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

[RandBlade]

That's not what I meant. Let me rephrase: I am curious what you think should happen for a similar case where there's no question about citizenship and she'd have only British, or Dutch, nationality.

The same as the woman who got the 6 year sentence Aimless mentioned pretty much.

We would sadly be obliged not to leave her stateless despite being a vile creature. A long prison sentence followed by years if not decades of expensive scrutiny, surveillance and strict conditions would be necessary. Thankfully that is moot in this case.

[Hazir]

Funny. You keep demanding that only one party to the issue takes all sides into account while letting the others off on the basis that you place the full burden on the HO.

The only relevant ground you have that may lead to overturning a decision to strip her of her citizenship is the protection against statelessness. There is no existing international legal arrangement to protect her from remaining a Bangladeshi citizen only.

If the Brits law states that her citizenship can be revoked if she joined a terrorist organization and the HO acts accordingly because it has established that she has the option to remain Bangladeshi that's it.

There is no obligation for the home office to submit to the dissenting opinions of another state. Especially if that state flaunts its disregard for its own laws.

Now, a British judge may rule that there is reason to assume she is not a Bangladeshi citizen, but up till that moment the HO may assume she is not a British citizen.

The law is what the legislative legislates, what the executive reads in it and only if that's disputed how the judiciary interprets it. It is not changed by statements of foreign functionaries.

[Hazir]

That's not what I meant. Let me rephrase: I am curious what you think should happen for a similar case where there's no question about citizenship and she'd have only British, or Dutch, nationality.

Regrettably what RandBlade wrote.

I think that given the transition of citizenship to the legalistic construct it is today the inclusion of it as a human right is preposterous.

You can bloody buy citizenship of a host of countries today. Some human right.

[Aimless]

Funny. You keep demanding that only one party to the issue takes all sides into account while letting the others off on the basis that you place the full burden on the HO.

The burden lies with the HO because they are the ones who made and executed the decision to revoke her British citizenship and the rights that come with that citizenship. The alternative--and utterly monstrous--view is that a govt. can do whatever it wishes to its own natural-born citizens, with no restrictions, and no burden of proof--which is certainly the case in some countries, but contrary to legal tradition in most of the western world, including the UK. The legality of the UK's actions wrt the individual it has targeted must first be determined, and the burden of proof for demonstrating the legality of the state depriving a natural-born citizen of an important right--such as the right to freedom--lies with the state. Bangladesh as well as the woman's lawyer can certainly expedite things by demonstrating that the HO was in error.

The only relevant ground you have that may lead to overturning a decision to strip her of her citizenship is the protection against statelessness.

Incorrect. She has due process rights wrt this issue under both British law and under international treaties.

There is no existing international legal arrangement to protect her from remaining a Bangladeshi citizen only.

If the Brits law states that her citizenship can be revoked if she joined a terrorist organization and the HO acts accordingly because it has established that she has the option to remain Bangladeshi that's it.

Again, that is not the case. She has the right to appeal the decision and have it tried in court.

There is no obligation for the home office to submit to the dissenting opinions of another state. Especially if that state flaunts its disregard for its own laws.

This statement only makes sense if you have been able to prove that she is actually a Bangladeshi citizen under the nationality & citizenship laws of Bangladesh, which you have not. The HO has to submit to the requirement that it prove the legality of its actions to deprive a natural-born British citizen of her rights, which requires it to prove the facts it has relied on in making that decision.

Now, a British judge may rule that there is reason to assume she is not a Bangladeshi citizen, but up till that moment the HO may assume she is not a British citizen.

So long as her citizenship status remains in doubt, the UK may not act as if she were no longer a British citizen. Had she been in the UK, this would have meant that she could, for example, not be deported during the appeal process.

The law is what the legislative legislates, what the executive reads in it and only if that's disputed how the judiciary interprets it. It is not changed by statements of foreign functionaries.

You're correct, the law isn't changed by statements of foreign functionaries, and no-one has said that it is in this case. From Bangladesh's perspective, the fact of her non-citizenship in Bangladesh was already a fact because she was not registered as a Bangladeshi citizen in the first place, and the official statement was made to announce that fact when it became salient due to the UK's claim that she was a Bangladeshi citizen. It remains the task of the HO to demonstrate the legality of its decision to deprive her of her British citizenship.




