Joining and pledging allegiance to an organization which has declared war on the British state and has engaged in slavery and genocide. Possibly soliciting others to do likewise. I’m no legal expert but it should be grounds for a charge of treason at least. I’d be interested to learn a bit more about her life in Raqqa and elsewhere to see if, like many others over there, she was part of a family unit which made use of slaves. I think it’s extremely likely.
Shamima Begum, IS teen wants to come back to the UK
- Thread starter Tommy
- Start date
It's not like she was watching the TV and randomly decided to join IS because it looked like fun, or decided entirely without prompting that an IS fighter would make a fine husband. We're talking about young teens who were groomed and convinced over a period of time that joining IS was in their best interest, when it very clearly wasn't.
I mean if your 15 year old daughter had been groomed by some 40 year old sexual predator into moving to another country with him would you shrug your shoulders and say "well she's old enough to know better, let her deal with the consequences?"
The reality is that kids and young teens are vulnerable to that sort of persuasion, pressure and grooming, which is why we typically treat young kids and teens who have that vulnerability cynically and knowingly exploited by adults as victims. Which indeed was the narrative we generally saw when these teen first left the UK, with people fearing for these poor teens who had been brainwashed by IS. In which case it's odd for those same people to now shrug and say "they knew what they were doing".
So we don't know but an investigation and trial would determine the facts. However most people want a sort of justice that they determine is adequate.
PS. However there are already some who have returned under their own steam who haven't faced any investigation or trial.
We do know regarding the first sentence above.
I don't know what she pledged or what is involved, we assume.
I don't know. If those consequences range from "tortured to death" to the "death penalty" to "life imprisonment" i'd be suprised if he said he loved you but was fine with any of those being the consequences.
Although we're arguing from entirely different perspectives on this case. On this case my opinion is it shouldn't be Syria or Turkey who have to take on the burden of caring for a British terrorist.
Also: Isn't the law the consequence of criminal action? Surely facing the consequences for her would mean facing a judge?
Last edited:
I'm pretty fecking liberal but on the whole, no she doesn't deserve any help.
To me the best the UK can offer is for her to come back and serve significant jail time and her baby to live with her family (if they're not dangerous themselves). And frankly, that's being generous. Realistically, the UK should just ignore her.
To me the best the UK can offer is for her to come back and serve significant jail time and her baby to live with her family (if they're not dangerous themselves). And frankly, that's being generous. Realistically, the UK should just ignore her.
Is there any english law similar to §89 a,b,c StGB (german law)? (its to some extend based on S/RES/2178 (2014)). Its controversial law, because it extends the scope of criminal liability quite far beyond any action, that itself would be deemed criminal. It allows criminal punishment (up to 10 years) of people who travel to training camps, learn any kind of skills that enable them to participate in terrorist attacks or are entangled with finance of these activities (the updated law allows to sentence people for marginal cash transfers). Additionally there is §129, which punishes membership in terrorist groups. On top, these circumstances give law enforcement quite extensive competences to monitor/investigate suspects.
These laws allow the prosecution of anyone who went to Syria (to join ISIS or other organisations) even if the prosecutor can't prove any individual crimes.
I'd be surprised if there is nothing similar in english law.
These laws allow the prosecution of anyone who went to Syria (to join ISIS or other organisations) even if the prosecutor can't prove any individual crimes.
I'd be surprised if there is nothing similar in english law.
If you need an actual confession or video footage of her pledging allegiance then you probably won’t get it. However:
“Haras Rafiq, managing director of counter-extremism thinktank Quilliam, said she would have also felt the weight of an oath – known as bayah or bayat – sworn to the terror group’s leader.
“When they get over there, the very first thing they have to do is to give bayah to Baghdadi,” he said.
“Giving bayah to Baghdadi is an oath of allegiance which can only broken by death. So once you join Isis, one you’ve given bayah, you can’t leave – you’re not allowed to leave.
“The only way you can leave is if you’re sent on a mission, or if you die.”
https://www.google.ie/amp/s/amp.the...d-killed-in-syria-was-too-scared-to-flee-isis
Thanks for that.
