(March 5, 2019 at 10:10 pm)epronovost Wrote:

(March 5, 2019 at 5:31 pm)Yonadav Wrote: It sounds pretty heartless, but her child isn't our problem. The child is a Syrian citizen. Hoda Muthana had already forfeited any claim that she had to US citizenship before the child was born. We have no obligation toward that child.

However, for the sake of the child's relatives in America, I don't see any reason that one of them should not be permitted to travel to Syria, take custody of the child, and bring it to the US. Or perhaps the relatives would only have to go to Turkey, if the Syrians can arrange for the child to be transported there. Hoda Muthana might not be willing to give up her child like that. If she won't give the child up, then she's entirely responsible for what becomes of the child in Syrian hands.

According to Syrian law though, no, the child isn't Syrian. Citizenship in Syria is granted by the father's blood. If a Syrian man has children, no matter where or with who, his children are Syrian. If the father is unknown, the children gain the nationality if their mother is Syrian. So no, in her case, the child isn't Syrian under Syrian law. Also, according to international law and status on statelessness and ennemy combattant, if Muthana is indeed an American citizen (or was an American citizen), she must be returned to the US and face trial there. What is absolutly certain within international law is that she can't be stateless and face imprisonment or execution in a "foreign country" of course, Syrians don't want to have to handle them for obvious reasons as they are a security risk and drain on their scarce resources and their home country basically think the same thing. I think they are going to fall in the hole of undesirable and create a new generation of stateless terrorists whome are judicial system and institutions aren't equipped to treat fairly and whose hope of integrating a normal civil society is next to null.

 
Like I said, I think that it is reasonable that a member of Muthana's American family should be able to go and take custody of the child.

There is no point in valuing courts and lawyers and juries if we are not going to use them. If one is willing to put a sicko like Ted Bundy on trial, or Roof or McVeigh on trial, then we should still afford those rights to everyone. Nobody is asking anyone to like the nature of the charge, or the accused. But courts and juries are what separate us from dictatorships, and mobs like Isis.

If we can convict domestic terrorists like our own Neo Nazis and KKK members of violent crimes, then we can try Muslim terrorists as well.

The point of taking care of our own shit is to clean up our mess on the world stage.  People who join the enemy in wartime don't revoke their citizenship, and burning a passport is not a legal procedure.  They've committed treason.

We can all have different opinions on what the consequences of that should be and how much or little we care about what happens to those people...but -all- of that plays out in the framework in which we gather up our miscreants and try them according to our laws, to which they are subject...and by which we are bound. They might be assholes, but that's not not a valid reason to shirk our own responsibilities.

(March 6, 2019 at 10:24 am)Gae Bolga Wrote: The point of taking care of our own shit is to clean up our mess on the world stage.  People who join the enemy in wartime don't revoke their citizenship, and burning a passport is not a legal procedure.  They've committed treason.

We can all have different opinions on what the consequences of that should be and how much or little we care about what happens to those people...but -all- of that plays out in the framework in which we gather up our miscreants and try them according to our laws, to which they are subject...and by which we are bound.  They might be assholes, but that's not not a valid reason to shirk our own responsibilities.

It makes no sense, to me, even if one is not a citizen, to allow someone who makes terrorist threats, or attacks us or our allies to roam free. 

You have far less control over a threat overseas than you do if you bring them to our borders where we have control.

But even with places like Gitmo, it is hard to sell the rest of the world ideas of due process, if all we do is capture someone and don't provide them with legal representation. 

For me, it isn't about liking the accused, it is a long term idea issue for me, in what kind of country we want to be? 

I don't want us to be like mobs like ISIS, who don't give people lawyers and trials. I don't want us to be like North Korea where they can drag you off the street and make you disappear with no record.

If we as a nation, are unwilling to provide due process to the accused, then the innocent are under threat as well.

I agree. We cannot say we value ideas of courts and juries, then skip that because we are rightfully angry. Doing the right thing isn't about one person or one accusation, but a long term idea that prevents us from becoming mob rule, or tyrannical.

Although a person's service in the armed forces of a foreign country may not constitute a violation of U.S. law, such action could serve as a predicate act for the relinquishment of U.S. citizenship under 349(a)(3) of the INA [8 U.S.C. 1481(a)(3)] under two circumstances. Section 349(a)(3) provides for loss of U.S. nationality if a U.S national voluntarily and with the intention of relinquishing U.S. nationality enters or serves in the armed forces of a foreign state engaged in hostilities against the United States or serves in the armed forces of any foreign state as a commissioned or non-commissioned officer. Note that the administrative presumption of intent to retain nationality does not apply to voluntary service in the armed forces of a state engaged in hostilities against the United States, and thus such action could be viewed as indicative of an intention to relinquish U.S. nationality, although each case is examined on its own with a view to the totality of the circumstances.

https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/...rvice.html

(March 6, 2019 at 10:58 am)Yonadav Wrote: Although a person's service in the armed forces of a foreign country may not constitute a violation of U.S. law, such action could serve as a predicate act for the relinquishment of U.S. citizenship under 349(a)(3) of the INA [8 U.S.C. 1481(a)(3)] under two circumstances.  Section 349(a)(3) provides for loss of U.S. nationality if a U.S national voluntarily and with the intention of relinquishing U.S. nationality enters or serves in the armed forces of a foreign state engaged in hostilities against the United States or serves in the armed forces of any foreign state as a commissioned or non-commissioned officer.  Note that the administrative presumption of intent to retain nationality does not apply to voluntary service in the armed forces of a state engaged in hostilities against the United States, and thus such action could be viewed as indicative of an intention to relinquish U.S. nationality, although each case is examined on its own with a view to the totality of the circumstances.

https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/...rvice.html

Outside law, our values matter. 

