Deleted
Deleted
Yes fuck you too. Just because you can destroy proof and witnesses does not make the presumption of innocence any more true. And we as a collective are going to be guilty of letting the criminals get away with it. The European legal system is not going to be able to cope with this. And that is not my personal opinion but the opinion of specialists in the field and recently even the Swedish government.Quote:
Originally Posted by Timbuk2
Thousands upon thousands of people were slaughtered right under your sanctimonious noses and all you have to offer is defending the rights of the people who did the slaughtering to the point that they probably won't even be prosecuted, let alone get punishment for their deeds.
Ah, Erdogan, still going at it?
You do realize that we created those things like "in dubio pro reo" not because they're so convenient but because we have experienced time and again and again and again how easily the opposite will slide into tyranny?
Yes, it's incovenient. Yes, it's messy. But doing away with it means that essentially the opposite side just won. Because we have become them.
I'd also like to point out once again that doing this kind of thing does not serve any meaningful purpose as towards deterrence. It merely satisfies your need for vengeance - which is usually a very bad idea. There's a reason why every legal system established a neutral 3rd party as the arbitrators of justice.
And not someone like you.
I'd also like to point out that history has plenty of examples of "people getting away with it". I only need to look at the history of my own country and see the percentage of actually convicted Nazis versus the actual number of members. That was the Allies letting quite a number of people getting away with it.
Yeah whatever, enjoy your complicity in murder, rape and theft. In my eyes that is not just messy and inconvenient. It is morally corrupt.
And without doubt it will show to the people of the world that for the Western world brown lives don't matter.
Hazir's now arguing against the rule of law and innocent until proven guilty in his quest to bring to justice the real architects of IS atrocities: teenage girls.
It's a bold strategy, lets see if it pays off for him.
As I can ask you how well your blind believe in a system that has no eye for the rights of the victims pays off.
Late arrival :noob: Hazir, you made statements about citizenship and post WWII human rights that sounded extreme/radical. Please clarify....
Tragic twist as the child has died. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-47506145
People blaming the British decision for the child death. That's petty politics, responsibility for all the deaths lie with IS and the monsters who chose to create this situation with them. Including the mother. The death of an innocent baby is tragic but it's one of many, many preventable deaths that the actions of Shamima and those like her deliberately caused.
If you wanna let me know how the victims are served by stripping a teenage girl of her citizenship on the off chance that she may have been involved in ISIS atrocities rather than returning her to the UK, putting her on trial and then punishing her in a lawful manner for any crimes that she can be proven to have actually committed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hazir
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hazir
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hazir
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hazir
By your reasoning, most politicians and ordinary citizens of several western countries and their allies should all be in prison or executed. Yes, Hazir, you are an extremist--and not even a particularly compelling one. You refer to the Swedish govt and to unnamed "specialists in the field", but what you neglect to mention is that practically no-one is calling for the abolition of modern human rights law. The Swedish govt. has followed the example of other govts in essentially making it illegal to join terrorist organizations or give them material support. That is how you tackle the problem like a sane adult rather than like an extremist baby.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hazir
No, that is nonsensical. It was within the British govt's power--and, arguably, also its responsibility--to bring the child back to ensure it was well taken care of, and it chose not to do so. Consequently, it shares part of the blame, and your lame pound shop SHS performance doesn't change that. You know this as well, which is why you posted your inane preemptive defense in the first place. Quite pathetic.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
She should be put on trial where she committed her crimes. In Syria. She should face the appropriate justice they dish out.Quote:
Originally Posted by Steely Glint
Should the British have separated child from mother by force?Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
The British govt. has a long history of separating children from their parents by force when it believes that to be in the best interests of the child. However, the question is stupid. Alternatives to separating the child from the mother by force are to bring both the child and the mother to the UK, and to provide adequate care on-site.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
Yes Local Authorities do that. Which Local Authority was this babe under the authority of?Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
I didn't realise our government did this in extraterritorial jurisdictions as you're implying. If you can give examples of extraterritorial separation of parent from child I'd be curious to see examples.
I'm not so much against protecting from unwarranted use of state power. But those protections are slowly turning into an excuse for not acting at all against the guilty. My opponents accuse me of extremism, which I accept. What I don't accept though is their sanctimonious claims of being on the side of justice. What they adhere to is dead legalism that barely has a shred of justice left in it.Quote:
Originally Posted by GGT
Deleted
This is a red herring. You implied that there might be something questionable about separating a child from its mother, but there isn't, not in principle. International law permits a state to seek the help of another state or comparable authority in trying to ensure the welfare of a child, but that is irrelevant to this case, because, again, the UK was within its power to ensure the well-being of the child on-site or relocate both child and mother to the UK. There were several options available to the UK, and it chose to do nothing, making the UK complicit in the child's death.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
This is of course a load of horseshit, because British law allows the UK to sentence this woman to prison, even without evidence of direct complicity in murders or other atrocities, for the crime of joining and supporting a terrorist organization. Like all extremists, you take a simplistic black-and-white either/or view of the world and of the law, a view that is simply false.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hazir
The unwillingness to punish this perpetrator of war crimes is just a single example of how we are going to deal with these people as they return to Europe. None of them is going to be held accountable for their crimes becuase they destroyed all proof, killed all witnesses and because they magically all just were engaged in housekeeping and menial jobs in the Caliphate. The West was willing enough to throw bombs over Syria and Iraq, but now that they rightfully are asked to take action against their own citizens in their own countries, they suddenly hide behind legalistic arguments in order to wash their hands of the problem.Quote:
Originally Posted by Steely Glint
There are no innocents amongst them, they are guilty and we know it .