If not the UK... who should take her?
Syria? Iran? Peru? Faro Islands ?
Syria? Iran? Peru? Faro Islands ?
Another question to ask is, if she does return to the UK and faces charges, will she be tried as a minor or an adult? She was a minor when she left the country and joined up with IS so i would imagine she would be tried as a minor unless evidence emerges of crimes committed as an adult.
Sounds similar to the RICO laws targeting organized crime in the States.
I get your point and I don’t know too much about this case (first time I’ve heard of her) but surely if she was still a member of ISIS as an adult (which she seemingly was) she’d have been committing a crime as an adult as well, & can be charged as an adult? (Being a known member of a known terrorist group).
OT though, if I was the person needing to make this call, I’d give her/her family the option of allowing the baby back into the country but not her - unless she was willing to face charges/risk conviction.
It might sound harsh but it’s probably unfair on the rest of the UK citizens to allow such a risk back into the country.
It might sound harsh but it’s probably unfair on the rest of the UK citizens to allow such a risk back into the country.
I just feel there's an overriding feeling from British people that we need to be forgiving, come across as welcoming and hospitable.
I'm sorry, but this situation is different. I'd be fine for her baby to be given to her family and raised by them, but her? No. You stay out. If, years down the line, something happens that involves her we'll look back on this decision and kick ourselves. She may well do nothing and she may genuinely have left all her extremist tendencies, but that's not a risk I want to take.
I'm sorry, but this situation is different. I'd be fine for her baby to be given to her family and raised by them, but her? No. You stay out. If, years down the line, something happens that involves her we'll look back on this decision and kick ourselves. She may well do nothing and she may genuinely have left all her extremist tendencies, but that's not a risk I want to take.
I am not in love with the idea of taking these people back. Nonetheless its also quite scummy to force other countries to deal with them. If Syria/Iraq/Turkey or anyone else wants to keep them, great, otherwise European governments should accept their responsibility for their citizens. Those terror-tourists already caused havoc in Syria/Iraq and fecked over the people of these countries. Lets not punish Syrians/Iraqis further, because we don't know what to do with these criminals.
@2cents unrelated, but I always have to laugh about it and Popehat is great.
@2cents unrelated, but I always have to laugh about it and Popehat is great.
Ignore her and let her die out there. 
What have the Portuguese done to deserve her?
Saw an article on the Guardian saying that not allowing her back risks more recruits for terror. Sounds a bit like appeasement to me.
You could also argue that not allowing her back might deter others from following a similar path.
Her family must be in bits but tbh I’ve no sympathy for her. She made her bed.
Those sound like serious charges to me but previously you said that she can't be charged with anything that has a serious sentence. By serious, do you mean hanging?
I’m saying the above is what I think she should be charged with. But I’ve previously said that the current laws relating to stuff like citizenship,m and terrorism seem inadequate in dealing with what is an unprecedented phenomenon. And clearly there is a worry among some that a sentence such as Tareena Shakil received - six years with early release - may not reflect the seriousness of the crimes she’s probably complicit in.
This isn’t a scrap in a pub car park, it’s ISIS!
Here are some Nazis who were sentenced for various crimes: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Axis_personnel_indicted_for_war_crimes
None of them had any citizenship protections. While it is pointless to compare atrocities, they seemed to indulge in the use of slave labour, and were part of a regime that tried to destroy Britain, which are the most serious charges you can level at these 2. Based on their designations, many of them were more active participants in genocide and mass murder than these two. While some were executed, many others got ~10 years in jail. The manufacturers or zyklon B got less than that.
Based on that precedent, I'm not sure 6 years is that light.
It seems she was out in 3. But in any case, to judge from online comments I’d guess most of the British public would feel 6 years to be a light sentence.
There would be some considerations which may not have been valid for Nazi defendants, especially since the battle with ISIS and jihadist ideology in general is an ongoing thing with no end in sight, and is a phenomenon which these people may continue to influence and participate in in some way in the future, whereas it was probably felt that Nazi Germany had been definitively defeated at the end of WW2.
As I understand it she has already lost two babies.