On the issue of being pragmatic alone, it still makes more sense to bring the accused onto our soil, and put them through our system, where we have control. It makes no sense to leave them outside our borders where we have no control over them. El Chapo was not a citizen, but he will spend the rest of his life in an American prison and even he had a trial. 

If we don't want to be like ISIS, or like North Korea, then we should back up our values and apply them to all accused. We don't value crime or violence, but we do value protection of a system that protects the innocent too. You value courts and juries not for the accused, but as an oversight to prevent mob rule and dictatorships.

You made a good point, Yonadav, and this would work for someone who served in the armed forces of ISIS (in my opinion, I am not a lawyer), but Hoda Muthana was not an ISIS soldier, she was an ISIS wife. It especially irks me that she isn't even cognizant that what she did was wrong, but she's a legal conundrum.

(March 6, 2019 at 11:14 am)Mister Agenda Wrote: You made a good point, Yonadav, and this would work for someone who served in the armed forces of ISIS (in my opinion, I am not a lawyer), but Hoda Muthana was not an ISIS soldier, she was an ISIS wife. It especially irks me that she isn't even cognizant that what she did was wrong, but she's a legal conundrum.

She was an ISIS soldier. She ran propaganda for ISIS. She fought in the way that ISIS uses its female soldiers. Listen, very few military personnel serve in actual combat positions in modern warfare. But they are all regarded as combatants.

There is no way that we are going to re-integrate this person into our society.  That's too much to ask of people.

(March 6, 2019 at 11:30 am)Yonadav Wrote:

(March 6, 2019 at 11:14 am)Mister Agenda Wrote: You made a good point, Yonadav, and this would work for someone who served in the armed forces of ISIS (in my opinion, I am not a lawyer), but Hoda Muthana was not an ISIS soldier, she was an ISIS wife. It especially irks me that she isn't even cognizant that what she did was wrong, but she's a legal conundrum.

She was an ISIS soldier. She ran propaganda for ISIS. She fought in the way that ISIS uses its female soldiers. Listen, very few military personnel serve in actual combat positions in modern warfare. But they are all regarded as combatants.

There is no way that we are going to re-integrate this person into our society.  That's too much to ask of people.

ISIS did have a brigade of female soldiers armed and designed for combat and law enforcement within their territory (they were disbanded in the early days of the counter offensive to take Raqa). They were abot 300 strong at their peek in 2015. Hoda Muthana wasn't part of this group. Running propaganda doesn't by definition make you a soldier, you could be qualified a civil servant of ISIS proto-government (they did have ministers and a bureacracy to administer their territory). Soldiers, by definition, are only those who are part of the armed militia branch of ISIS. There were some women in there, but not much. The idea she should be considered a soldier or enemy combattant is murky. Plus, considering ISIS was never recognised as a State, she was part of a criminal organisation not really of an enemy nation. Either she's a mundane criminal who took part in an insurrection and spported terrorists and ths must be judged and condamned by her homecountry or she is a prisoner of war belonging to another State (ISIS) and can be judged according to the laws surrounding enemny combattant. Let's not repeat the ridiculous scenario of Afghanistan where the US decided to have its cake and eat and invented from whole cloth a third group of combattant which could basically get fucked over, tortured, emprisonned for decades and judged before a fake court. This entire thing was a human right fiasco and a huge stain on the US reputation and moral authority.

(March 6, 2019 at 2:04 pm)epronovost Wrote:

(March 6, 2019 at 11:30 am)Yonadav Wrote: She was an ISIS soldier. She ran propaganda for ISIS. She fought in the way that ISIS uses its female soldiers. Listen, very few military personnel serve in actual combat positions in modern warfare. But they are all regarded as combatants.

There is no way that we are going to re-integrate this person into our society.  That's too much to ask of people.

ISIS did have a brigade of female soldiers armed and designed for combat and law enforcement within their territory (they were disbanded in the early days of the counter offensive to take Raqa). They were abot 300 strong at their peek in 2015. Hoda Muthana wasn't part of this group. Running propaganda doesn't by definition make you a soldier, you could be qualified a civil servant of ISIS proto-government (they did have ministers and a bureacracy to administer their territory). Soldiers, by definition, are only those who are part of the armed militia branch of ISIS. There were some women in there, but not much. The idea she should be considered a soldier or enemy combattant is murky. Plus, considering ISIS was never recognised as a State, she was part of a criminal organisation not really of an enemy nation. Either she's a mundane criminal who took part in an insurrection and spported terrorists and ths must be judged and condamned by her homecountry or she is a prisoner of war belonging to another State (ISIS) and can be judged according to the laws surrounding enemny combattant. Let's not repeat the ridiculous scenario of Afghanistan where the US decided to have its cake and eat and invented from whole cloth a third group of combattant which could basically get fucked over, tortured, emprisonned for decades and judged before a fake court. This entire thing was a human right fiasco and a huge stain on the US reputation and moral authority.

She is an enemy combatant, and that is not the least bit murky. She did propaganda for ISIS. She recruited for ISIS. She went to Syria specifically to join join ISIS. She is an enemy combatant, period.

I posted US law concerning a US citizen joining a foreign military that is hostile to the US. The law makes it clear that intent matters. Muthana intended to join ISIS, and she recognized ISIS a a sovereign nation. It is her intent that is relevant to whether or not she relinquished her US citizenship. Since her intent was to join forces with a nation that she recognized as sovereign, then she relinquished her citizenship. The Syrians can do whatever they wish with her. She is the one who committed herself to this.

And like I said earlier, there is no way that she is going to reintegrate with our society. That really is too much to ask of people.