Let's take back sovereignty so that someone else can take it from us

[Aimless]

This story is still developing, but:

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/...r-isis-beatles

It has emerged the home secretary, Sajid Javid, wrote to the US attorney general, Jeff Sessions, to confirm the UK would not demand a “death penalty assurance” in the case of two former Britons accused of being members of the Islamic State cell known as “the Beatles”. The prime minister, Theresa May, was aware of the position adopted in the letter.

The blanket opposition to participating in capital punishment has been a cornerstone of British extradition policy for a long time, and for a single creepy bald fucker to overthrow it without any parliamentary scrutiny & debate is, frankly, unconscionable--whatever your position may be on the death penalty in general or for these people in particular. The govt. has offered lame assurances but considerable damage has already been done. Very bad look for Javid, for May, for HMG and of course for Parliament, once again sidelined by an out-of-control executive.

[Timbuk2]

Yep I read about this earlier. Javid needs to be slapped down.

[RandBlade]

Meh.

Terrorists who left the country to fight for ISIL. Screw them. Our civil liberties don't extend across the entire globe and they're not being extradited from the UK. If they'd stayed in the UK rather than going overseas to behead people they wouldn't face the death penalty now for their horrific crimes they committed abroad. I won't cry crocodile tears for these evil terrorists facing overseas justice.

They're not even British citizens. Why should we object to people who aren't our citizens facing justice overseas for their crimes committed overseas?

Are they British? No.
Were the crimes in Britain? No.
Is the court in Britain? No.

It's quite frankly got nothing to do with us, they forfeited our protection when they forfeited our citizenship.

[Aimless]

Meh.

Terrorists who left the country to fight for ISIL. Screw them. Our civil liberties don't extend across the entire globe and they're not being extradited from the UK. If they'd stayed in the UK rather than going overseas to behead people they wouldn't face the death penalty now for their horrific crimes they committed abroad. I won't cry crocodile tears for these evil terrorists facing overseas justice.

They're not even British citizens.

This is not the point. Nobody gives a rat's ass what you feel or don't feel. The point is that it is unacceptable for Javid to overturn a longstanding British policy without the matter being debated in Parliament. I understand that you, like all callous, self-centered authoritarians, are eager to sacrifice principles of democracy on the altar of convenience, but I don't think it's appropriate for such momentous decisions to be made unilaterally by a single individual without parliamentary scrutiny.

[Hazir]

I think mrs May needs to sack Jarvis; putting in doubt the policies of the UK on the death penalty could effectively kill any hope of any future deal with the EU.

[Aimless]

Just adds to existing EU concerns about outstanding arrest warrants after Brexit.

[Aimless]

Of course, it'll be difficult for may to sack Javid for a decision she signed off on.

[RandBlade]

This is not the point. Nobody gives a rat's ass what you feel or don't feel. The point is that it is unacceptable for Javid to overturn a longstanding British policy without the matter being debated in Parliament. I understand that you, like all callous, self-centered authoritarians, are eager to sacrifice principles of democracy on the altar of convenience, but I don't think it's appropriate for such momentous decisions to be made unilaterally by a single individual without parliamentary scrutiny.

What longstanding British policy is being overturned?

We haven't ever had a policy I know of for preventing the death penalty being applied overseas in courts that aren't ours, for crimes not committed here, by criminals who aren't our citizens.

There are currently 2,706 convicts on death row in the USA. Is the UK supposed to prevent them all? How?

You seem to want us to infringe on the sovereignty of others on behalf of these terrorists who are not our citizens, but not other people who are not our citizens. Why is that?

[RandBlade]

I think mrs May needs to sack Jarvis; putting in doubt the policies of the UK on the death penalty could effectively kill any hope of any future deal with the EU.

The two are not related and not only are these terrorists nothing to do with us, our disregarding them is nothing to do with you.

Just adds to existing EU concerns about outstanding arrest warrants after Brexit.

Why you think there's going to be a lot of other cases where people who aren't British, who aren't European, who committed murders in the Middle East and are wanted by the Americans are also relevant because . . . actually you've not explained why they're relevant yet so insert your own reason here.

[Aimless]

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/extradit...ses-and-review

Secretary of State’s decision
The Secretary of State must order extradition unless the surrender of a person is prohibited by certain statutory provisions in the 2003 Act. The requested person may make any representations as to why they should not be extradited within 4 weeks of the case being sent to the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State is not required to consider any representations received after the expiry of the 4 week period.