It is curious, btw, how you can simultaneously believe that the responsibility for the problematic consequences of Brexit that stem from conflicts with existing treaties--and with reality--are solely the responsibility of the UK, but that the problematic consequences that arise from the UK's unilateral decision v a v its own citizen is the responsibility of an uninvolved third party.

[Hazir]

You are seriously deluded if you think the HO needs to be more active in the research on her Bangladeshi nationality.

As for your question: reports of my dislike for anything British are grossly exaggerated. Also cutting ties with a terrorist supporter is not the same as making a mess of Brexit.

Your statements about her nationality border on lying. The Bangladeshi regulations are obvious in their wording. The nationality is not disputed in the standard procedure for the child of a citizen, but something that merely needs to be verified. She does not get citizenship by asking for it; filling out the forms leads to certification of the situation.

[Steely Glint]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world...=.c9c1bb74afe8

According to ITV, Letts has not been stripped off his British citizenship — unlike British teen Shamima Begum, whose citizenship was recently revoked by the British government after she left her home in London to join ISIS in Syria.

hmmmmmm

[Aimless]

You are seriously deluded if you think the HO needs to be more active in the research on her Bangladeshi nationality.

You're a weirdo if you think the govt. of a modern western democracy is entitled to revoke the citizenship of a natural-born citizen without doing due diligence. Once an appeal is lodged, you will simply be wrong, and it will be the HO's job to prove her Bangladeshi citizenship.

As for your question: reports of my dislike for anything British are grossly exaggerated. Also cutting ties with a terrorist supporter is not the same as making a mess of Brexit.

You're very similar to the average Brexiter in your inability to realize the broader ramifications of your positions, but I was only referring to your conveniently contradictory takes on responsibility for the consequences of unilateral actions.

Your statements about her nationality border on lying. The Bangladeshi regulations are obvious in their wording. The nationality is not disputed in the standard procedure for the child of a citizen, but something that merely needs to be verified. She does not get citizenship by asking for it; filling out the forms leads to certification of the situation.

I'm sorry, but if you think the matter is obvious, then it is because you do not understand the complexities of the situation. It is precisely because neither the legal situation nor the law is obvious that British-Bangladeshi jurists differ in their views of her citizenship status. Bangladesh's citizenship regulations distinguish between modes of initial citizenship acquisition based on a person's status at the time of the nation's emergence (and, previously, status of an individual and their forefathers in 1951). It is not strange that a country may have to make special provisions for the initial acquisition of citizenship to account for the country not existing before a certain point in time. Shamima Begum's parents fled to Bangladesh before Bangladesh became an independent state; it is undetermined what their precise citizenship status is, and, consequently, by what mode she may or may not have acquired or be eligible to acquire Bangladeshi citizenship through them. This is especially the case if her parents became British citizens, as dual citizenship through the re-acquisition of Bangladeshi citizenship was only provided for through an amendment in 1978. A Bangladeshi citizen who has a child that is a natural-born citizen of a foreign country may apply to have that child registered as a citizen of Bangladesh, following the appropriate procedure, and the govt. may register them. The law may be more straightforward when it comes to children whose parents are Bangladeshi citizens by birth and have not had to re-acquire their citizenship. Shamima Begum's eligibility for citizenship by descent, through her parents, is not straightforward.

[Hazir]

I understand those ramifications very well; I would gladly end the situation where citizenship is a legalistic construct with very little to no connection to actually belonging to the society you hold the citizenship of. I think the protection of holding citizenship as a human right is wrong and I would gladly see it dismantled.
I think any - literally any - move that restricts the rights of states to revoke it is a move in the wrong direction.

It's just as much rubbish as the so-called human rights of the right to work and the likes that faux socialist states tried to push upon the world in the past. Much to the detriment of classical human rights I might add.

[Hazir]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world...=.c9c1bb74afe8



hmmmmmm

Reality check : Letts is more likely to be executed than to leave Syria alive. If he hangs as a Brit or a Canadian is fairly immaterial, as both outcomes still mean he's not coming back.