Being punished for going to Syria isn't enough if they, while they were there, committed murders, raped, oppressed locals and exploited slaves (sxex-slaves) in their houses. You know full well that most of them will get away with that because we insist on their presumed innocence even though we know they are NOT innocent., despite the fact that we can't gather evidence against them. As a Swedish citizen you must be aware that your government has under the standing rules NOTHING to hold against these people. The murderers, rapists and thieves that return from Syria to Sweden will be able to pick up their old lives and live amongst you as if they were on nothing more than an over-long gap year.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
Returning ISIS fighters or those suspected of being returning ISIS members are subject to surveillance by the Swedish security service from the moment they return to Sweden, because they constitute a security risk. Those who commit further crimes have a higher risk of getting caught and being jailed. Those few for which we have clear evidence of criminal activity are prosecuted under the applicable laws, eg. those who have been tried for murder during their time with ISIS.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hazir
Sweden's difficulties with trying ISIS members do not stem from international human rights laws but, rather, from Swedish politics, eg. the delay in passing a law that prohibits affiliation with terrorist organizations, something other countries that uphold human rights and the rule of law did long ago. This is nothing new for Sweden--see eg. their reluctance to punish returning Swedish SS-members. Other European states have jailed returning ISIS fighters as well as others who may not have fought but provided other forms of support. Sweden is now trying to gain support for establishing a tribunal on location, which may make it easier to gather evidence in the form of witness testimonies etc, something that is very difficult to do here in Sweden when we try to prosecute crimes committed in another country.
Most people getting away with crimes is already a reality when it comes to various kinds of crimes, such as rape. In no western state is that accepted as an argument for doing away with the presumption of innocence. Having to settle for getting criminals on lesser charges is also nothing new; it's not even a peculiarity of the post-WW2 legal order--see eg. Al Capone.
There is zero risk of being tried in Sweden and even hearing them about their sejour in the IS is strictly on a voluntary basis.
Are you sure the risk of a returning terrorist being tried for committing crimes abroad is zero?Quote:
Originally Posted by Hazir
In Sweden. In other countries not much more.
Several people have already been tried and convicted, in Sweden, for committing or participating in atrocities in Syria. Sweden was, together with the Germany, among the first western nations to convict these people. The commission tasked with investigating such crimes is currently working on 80 or so cases of this nature, the vast majority of them involving people suspected of committing or participating in atrocities in Syria. Previously, the same commission has successfully ensured the convictions of people guilty of or complicit in such crimes in Rwanda and in the Balkans. Consequently, the risk of being prosecuted and convicted, in Sweden, for atrocities committed abroad, is infinitely greater than zero.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hazir
Nowhere, Erdogan, did I say that I didn't want them to answer for any crimes they committed. Your views are positively medieval.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hazir
Yes, Erdogan. You'd make a fine despot. Why don't you fuck off to Turkey or Brazil if you like this strong-man rethoric so much?Quote:
Originally Posted by Hazir
Oh, the Philippines would also make a fine place for you - what with them outright killing anyone even remotely suspected of drug trade.
You'd fit right in.
The Swedish government is pleading for an international tribunal for Syria in recognition of it's own inability to act against these people.
You know what rules criminal law entails? There is no way you could convict even the worst of them in a German court for 'lack of proof'. By denying that reality of your legalism your claim to legitimacy becomes empty.Quote:
Originally Posted by Khendraja'aro
You let these murderers rapists and thieves travel to Syria because they had the right to their ideas. Now that they have acted upon those ideas and destroyed lives and communities you still hide behind your dead legal system.
I'm sorry but I have no intention of playing until you first concede you were wrong about the risk of prosecution and conviction. You do not get to continue pulling lies out of your ass one after another just because you're emotional. German courts have also prosecuted and convicted people guilty of committing atrocities while abroad in eg. Syria.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hazir
Eh. No. You are the one who is making up things. First show me cases of people who were convicted for anything else than traveling to Syria.
