

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.

I’m sure you’re right.

I can’t help but think it would have been better if they’d been killed immediately upon capture to avoid exactly the situation that has now arisen.

 

[najaB]

I can’t help but think it would have been better if they’d been killed immediately upon capture to avoid exactly the situation that has now arisen.

Pretty much anything we do now will be problematic to say the least.

 

[NSEFAN]

They should be put up against a wall and shot.

With nutters like these two, I suspect that they would welcome death, as that would make them glorious martyrs for their warped ideology and "inspire" more followers to their cause. I'd argue it'd be a much better use of money to keep them locked up for the rest of their lives, making sure to keep them going as long as possible and deny them their martyrdom.

 

[Bromley boy]

Pretty much anything we do now will be problematic to say the least.

I probably agree that we have deviated from the rule of law somewhat, especially in stripping the UK born individual of citizenship (I note one of the two being held* was Sudanese born). I’m afraid I simply can’t bring myself to care, in the case of these creatures.

My favoured outcome would be similar to the Nuremberg trials post WW2: a trial followed by a swift and dignified execution (although preferably with less fanfare and publicity than Nuremberg). Not years spent languishing on death row which is what will probably end up happening.

*the third remaining beatle is currently serving time in Turkey for terrorism offences. I wonder what will happen when he is released - presumably the US will also want to put him on trial.

 

[ainsworth74]

Gentle reminder that this is not a Brexit thread. If you members wish to discuss issues relating to Brexit please do so on the existing thread.

Thanks,
ainsworth74

 

[AM9]

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

The UK has a recent history of outsourcing treatment of UK citizens arrested in the international arena. In the naughties there were cases of complicity with the US to torture captives of the US so called 'War on Terror'. British operatives were believed to offer to pay for the US to do the UK's dirty work. This constructed case for giving the US a free hand to execute where we cannot is just another step down a very dangerous path. It will be more difficult to engage on the international fight against terroism with ever decreasing moral standards in delivering justice.

 

[najaB]

It will be more difficult to engage on the international fight against terroism with ever decreasing moral standards in delivering justice.

What is it they say about the slippery slope being paved with good intentions?

 

[Bromley boy]

The UK has a recent history of outsourcing treatment of UK citizens arrested in the international arena. In the naughties there were cases of complicity with the US to torture captives of the US so called 'War on Terror'. British operatives were believed to offer to pay for the US to do the UK's dirty work. This constructed case for giving the US a free hand to execute where we cannot is just another step down a very dangerous path. It will be more difficult to engage on the international fight against terroism with ever decreasing moral standards in delivering justice.

What is it they say about the slippery slope being paved with good intentions?

On the other hand these individuals have turned their backs on the U.K., are no longer British citizens, and are not in British custody. The US wishes to try them under US law for crimes committed against American citizens (as I understand it).

It seems a bit much to expect that the U.K., despite itself not employing the death penalty, should be strongly opposed to this sentence being imposed on those being tried abroad. We are not being asked to extradite them, so it really has nothing to do with this country at all.

 

[AM9]

On the other hand these individuals have turned their backs on the U.K., are no longer British citizens, and are not in British custody. The US wishes to try them under US law for crimes committed against American citizens (as I understand it).

It seems a bit much to expect that the U.K., despite itself not employing the death penalty, should be strongly opposed to this sentence being imposed on those being tried abroad. We are not being asked to extradite them, so it really has nothing to do with this country at all.

Then why was the HOME secretary involved at all?

 

[najaB]

Then why was the HOME secretary involved at all?

Indeed. The mere fact that the Government said anything at all scuppers the notion that they aren't UK subjects any more.

 

[Bromley boy]

Then why was the HOME secretary involved at all?

Indeed. The mere fact that the Government said anything at all scuppers the notion that they aren't UK subjects any more.

I believe the Home Secretary’s involvement has been limited to giving assurances to the US that the U.K. will supply evidence to assist with a prosecution.

In the end, we are not talking about extradition and we are not talking about British citizens.

Clearly at some point their citizenship has been revoked by the U.K. government. That seems fair enough for the individual who was not British born, I’m not sure how it worked in the case of the other - that seems unprecedented (does anyone on here know?)

The usual hand wringers will clamour for human rights etc. I’m usually anti death penalty myself but, as far as I’m concerned, the sooner these two are strapped to a gurney and pumped full of lethal chemicals, the better (I know that is inconsistent, but I don’t care!).

As I said earlier, it would be far better all round if they’d been killed immediately upon capture.

 

[najaB]

I believe the Home Secretary’s involvement has been limited to giving assurances to the US that the U.K. will supply evidence to assist with a prosecution.

As per the initial post, the Home Secretary has said said that we won't seek assurances against the death penalty, nor object to their being sent to Gitmo as is the norm for cases involving British citizens.

 

[Bromley boy]

As per the initial post, the Home Secretary has said said that we won't seek assurances against the death penalty, nor object to their being sent to Gitmo as is the norm for cases involving British citizens.

But why would he seek such assurances when:

- they are no longer British citizens;

- they are not in U.K. custody and are not being extradited?

 

[najaB]

But why would he seek such assurances when:

- they are no longer British citizens;

- they are not in U.K. custody and are not being extradited?

So why say that he's not doing it, if it really wasn't necessary?

 

[Bromley boy]

So why say that he's not doing it, if it really wasn't necessary?