[RandBlade]

"Now, he wants to return to Britain — but he says “no one cares” about him."

Oh diddums.

[LittleFuzzy]

You're a weirdo if you think the govt. of a modern western democracy is entitled to revoke the citizenship of a natural-born citizen without doing due diligence. Once an appeal is lodged, you will simply be wrong, and it will be the HO's job to prove her Bangladeshi citizenship.

As you rightly pointed out earlier there are differences in the law I'm familiar with and that practiced over there (albeit that used in the UK is not as dissimilar as elsewhere in Europe) so I say this with hesitance but. . . that's not typically the case. In an appeal, the burden of proof is on the appellant that they have sufficient cause of action. It would be her party's responsibility to prove that the decision would render her stateless. Now there is evidence available to that effect, i.e. the announcement from Bangladesh and if that is uncontested that may be sufficient to prove the case. Since the HO needs to contest that evidence, it may be you are confusing the functional need to contest when adequately challenged with having the "job to prove" but you're stretching that way too far in your general English.

[Hazir]

As you rightly pointed out earlier there are differences in the law I'm familiar with and that practiced over there (albeit that used in the UK is not as dissimilar as elsewhere in Europe) so I say this with hesitance but. . . that's not typically the case. In an appeal, the burden of proof is on the appellant that they have sufficient cause of action. It would be her party's responsibility to prove that the decision would render her stateless. Now there is evidence available to that effect, i.e. the announcement from Bangladesh and if that is uncontested that may be sufficient to prove the case. Since the HO needs to contest that evidence, it may be you are confusing the functional need to contest when adequately challenged with having the "job to prove" but you're stretching that way too far in your general English.

That is a good description of how this works. Though fairness demands to point out that the punitive character of the decision does not exclude the same protection as in criminal law being demanded. However, that's not the case yet.

[Khendraja'aro]

Regrettably what RandBlade wrote.

I think that given the transition of citizenship to the legalistic construct it is today the inclusion of it as a human right is preposterous.

You can bloody buy citizenship of a host of countries today. Some human right.

Then I bloody hope that your precious Erdogan who you resemble very much right now does not declare you a terrorist and The Netherlands promptly revoke your citizenship.

Seriously, you guys here are all going full Trumpster on this. Jesus Christ. And then some of you have the nerve to decry the rise of populism - particularly you Hazir. Your behaviour here and in the Brexit thread just screams of abject hipocrisy.

[Hazir]

You deal well with dissent don't you.

As for populism: nothing feeds it like defending those who break the rules at the expense of the general population.

It's also a bit rich to accuse me of hypocrisy because of my stance on Brexit; I enjoy arrogant people being taken down a notch or two. I have on several times expressed that I don't look down on the average brexit voter. Immediately after the vote I expressed my regrets over the fact that many people who voted out will be amongst the worst hit. And I even included RandBlade in that group. Telling him that he is not nearly rich enough to benefit from brexit.

[Aimless]

I understand those ramifications very well; I would gladly end the situation where citizenship is a legalistic construct with very little to no connection to actually belonging to the society you hold the citizenship of. I think the protection of holding citizenship as a human right is wrong and I would gladly see it dismantled.
I think any - literally any - move that restricts the rights of states to revoke it is a move in the wrong direction.

It's just as much rubbish as the so-called human rights of the right to work and the likes that faux socialist states tried to push upon the world in the past. Much to the detriment of classical human rights I might add.

This suggests that you do not understand. The protection against statelessness enshrined by the right to a nationality is crucial to safeguarding the other human rights, such as rights to equality before the law, the right to security, due process rights and protections against arbitrary punishment (indeed, most of the enumerated treaty rights). Stateless persons, whatever the reasons for their statelessness, are among the most vulnerable people in any society; their rights are the most difficult to defend and the easiest to violate. The right to a nationality, and the prohibitions against rendering an individual stateless, continue to be reaffirmed on this basis, by every competent court in the western world.

