@Fireball

"In the US it's spelled "defense". Or are you just pulling my chain? "

Oh, didn't know that. How embarrassing. Sincere apologies. I will be more careful in future.

(February 21, 2019 at 6:26 pm)Fireball Wrote: One can renounce US citizenship. Has she done that? I don't know.

https://www.google.com/search?client=fir...itizenship

Ah, there it is. Yeah, I couldn't remember if it's possible to legally do so. I have so much immigration shit in my brain from the UK that I don't always get my rules straight.

As I understand it, the term "International Law' is a  bit misleading. In reality, it's more like 'international convention', just like various "human rights conventions" Those laws and conventions are not binding.  Who could possibly enforce such laws against say the US, Uk, Australia, etc ?

Australia is a signatory to various human rights conventions. Over the last few years , we have been criticised by various human rights organisations, such as Amnesty International. This because of government policy to detain asylum seekers, men women and children, in off shore detention centres such as Nauru Island. The official  response  has been to ignore such criticism. Unofficially, they get told to fuck off. Some of the left wing paper tigers make a bit of noise. They are also ignored.

Case in point, this silly young woman who has had her British citizenship revoked. Would probably be a cause celebre here too. For about 5 minutes. I can't remember a case of anyone having their Australian citizenship revoked. It's an offence under Australian law to join a terrorist organisation and/or fight for them overseas. The young women would probably find herself in prison, for a few years, after which time she would be assessed and continuously monitored.

"International law is the set of rules generally regarded and accepted in relations between nations.[1][2] It serves as a framework for the practice of stable and organized international relations.[3] International law differs from state-based legal systems in that it is primarily applicable to countries rather than to individual citizens. National law may become international law when treaties permit national jurisdiction to supranational tribunals such as the European Court of Human Rights or the International Criminal Court. Treaties such as the Geneva Conventions may require national law to conform to respective parts.

International law is consent-based governance. This means that a state member may choose to not abide by international law, and even to break its treaty.[4] This is an issue of state sovereignty. International laws are consent-based. Violations of customary international law and peremptory norms (jus cogens) can lead to wars. "

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_law


"International human rights instruments are treaties and other international documents relevant to international human rights law and the protection of human rights in general.[1] They can be classified into two categories: declarations, adopted by bodies such as the United Nations General Assembly, which are not legally binding although they may be politically so as soft law;[2] and conventions, which are legally binding instruments concluded under international law. International treaties and even declarations can, over time, obtain the status of customary international law.

International human rights instruments can be divided further into global instruments, to which any state in the world can be a party, and regional instruments, which are restricted to states in a particular region of the world.

Most conventions establish mechanisms to oversee their implementation. In some cases these mechanisms have relatively little power, and are often ignored by member states; in other cases these mechanisms have great political and legal authority, and their decisions are almost always implemented. Examples of the first case include the UN treaty committees, while the best exemplar of the second case is the European Court of Human Rights "

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internatio...nstruments


As an Aussie, I'm in no position to make  a 'holier than thou" fuss over the case in question.

Here's one way rendering someone stateless can play out: The country that has them now doesn't want to claim them either, they figure it should be somebody else's problem, so they turn them loose at the border and tell them not to come back. Is that better than taking them back and holding them to account in court?

So far I'm seeing suggestions that they have 'accidents', be tried in absentia and executed upon repatriation, or hope that those who have them in custody execute them. Is there anyone else on this thread who gives the slightest shit about due process?

(February 22, 2019 at 10:09 am)Mister Agenda Wrote: Here's one way rendering someone stateless can play out: The country that has them now doesn't want to claim them either, they figure it should be somebody else's problem, so they turn them loose at the border and tell them not to come back. Is that better than taking them back and holding them to account in court?

So far I'm seeing suggestions that they have 'accidents', be tried in absentia and executed upon repatriation, or hope that those who have them in custody execute them. Is there anyone else on this thread who gives the slightest shit about due process?

The post that you took 'accidents' from was a post about due process, moral poser.

The lass who's trying to be repatriated to the UK ATM said she was "quite shocked" that her application has been declined. Previously she had said she was "not at all shocked" at seeing the severed heads of her husband et al's victims because the beheading of infidels is legislated for in the koran. I wouldn't want her living on my street.

Wonder how much tolerance the Kurds will have? It's not like ISIS affiliates weren't asking for it and absurd expect something else. They stated that they were willing to die while ISIS was in power. Begging to be saved now seems like hypocrisy.

We usually don't skip due process on account of hypocrisy. We don't tell murderers they're hypocrites for not wanting to be killed, so no appeals.

(February 22, 2019 at 10:09 am)Mister Agenda Wrote: Here's one way rendering someone stateless can play out: The country that has them now doesn't want to claim them either, they figure it should be somebody else's problem, so they turn them loose at the border and tell them not to come back. Is that better than taking them back and holding them to account in court?

So far I'm seeing suggestions that they have 'accidents', be tried in absentia and executed upon repatriation, or hope that those who have them in custody execute them. Is there anyone else on this thread who gives the slightest shit about due process?

Uh, yeah. Like I said, if they're legitimate citizens, bring them back to the U.S. and prosecute them. If they're not, they are someone else's problem, and I don't see why I should give two shits about it if they've been a vocal terrorist for years.

(February 20, 2019 at 6:46 pm)wyzas Wrote: Part of me wants to say no, they went to fight a war of terrorism. The other part wants to say yes, at least for the ones that are victims.  And there are children that don't deserve to suffer from actions of the parents.  

If repatriated I'm sure they'd need to face charges in their respective nation. If not, what happens to them, death?

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/19/us/is...women.html

https://www.npr.org/2019/02/18/695831550...-isis-figh

https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/108...oned-kurds

If they have legal status here, visa or citizenship yes. I don't see how you can punish them or put them on trial if they stay overseas. 

El Chapo was not a citizen but he will spend the rest of his life in an American prison.

But yea, I can see how an impressionable teen or young adult can fall for a bullshit cause then realize it wasn't about defending minorities but a religious brutal gang seeking power. 

Either way cant do shit to her punishment wise if she stays overseas.