Perhaps simply to clarify the U.K. government’s position in an unprecedented case, concerning ex-U.K. citizens.

For that matter, does the UK government’s opposition to the death penalty being imposed on citizens* abroad have any basis in law? Isn’t it just a matter of policy?

*since the two in question aren’t U.K. citizens any longer, their former citizenship is irrelevant, anyhow.

 

[AM9]

... *since the two in question aren’t U.K. citizens any longer, their former citizenship is irrelevant, anyhow.

Unless (one of them) being illegally made statelessby the UK government is overruled by a higher court.

 

[AlterEgo]

Unless (one of them) being illegally made statelessby the UK government is overruled by a higher court.

A “higher court” cannot confer nationality nor can they overrule a decision by a state to revoke nationality.

These blokes are on their own.

 

[Bromley boy]

Unless (one of them) being illegally made statelessby the UK government is overruled by a higher court.

Which court are you suggesting, and on what basis have they been made “illegally stateless”?

 

[najaB]

Perhaps simply to clarify the U.K. government’s position in an unprecedented case, concerning ex-U.K. citizens.

But then the statement would have been something like "As the two persons are not UK citizens the UK has no further involvement with them."

 

[najaB]

Which court are you suggesting, and on what basis have they been made “illegally stateless”?

Because we signed the UN Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness.

Edit: And, of course, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

 

[Bromley boy]

But then the statement would have been something like "As the two persons are not UK citizens the UK has no further involvement with them."

The U.K. is going to be providing evidence to assist with the prosecution. Javid’s letter merely clarified that there would be no anti-death penalty assurances required as a quid pro quo.

I can’t see what is illegal or wrong with that.

 

[Bromley boy]

Because we signed the UN Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness.

Article 8 of which disapplies the convention in the case of certain criminal behaviours.

Edit: And, of course, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

But how does the human rights act apply to people who are:

- not U.K. citizens;
- not in U.K. custody;
- not subject to extradition proceedings?

 

[tony_mac]

But how does the human rights act apply to people who are:

- not U.K. citizens;
- not in U.K. custody;
- not subject to extradition proceedings?

"It is unlawful for a public authority to act in a way which is incompatible with a Convention right."
(i.e., it is not restricted just to legal proceedings.)

 

[Bromley boy]

"It is unlawful for a public authority to act in a way which is incompatible with a Convention right."
(i.e., it is not restricted just to legal proceedings.)

I’m not clear on exactly how that has happened in this case: what has been proposed is that the U.K. will provide evidence for a foreign prosecution of non U.K. citizens which *might* lead to the death penalty.

What’s the worst case scenario? A declaration of incompatibility?

EDIT: The HRA also only provides a remedy for cases brought in U.K. courts. Clearly this case is ultra vires (ie beyond the powers) of the U.K. legal system so I would suggest the HRA has no application in this situation.

 

[tony_mac]

EDIT: The HRA also only provides a remedy for cases brought in U.K. courts. Clearly this case is ultra vires (ie beyond the powers) of the U.K. legal system so I would suggest the HRA has no application.

I'm not sure what you mean - and I think you may have misunderstood something.
See, for example, https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2007/jun/13/iraq.iraq if that helps.

 

[Bromley boy]

I'm not sure what you mean - and I think you may have misunderstood something.
See, for example, https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2007/jun/13/iraq.iraq if that helps.

With respect I think you may have misunderstood. That case concerned an individual in U.K. custody (therefore within the jurisdiction of the U.K. judicial system).

The article states:

But the families of five other Iraqi civilians killed in different incidents in Basra, but who were not in detention, were told their cases were not covered by UK human rights law.

It also states:

Today's ruling means that anyone held in custody abroad by the British Army, will be protected by the Human Rights Act

In the case of the Beatles - they are neither U.K. citizens nor in U.K. custody. Therefore U.K. human rights legislation has no application to their case.

 

[Warwick]

Probably won't happen after the likes of bleeding heart liberals like Shami Chakrabati and her terrorist apologising chums get going.

Unless (one of them) being illegally made statelessby the UK government is overruled by a higher court.

No-one's been made stateless. They held dual nationality.

 

[tony_mac]

Perhaps I did misunderstand - can you explain what you meant by 'the HRA also only provides a remedy for cases brought in U.K. courts. Clearly this case is ultra vires (ie beyond the powers) of the U.K. legal system' ?
I thought maybe you were saying that the HRA could only be applied to cases where the original complaint had already been in the UK courts.
(Because, otherwise, I can't see how it can be clearly ultra vires, when we have no idea what actions the UK authorities may have taken).

 

[Bromley boy]

Perhaps I did misunderstand - can you explain what you meant by 'the HRA also only provides a remedy for cases brought in U.K. courts. Clearly this case is ultra vires (ie beyond the powers) of the U.K. legal system' ?
I thought maybe you were saying that the HRA could only be applied to cases where the original complaint had already been in the UK courts.

My understanding of the HRA is that it applies to the U.K. legal system, including those detained by the British armed forces.

It doesn’t apply in respect of non British aliens, held in one foreign country facing trial and (hopefully!) execution in another foreign country.

Probably won't happen after the likes of bleeding heart liberals like Shami Chakrabati and her terrorist apologising chums get going.

Luckily she’s shut up since Jezza shunted her into the Lords.