Again, like RB--and like members of the fascistoid mob--you are only considering the case of someone rightly accused of joining a terrorist organization. Nobody cares if their due process rights are violated. However, in the case of a person wrongly deprived of their citizenship and consequently denied right to entry, right to consular assistance, right to legal counsel and legal aid, etc, the problems with allowing a person to be arbitrarily deprived of their citizenship and rendered stateless becomes much more apparent. We must judge our laws not simply on the basis of what we want to do to the guilty who are rightfully accused but also--and more importantly--on the basis of what we want for the innocent who are wrongfully accused. Your opinions and preferences may be to the contrary, but, really, this isn't about you--except in the sense that you shouldn't want the state to be able to deprive you of your due process rights either, if ever you find yourself wrongfully accused of committing a heinous crime.

As you rightly pointed out earlier there are differences in the law I'm familiar with and that practiced over there (albeit that used in the UK is not as dissimilar as elsewhere in Europe) so I say this with hesitance but. . . that's not typically the case. In an appeal, the burden of proof is on the appellant that they have sufficient cause of action. It would be her party's responsibility to prove that the decision would render her stateless. Now there is evidence available to that effect, i.e. the announcement from Bangladesh and if that is uncontested that may be sufficient to prove the case. Since the HO needs to contest that evidence, it may be you are confusing the functional need to contest when adequately challenged with having the "job to prove" but you're stretching that way too far in your general English.

I was being unclear, but I intended it in both senses (in the former sense in the first sentence, in the latter sense in the second sentence).

There are situations where the burden of proof is on the Crown to justify a decision that deprives a person of a right, and a decision to grant an appeal of a decision that incorrectly placed the burden of proof on the individual will often recognize that. Examples of such situations (in addition to the obvious - depriving a person of their liberty for an extended period of time eg. by jailing them for a crime) include depriving a person of acquired residency rights (eg. on the basis that they've entered into a marriage of convenience), disputing (under some circumstances) a person's claim to protection under the Refugee Convention or the ECHR (eg. by disputing their claims re. their nationality), returning a refugee or asylee to the country from which they fled (on the basis that the situation has changed substantially), depriving a person of their privileges under the EEA agreement or EU treaties, etc.

UK law does place the onus of proving British citizenship (or eg. the right to remain in the UK) on the individual, when that status is reasonably in doubt; however, this case concerns a person whose British citizenship was, at the time of the deprivation order, plain as a matter of law and logic--had she not been a British citizen, the HO could not have attempted to deprive her of her British citizenship. The HO can only do so if she is both 1. a British citizen, and 2. simultaneously a Bangladeshi citizen. Prior to the deprivation order, she is obviously a British citizen; the HO must be able to prove that she is also a Bangladeshi citizen, because it may not otherwise deprive her of her British citizenship.

The standard for determining whether or not the initial decision was wrongful is low--the secretary must be "satisfied" as to her dual citizenship status, even if it is plain to the commission that reviews appeals of these decisions that s/he should not have been satisfied. However, in the appeals of these decisions, the commission has explicitly stated that the burden of proof lies with the Crown to demonstrate that eg. a particular natural-Born British citizen of Bangladeshi descent is a Bangladeshi citizen under the laws & practices of Bangladesh, as a question of fact constituting the basis for the legality of the deprivation of British citizenship.

For several years, lower British courts upheld the HO's discretionary power to [arbitrarily] revoke a person's British citizenship (eg. while they were abroad and were unable to be given notice or to appeal), and even the power to prevent natural-born British citizens from returning to the UK. Importantly, they upheld the govt's view that there was no suspensive right of appeal. Recently, however, the Supreme Court struck a blow to this procedure, by ruling the "deport first, appeal later" approach illegal on human rights grounds, which bolsters SB's case for being allowed to return (even if it is to be prosecuted and jailed in the UK), especially now that it seems likely her newborn child will be deemed a British citizen.

That being said, I've reviewed the appeals before SIAC, of the three decisions most relevant to this case, and it looks like it will be very difficult for her to have the deprivation order overturned on the basis of the prohibition against rendering persons stateless. The commission has previously favoured expert legal opinion that Bangladeshi statutes and practice may allow someone born in the UK to Bangladeshi citizens to be deemed a Dual British-Bangladeshi citizen until the age of twenty-one. The commission may be persuaded otherwise, but, if not, her case may end up depending on the exact mode by which her parents acquired their Bangladeshi citizenship, and what that says about the validity of any citizenship claims on her part.