Extradition is prohibited by statute if:

the person could face the death penalty (unless the Secretary of State gets adequate written assurance that the death penalty will not be imposed or, if imposed, will not be carried out)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soerin...m#Significance

Soering v. United Kingdom is important in four respects:

• It enlarges the scope of a state's responsibility for breaches of the Convention. A signatory State must now consider consequences of returning an individual to a third country where he might face treatment that breaches the Convention. This is notwithstanding that the ill-treatment may be beyond its control, or even that general assurances have been provided that no ill-treatment will take place.
• By finding a breach of the Convention on the territory of a non-signatory State, the Court considerably expanded the obligation to its signatory States. Not only are signatories responsible for consequences of extradition suffered outside their jurisdiction, but this jurisdiction implicitly extends to actions in non-signatory States. The Convention also overrides agreements concluded with such States.
• The rationale of the Court's judgment applies equally to deportation cases, where other articles of the Convention may apply, such as Article 6 (right to a fair trial), as seen in Othman (Abu Qatada) v. United Kingdom (2012).
• The Court's approach to the death penalty, itself permitted by the text of the original Convention, may reduce its use by non-signatory States that seek to extradite suspects from signatory States. The decision makes it difficult, if not impossible, for the US and other capital punishment countries to extradite suspects on capital charges from signatory States, without giving assurances that the death penalty will not be executed.

Up until recently these men were British citizens. Stripping them of their citizenship in an attempt to make this breach of law look better only makes the whole thing look worse. The UK risks violating not only its treaty obligations but also domestic laws. Again, I am not surprised to see you hold democracy, parliamentary sovereignty and the rule of law in such low regard--I'm just shocked to see senior members of govt. be equally callous.

[Hazir]

Except that they are related to the the EU.

[RandBlade]

How are they related to the EU? Or the UK?

We're not extraditing them Aimless. They're not in our custody. We could have sought to have them extradited to the UK as they've committed crimes against us but we have declined to do so.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...-defence-force
The capture was first reported by the New York Times and independently confirmed by the Guardian.

Citing unnamed US officials, the Times reported the two men were captured by the American-backed Kurdish militia the Syrian Democratic Forces, operating south of the Euphrates river, close to the Syria-Iraq border.

Do we Brits have jurisdiction over the Syrian Democratic Forces?

[RandBlade]

I'm guessing you edited this in as I didn't see it originally.

Up until recently these men were British citizens. Stripping them of their citizenship in an attempt to make this breach of law look better only makes the whole thing look worse. The UK risks violating not only its treaty obligations but also domestic laws. Again, I am not surprised to see you hold democracy, parliamentary sovereignty and the rule of law in such low regard--I'm just shocked to see senior members of govt. be equally callous.

They're not citizens.

They were stripped of citizenship in February.
Javid became Home Secretary in April.

So how is this Javid's fault? How did Javid strip their citizenship six months ago, before he became Home Secretary in order to make today's decision?

[Hazir]

Because the EU isn't a free trade zone you fucking moron. Can you get that simple message past your thick skull?

Free trade is mostly a reward for European countries that adhere to certain norms.

[RandBlade]

And what's that got to do with this case?

Are these individuals EU citizens? No.
Were these crimes in the EU? No.
Are they being extradited from the EU? No.
Were they arrested by an EU nation? No.
Are they in the custody of an EU nation? No.
Are they being tried by an EU nation? No.

Where is the relevance? Where is the legal standing to get involved? How are they related to the EU? You said they are but how?

[Hazir]

And what's that got to do with this case?

Are these individuals EU citizens? No.
Were these crimes in the EU? No.
Are they being extradited from the EU? No.
Were they arrested by an EU nation? No.
Are they in the custody of an EU nation? No.
Are they being tried by an EU nation? No.

Where is the relevance? Where is the legal standing to get involved? How are they related to the EU? You said they are but how?

The EU cares not for any of these considerations. The EU actively rejects the death penalty in all jursdictions and is actually sabotaging its use in the USA. It will not deal with a country that slips back in any way on the matter of the death penalty. So if your minister gives the impression that the UK is such a country there is no way any deal with the UK could be ratified.

[RandBlade]

Bullshit.

