http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...reveals-foreign-secretary-philip-hammond.html This is interesting. I think that it's good as it will deter any wannabes and punish those that do come back. In two minds about the death penalty though.
Interesting, and very dodgy ground would Orwell have been tried for fighting in the Spanish Civil war? Should Gerry Adams be tried as a traitor? On the other hand it could mean Thatchers son gets hanged for his part in a coup. If a very left wing government got in could Israelis be tried for being conscripted to the IDF. Maybe it would act as a deterrent against some but be honest, if they are mad enough to want to fight for IS is this really going to stop them?. Personally I think that we have other laws they can be tried under, and apart from grandstanding, all this will do is give human rights lawyers a huge pay day.
I'm not a barrister so I can't tell you nor am I intimately familiar with the law regarding treason. Isn't he still serving time in EG? Could you elaborate that one for me? I think a lot of these IS types are actually quite stupid and I think some are maybe mulling it over here will think twice. And probably then not at all. Mind you I suppose they could always join the chav state Ok which laws do you think could be applicable?
They should be charged with treason. Obama, our President, believes that terrorists that leave to go fight against us, should be able to return. Even though on our passport it states that fighting against the US will revoke your citizenship. Why would Obama do such a dumb thing? Does he find it helpful to have terrorists come back to the US? I'm curious as to know this reasoning, and those that will blindly defend his decision.
Nope, he is a Barronette Sorry, I put that very poorly, I meant dual nationality British/Israelis who serve time in the IDF swear some sort of allegiance to Israel. A left wing pro Palestinian government could use the same argument against them. Its not the stupid ones we need to worry to much about. If that were my only options I might be tempted to join IS!(joke) Membership of a banned organisation, incitement to violence, war crimes to name but a few. Then there is the whole grey area of Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures.
My mistake. I was thinking of Simon Mann But I would imagine that it would be the responsibility of EG to charge Thatcher rather than the British government. No worries That's an interesting one as we don't swear allegiance from birth in the UK and as no Anglo-Israeli has committed treason against the state (at least to my knowledge) then there's nothing that can be done. If it's a breach of international law however it would still have to directed at an individual soldier rather than an organisation as a whole. Yes but it's those idiots that drive the IS tanks and blow themselves up. So I suppose they are the more potent ones Haha Doesn't that apply only to banned organisations in the UK rather than overseas? That might be the same problem again as I think it would have to apply to British legal jurisdiction. I think that the Hague is realistically the only legal institution that can do that and so far they've only issued a single arrest warrant. It certainly seems pretty grey.
Well that does sound like a conflict within the laws of the US but then again the IS have only threatened to attack the US. Unfortunately citizens in foreign territories aren't within the protection of their home nation in a both legal and physical context. And I don't really follow US politics that much except unless it relates to international events so I can't really comment about his reasoning.
Maybe, but I suspect this is more about appeasing the Daily Mail types as much as anything else (which worked). The UK seems to be moving in to a long old pre-election campaign season unfortunately. I don't think it is (certainly shouldn't be) a ministerial decision anyway. The CPS decide if and for what people are to be prosecuted. The death penalty is a historical irrelevance and the fact it was brought up strengthens my feeling that this is more about image than action.
The Spanish Republicans were not at war against the UK and the UK was neutral during said conflict. Sinn Fein is not a paramilitary organization it is a recognized political party and it is not at war with the United Kingdom though many Irish Republicans have indeed been tried for treason. How exactly is an alleged coup attempt in Equatorial Guinea an act of treason against the United Kingdom? Wasn't aware that Israel was at war with the United Kingdom. You are presenting many false analogies, ISIS is in a self declared war against the United Kingdom and the United States.
I've never really liked it. It's merely a right wing analogue of the guardian. I don't think that any minister has actually discussed prosecuting IS members by authority of their ministry. Maybe in the way it's portrayed in the DM but it is a relevant issue as there is a possibility that British IS members may come back to cause harm to the public and of course if they've fought British forces then the issue of treason is certainly worth investigating.
I thought the article was suggesting that the swearing of an oath of allegiance to another country, having now read the Treason Act that is not the case, and I agree with you. It does not have to be a military action, just an intention to act against the monarch. Certainly Adams collusion with the IRA would have been enough for an accusation of treason. The last Irish Republican tried for treason was Roger Casement in 1917 IIRC Just wishful thinking. As I said I was looking at the swearing of an oath part. .[/QUOTE] No, everything I wrote was phrased as a question based on the article, I wouldn't of asked the question if I knew the answer. Having read what is considered treason, it is all based around acts against the monarch, rather than the state. I am aware the Monarch was once the state, but the British are now citizens rather than subjects according to my passport. So as I said it is pretty dodgy ground. But I think this is just grandstanding there will not be any trials for treason.
Does that apply only if a US citizen is fighting directly against America, or does it include American 'interests'?
So, as ISIS, for example, are not fighting directly against the United States where does that leave Obama's pronouncement? Seems he's following the law.
Lol! He's not "following the law". He's just border-line not breaking it. But that doesn't go back to my original point. Why would he not do what's BEST for America, and NOT allow terrorists back in??? It wouldn't be illegal to do that, as they are considered enemy combatants by law...
I have no problem with that at all, but unless the law specifically states that anyone holding US citizenship being involved in fighting against US interests, as opposed to being involved in direct military action against America per se, is thus not entitled to US citizenship, then surely there's an issue to be resolved if Obama arbitrarily tries to revoke their citizenship?
Let me ask you something. When President Bush signed the Patriot act, did you agree with it? If you say "no", then you will be the biggest hypocrite.
Of course not as much of it was deemed unconstitutional. It remains a controversial piece of legislation.
Whoever resorts to terrorist actions against the civilian population in order to achieve their political goals is called a terrorist. Is that difficult to grasp a simple concept? Anyway British born terrorists must be tried for treason. Could is just too soft.
the courts can make up any law they want and have it passed in a majority saxon parliament. they could outlaw pommegranites because they fund Islam and we would all be criminals for eating them. if they charge muslims with treason they should also charge saxon mercenaries fighting for terrorists like the kurds.
The people who joined the IS already are lost once and for all. Its about the others who are thinking about to join them. Attempted by the thrill they seek to rape women until they are dead or to burn POWs in cages for their fun. They know now, even if they manage to escape Assads revenge, even if they manage to escape the death row in the US, even if they make their way back life long prison is all they can win anymore. So its not useless.
People that pledge allegiance to terrorist organizations have, in my opinion, given up their allegiance to the US and should no longer be considered US citizens. If England is smart it will do that as well. Why waste prison space?