I also read that Daesh are only holding a tiny area due to the success of the airstrikes (including a big contribution from the RAF) and defeat seems days away.
That being the case, it seems clear to me that she wants out before the end comes and her baby is just an excuse.
I also read that Daesh are only holding a tiny area due to the success of the airstrikes (including a big contribution from the RAF) and defeat seems days away.
That being the case, it seems clear to me that she wants out before the end comes and her baby is just an excuse.
She's in a refugee camp not the last Isis stronghold
I see. Thank you.
Shes a brood mare for ISIS - shes little danger herself. If she becomes a danger to the kid then you take it into care. What are you going to do with her anyway? Throwing her in prison will cost an unreasonable level of money for someone who presents limited danger herself. She can continue being a psychotic shithead in there and influence as many as she could outside. I'd throw her in a council house and tell her to shut up and keep her head down. Its not about her really, its more about what your reaction says about you. You can turn that into something of value.
Jacob Rees Mogg taking a softer stance on this than most of the Cafe:
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
just gained a huge lot of respect for him, god bless.
He's an utter prick.
What entitled her for some special pardon?
She's carrying? So does many other female in prison. She's young and made a mistake in life? So does many other criminals and troubled persons that made the wrong choice in life. Where do we draw the line? Most criminals can point a point in their life that they made a stupid judgment.
She's carrying? So does many other female in prison. She's young and made a mistake in life? So does many other criminals and troubled persons that made the wrong choice in life. Where do we draw the line? Most criminals can point a point in their life that they made a stupid judgment.
She’s still a British citizen and has not officially been charged with any crimes.
If the West continues to claim the moral superiority, then let the due process play out. Charge her with treason and execute her if found guilty for all I care, but she deserves her day in court and the unborn child deserves a chance to live as well.
This isn’t just a case of trial by media. What she has done and what she believes is fairly cut and dry - she’s admitted as such. This has nothing to do with the West claiming moral superiority. She freely admits to supporting an outwardly terrorist organisation, and continues to hold to those values. I think it’s fairly understandable for the public to express their opinions in such a way. The only British Citizen any of this benefits is her.
There's a video on The Telegraph that shows what the living conditions are like in one of the SDF 'Refugee Camps' and also explains that there are many hundreds of escapees from Baghuz. I'm not sure that anyone can speak freely being interviewed there.
Why can't they? Remember this is someone that freely left the country in order to support ISIS. She didnt just pop there on holiday and decided to stay, she went there of her own volition and has thus far given no indication whatever that she does not still hold the beliefs she did 4 years ago. You're having to stretch pretty far to find any mitigating circumstance in all this.
If you call stretching not taking everything at face value then I guess you've re-defined it all on your own. If you can't work out my simple sentences I doubt any more will be of much use.
But I'll try.
There's another family in an SDF camp who believed they were going on holiday to Turkey and 'somehow' ended up in Syria. They say they have been trying to return to the UK ever since but that they have had no help from anyone. Yet the mother uses exactly the same phrase, "I don't regret coming".
It's odd but perhaps with so many other people there that they feel they can't trust that they are careful in what they say.
Btw, the reporter stated they have no shelter, the mother fears her children may be dying from hypothermia. There are no latrines and adults and children defecate in the open. It isn't much of a refugee camp really. Adult women fighting each other for food.
This has nothing to do with media. Whatever her position, she’s still your citizen at this moment. Due process and the rule of law allows her access to your system.
Of course it’s a big bloody hassle that will cost the state a lot of money, and of course it’s understandable to have ‘feck her, she made her bed, now lie in it’ as a reaction, but doesn’t mean that’s the right course of action, or a moral one.
Surely the fact that she was a 15 year old kid at the time is a pretty big mitigating circumstance?
This is exactly what I don't get about this story. When those kids left the prevailing narrative seemed to be that a group of vulnerable teenage girls had been groomed, persuaded and brainwashed over time to join IS and that they would suffer terribly as a result (as indeed they did). In other words they were victims.
Now just four years later the idea that those kids were victims seems to have disappeared and she's being treated as if she went over as an un-influenced, fully informed adult who was fully aware of the consequences of her decison.