The EU has been willing to consider a deal with the USA itself so that's just total bullshit. TTIP didn't flounder on death penalty concerns.

Besides what is the Netherlands or Sweden or anyone else doing with this case? Besides the fact these terrorists murdered British citizens they have got as much to do with you as us.

[Hazir]

What in God's name does make you think you are entitled to equal treatment with any of the countries you mentioned?

[Lewkowski]

The big issue is why should the UK care about non-UK citizens. I'm not getting the rational.

[Hazir]

The big issue is why should the UK care about non-UK citizens. I'm not getting the rational.

They are helping US authorities, thus risking to be complicit in case this scum get sentenced to death.

You know the Brits: ever since you kicked them out they've been your lap dogs.

[Lewkowski]

They are helping US authorities, thus risking to be complicit in case this scum get sentenced to death.

You know the Brits: ever since you kicked them out they've been your lap dogs.

But why would the UK care if America execute a non-citizen. They aren't UK citizens - the UK is under no obligation to protect them or advocate for them.

[RandBlade]

What in God's name does make you think you are entitled to equal treatment with any of the countries you mentioned?

There's no reason why not, though perhaps you're just acting as a xenophobic zealot and have nothing to do with the actual case here.

[Hazir]

There's no reason why not, though perhaps you're just acting as a xenophobic zealot and have nothing to do with the actual case here.

Keep thinking that. Just like you could not imagine Brexit to be the mess i predicted it would be year ago.

[RandBlade]

It's not a mess.

[Aimless]

How are they related to the EU? Or the UK?

We're not extraditing them Aimless. They're not in our custody. We could have sought to have them extradited to the UK as they've committed crimes against us but we have declined to do so.


Do we Brits have jurisdiction over the Syrian Democratic Forces?

I'm guessing you edited this in as I didn't see it originally.
They're not citizens.

They were stripped of citizenship in February.
Javid became Home Secretary in April.

So how is this Javid's fault? How did Javid strip their citizenship six months ago, before he became Home Secretary in order to make today's decision?

And what's that got to do with this case?

Are these individuals EU citizens? No.
Were these crimes in the EU? No.
Are they being extradited from the EU? No.
Were they arrested by an EU nation? No.
Are they in the custody of an EU nation? No.
Are they being tried by an EU nation? No.

Where is the relevance? Where is the legal standing to get involved? How are they related to the EU? You said they are but how?

Just as the UK is opposed to extraditing people if they may face capital punishment, it has also had a long-standing policy of not cooperating in the prosecution of people who may face capital punishment, absent assurances to the contrary. The UK officially opposes capital punishment both at home and abroad. Until just a few years ago, this was an explicit goal of the UK's international human rights work, but govt. sneakily dropped those references--which should tell you something about these Tories.

While Javid did not revoke their citizenship, he is the one who has now in effect assured the US that the UK is okay with assisting in the implementation of the death penalty. This weakens the UK's position tremendously, and the US and others will be sure to leverage this concession over and over again, in the future. If you can be persuaded to piss on your principles once, you can easily be persuaded again, and again, and again. The UK's consistent blanket opposition was its strongest tactic and it has now once again shot itself in the foot.

It is especially telling that the UK actively resisted the US's efforts to get these men prosecuted in the UK. They had both responsibility and jurisdiction, but actively chose to abdicate both in order to maintain the pretense that this has nothing to do with them. This is like abandoning an adoptive child when they do something bad, so that you can pretend you have no responsibility. This is not only laughably transparent but also deeply disturbing, because it tells the world the UK is not opposed to the death penalty, and will indeed take measures to enable it, so long as it does not have to administer the injection itself.

[Aimless]

It's not a mess.

[Unheard Of]

It's not a mess.

Bless your heart.

[RandBlade]

Can you point to how its actually a mess in the real world rather than the fevered imaginations of those who've closed their minds to it being anything other than an unmitigated disaster?

[Aimless]

You don't know what you want, you don't know what you'll ask for, you haven't prepared for any of the possible outcomes and your people and businesses have not been able to prepare either. Your ministers and MPs regularly undermine each other and your government, and many either resign or are fired. This is a mess, a complete and utter shambles.

[RandBlade]

Yet in the real world the economy is going from strength to strength, beating all projections, with full employment, low inflation, a deficit being eliminated much faster than planned.

It's almost as if all your hysteria is divorced from the real world.