You can't always get what you want - the UK's grandstanding over ISIS sympathizers

[Hazir]

Yeah sure, let's start about putting people gas chambers because that's what this is really all about. No discussion possible because every diversion of your understanding of what the law should be inevitably leads to that.

I am quite used to people who have this absolutist attitude about legality. I also see the damage it does to public support for the entire system at all. People like you are the best help populists on the left and right, hell bent on bringing it all down, can wish for.

In the meantime, take a course on the difference between penal and administrative law.

[Aimless]

Yeah sure, let's start about putting people gas chambers because that's what this is really all about. No discussion possible because every diversion of your understanding of what the law should be inevitably leads to that.

I'm sorry, but you're the one fixated on the Holocaust. In the real world, you don't need to go all the way back to WWII to see the folly of trying to appease authoritarians by letting their infantile emotional needs trump the rule of law. Your fixation with the Holocaust is not particularly pertinent to the direct, immediate legal consequences of permitting a state to arbitrarily render individuals stateless. I believe you recognize this as well, and suspect that is the reason why you've declined to engage with the substantial arguments against eliminating the prohibitions against rendering persons stateless--choosing, instead, to harp on about a peripheral pet peeve of yours.

I am quite used to people who have this absolutist attitude about legality. I also see the damage it does to public support for the entire system at all. People like you are the best help populists on the left and right, hell bent on bringing it all down, can wish for.

I'm sorry, I'm sure you think this type of argument is very effective, but it's not. The best allies authoritarian populists have are those who, like you, assert a need to feed the disenfranchised masses with blood to keep them in line, never realizing that it is precisely your foolish commitment to nurturing authoritarianism among the masses that end up subjecting free, developed societies to this growing threat of populism in the first place. Although, let's be honest: what you're really trying to say isn't that the masses need blood but, rather, that you will become an authoritarian populist if you don't get blood. The answer to the threat of authoritarianism isn't to appease shortsighted authoritarian impulses while simultaneously nurturing the same.

While many people say they want harsh penalties for criminals, few people want to truly do away with the legal protections that also help safeguard the rights of the innocent who are wrongfully accused.

In the meantime, take a course on the difference between penal and administrative law.

UK judges have explicitly placed the burden of proof on the Crown in these cases as well as others of the variety I listed. Just because you can give them two different names it doesn't mean that there are not commonalities.

[Khendraja'aro]

While many people say they want harsh penalties for criminals, few people want to truly do away with the legal protections that also help safeguard the rights of the innocent who are wrongfully accused.

One only needs to look at the US with their numerous people who were sentenced to death and found innocent later on.

That's what he's overlooking in his righteous fury: While this may (or may not) be a "slam dunk", weakening the rules means that other cases which are not so clear may easily be skewed unfairly against the defendant using this as a precedent.

[Hazir]

The ironic thing is : I wrote that in line for a passport control.

[Aimless]

You are mixing up a few things. I do not want her passport taken. I want her hanged or wind up dead in a similarly cruel way.
I also want all post World War II added human rights stricken from the books.

Well hello there, you little extremist, I was wondering when you'd come out to play

Finally : administrative law is not the same as criminal law. At least not in any country with a semblance of organization. A judge may test the way the minister used his directionary powers but whatever is decided in a specific case can not summarily strike the right to decide. And before you answer this one you should remember any act of any part of government in essence is a matter of law.

This would be a super-relevant point, were it not for the fact that it is regarded as a general principle--affirmed in IL jurisprudence as well as in the jurisprudence of European courts including those in the UK and the Netherlands--that the burden of proof rests with the state when it seeks to deprive a person of their citizenship while asserting that the deprivation will not leave that person stateless. This is taken as a given in such cases. The deprivation of citizenship is not treated the same way as the granting of citizenship. Your point has no bearing on anything that is being claimed, as no-one has claimed that the British govt. does not have the right to decide--merely that it must do so in accordance with its laws as well as its obligations under international law.

No for not admitting that no law maker can predict all eventualities by doggedly sticking to a rule that is evidently not really meant for the situation at hand.

That is a potential problem common to literally all matters of law, and yet, in most civilized nations governed by the rule of law, that is not regarded as a reason for blatantly violating the rule of law, whether it involves individuals trying to assert their rights against indifferent and incompetent govt. institutions, or the same institutions asserting their authority over individuals that have exploited loopholes. You can't always get what you want; learn from your mistakes and make better laws.

Which really is; we have probable war criminals to try but no willingness take up the burden.

As demonstrated by the UK's unwillingness to try these criminals, preferring instead to foist them off on other nations, including nations that have never had anything to do with said individuals. If the UK were willing to take up the burden of prosecuting war criminals, it would do so.

It is not a fixation on my side. It is the underlying philosophy for the extremism you display.

No, it is a fixation on your part, one that is uninformative and largely irrelevant to the discussion.