As for populism: nothing feeds it like defending those who break the rules at the expense of the general population.

Sure, let's just summarily execute people accused of rape (as long as they're brown, mind). That'll definitely help fight populism. Trying to appease populists by letting them erode the fundamental norms of a modern democratic society governed by the rule of law really works, as history has taught us. It doesn't just give them a taste for blood.

[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]

You deal well with dissent don't you.

As for populism: nothing feeds it like defending those who break the rules at the expense of the general population.

That's why we have laws with courts and judges and not some minister deciding unilaterally on what the law should be.

I'm not in any way defending her. I'm merely saying that giving in to the mob (of which you are very clearly a part) is not something a country based on law and order should do.

If she's indeed guilty then there should be plenty of evidence for being so and it should be an easy case. If it is not an easy case then you should ask yourself why you're so intent on oversimplifying a complicated matter - something that's the hallmark of populists everywhere.

[Hazir]

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

[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.

[Khendraja'aro]

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

What, upholding the law and guaranteeing a fair trial? Yeah, how extreme of us.

[Hazir]

That's why we have laws with courts and judges and not some minister deciding unilaterally on what the law should be.

I'm not in any way defending her. I'm merely saying that giving in to the mob (of which you are very clearly a part) is not something a country based on law and order should do.

If she's indeed guilty then there should be plenty of evidence for being so and it should be an easy case. If it is not an easy case then you should ask yourself why you're so intent on oversimplifying a complicated matter - something that's the hallmark of populists everywhere.

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.
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.

[Hazir]

What, upholding the law and guaranteeing a fair trial? Yeah, how extreme of us.

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.

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

[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.

[Hazir]

It surprises me a lot that you only call me an extremist the second time after I said she deserves a nasty death.

Anyway, this whole universal human rights fantasy is going to break down under its own weight. We'll see what is left after the dust settles. Congratulations.

[Aimless]

It surprises me a lot that you only call me an extremist the second time after I said she deserves a nasty death.

Oh no my dear little edgelord, you misunderstand--it's not your lurid fantasies about hanging people that make you an extremist; they just make you a weirdo, a Middle-Eastern knock-off of Lewkowski. It's your unqualified call to overturn the post-WW2 legal order that makes you an extremist.

Anyway, this whole universal human rights fantasy is going to break down under its own weight. We'll see what is left after the dust settles. Congratulations.

Extremists have been saying this about democracy as well, for a very long time. It might end up becoming reality, but, if it does, I'm pretty sure the reasons will be complex, and most of them far-removed from the subject of this discussion.

[Hazir]

Oh no my dear little edgelord, you misunderstand--it's not your lurid fantasies about hanging people that make you an extremist; they just make you a weirdo, a Middle-Eastern knock-off of Lewkowski. It's your unqualified call to overturn the post-WW2 legal order that makes you an extremist.



Extremists have been saying this about democracy as well, for a very long time. It might end up becoming reality, but, if it does, I'm pretty sure the reasons will be complex, and most of them far-removed from the subject of this discussion.

There is nothing more erosive to legal order than blatant non-compliance. Since your hallowed post ww2 legal order is a fantasy fixing of pre-war mistakes never intended to be actually applicable to the world outside of the West, the extremist position isn’t the call for abolition, but the attempt to use it to the full never mind the consequences.

[Hazir]

It really is sickening how so-called supporters of human rights in Europe refuse to see what they are really doing with their pleading for respect for the rights of IS terrorists on the run is create an environment in which actual crimes against humanity are going to remain unpunished. Just because we cannot prove these people murdered and raped doesn't mean they are not guilty. It just means they were thorough in their destruction of the proof.

Yezidi women who were exploited as sex slaves in the houses of IS fighters and their imported wives, were killed by the dozen as this discussion was going on.

You must be proud of being part of the system that will make sure their murderers will never pay for their acts.

[Timbuk2]

Just because we cannot prove these people murdered and raped doesn't mean they are not guilty. .

Quoted for posterity.