Hassan Al-Mandlawi and Al Amin Sultan, convicted (life terms) for participation in the murder of two men. Haisam Omar Sakhanh convicted for murder. These three were members of islamist groups in Syria. Others have been convicted of committing atrocities where the victims have been captive jihadists or regime soldiers. The same commission has convicted people of war crimes and crimes against humanity in Rwanda, Afghanistan, Ethiopia, the Balkans etc. Rwanda and the Balkans are especially interesting because of the lessons we've learned from those places about the value of being able to gather evidence on site. I have no details on the German cases because I don't know any German but they were alluded to during the reports of the trial of the first two people I mentioned. Regardless, the risk of being investigated, prosecuted and convicted is clearly infinitely greater than zero, and the ability to gather witness testimonies on-site would improve the chances of successful prosecution considerably.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hazir
Two idiots stupid enough to be in a video with their faces visible. At a time they still believed that they could solidify it. Try again.
I have no need to try again because you were quite obviously wrong and continue to be wrong. I have no intention of playing Brexit-ball with you just because you have difficulties accepting that you are wrong.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hazir
Actually, I am not wrong. It's you who think the dead hand of legalism is going to deal with this problem. Wake up and smell the coffee; it will not. Rely on it the way you do and you will be sharing space with murderers who decapitated people for crimes as heinous as being postman, raped sex-slaves who they kept in their family home untill they got tired of them. Homes they stole from the owners, who very often paid for that privilege with their lives.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
So you dream on with your fantasies of 'innocent' ISIS colonists returning from Syria, or your legal system being capable of sifting out the murderers, rapists and thieves from the mass of people who only went to Syria for 'humanitarian reasons' or merely worked there as 'car mechanics'.
"Actually, I am not wrong." Yeah, actually, you are wrong. You are quite literally wrong, as is plainly obvious from the posts in this thread. You claimed that the likelihood of getting prosecuted and convicted, in Sweden, for crimes committed in eg. Syria is zero. I demonstrated, conclusively, that you were wrong. I can read what you wrote, Hazir. You don't actually have a reality-distortion field that works on other people. You were shown up, but, like a petulant child, you continue to insist you were right after all, even with clear, undeniable evidence of your mistake being available for everyone to examine with just a few page scrolls and clicks. I understand if you've grown accustomed to having this conversation with yourself or with others who are too uninformed or too weary to challenge your misconceptions about readily verifiable facts, but this is not a ritual or some form of performance art I'm passively participating in for your emotional benefit. If you cannot have a fact-based discussion, then just say so. Meanwhile, people more interested in justice than in tiresome melodrama will continue to do their best to systematically gather evidence that may help punish more of these criminals.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hazir
You paraded up two cases of four years ago. Ignoring the position of the Swedish government on the matter. Which is the exact opposite of what you say here. You need to have your head shrunk a bit if you think you two useful idiots are the template for the problem you are going to have to deal with; if you think to know better than the legal advisors of your own government. You can disagree with me on the solution for the problem, but you can not make it go away by sticking your head in the sand.
I'm sorry, but you clearly do not know what you're talking about. I mentioned three convictions off the top of my head. I also mentioned that the commission that ultimately got these men convicted is investigating dozens of other such cases. I also mentioned that the same commission has successfully convicted other people who have committed other atrocities in other regions. The majority of those who have returned from Syria etc. have done so fairly recently. Investigating and prosecuting atrocities committed in other countries has always taken a long time--typically years, except in cases such as these where there is incontrovertible evidence--but those difficulties can be mitigated somewhat by setting up procedures to enable gathering of evidence including witness testimonies on-site, which is the advice the govt has been given, by those who actually investigate and prosecute these criminals. You've latched on to some out-of-context remark you've read somewhere, thinking it gives you some sort of special insight into the Swedish govt's thinking or into the legal advice you imagine it has received. Now, you can disagree with things like the rule of law, but you cannot magically make your lies turn into truths by vaguely waving your hands around in the air. The reality is this: many criminals get away although they remain under surveillance, but some criminals do get caught, do get prosecuted, and do get punished. Some is infinitely more than none. Let this be a lesson to you not to make absolute, categorical statements without sufficient information. Or continue playing this new version of Brexit-ball if you wish, but it's not going to make you more right no matter how vigorously you move the goal-posts around.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hazir
Of the top of your head. Yeah right.
I'm sorry, did you want me to expose any more of your lies and misconceptions or are you done owning yourself for tonight?Quote:
Originally Posted by Hazir
Thanks for replying. Your statements about revoking citizenship and undoing post WWII human rights sound extreme. If your goal is that terrorists should be held accountable (in a court of law) if/when they return home....then how would that be accomplished by stripping citizenship or reducing human rights? :confused:Quote:
Originally Posted by Hazir
And I'm not sure what you mean by protections turning into excuses for doing nothing, or dead legalism. The whole world (western democracies at least) has been trying to balance principles for a long time. On hyper-drive after 9/11. The new ISIS 'recruits' that travel to commit their crimes, and come back home afterward make it that much harder.
I share your view that "justice" is often elusive or downright absent. It's frustrating, maddening! But I don't agree with your premise that extremism will solve extremism. Gitmo comes to mind.