IS and the death penalty

[Workingman]

I hate IS, its members and ideology with a vengeance. I am also strongly in favour of the death penalty for some crimes in the UK - a system we do not have. That said, I am concerned that the UK has not asked the US to forego the death penalty for the two "Beatles" due to be sent from Syria to the US for trial.

It has nothing to do with sympathy for their fate and everything to do with diplomatic and political consistency.

The UK always asks for clemency for UK citizens on death row no matter where they are held in the world. It is standard operating procedure even though it might not be successful, especially with more hardline regimes and the US. It is done for the protection of future UK citizens who might be borderline and who could be returned to the UK to serve out a sentence here. Think of the two women drug mules in Peru a few years back.

Not asking for clemency for these two monsters sets a dangerous precedent. Ask, and be turned down is job done - we are seen to doing something. Don't ask, as in this case, and it is difficult to ask again in the future. It also looks as though we are picking and choosing which UK citizens can or cannot be legally killed - we like you so we will ask, we do not like you so go to hell.

[Kaz]

It's the precedent that worries me too. These men deserve to die really, but we need to stand up to the US on this issue for the same of future cases.

[cromwell]

They deserve to die, so let them die. To me that's justice.

[Workingman]

Cromwell, no argument with that, it would also be my choice.

But as Kaz says it is the precedent this case sets that could play havoc in the future.

Had we asked the US would have told us to sod off, as we all know, but at least we would have been doing everything we had done in the past, and hopefully will do again in the future, for all our citizens, without fear or favour.

[medsec222]

They are no longer UK citizens so not our responsibility. They being tried in the US apparently and US law will apply. Perhaps the government should have asked for clemency to avoid setting a precedence for the future, but having done that, they will be tried in the US and receive justice appropriately.

[cromwell]

True WM. But I will just say that it is the government that is always asking foreign governments for mercy for British citizens abroad. I think most people would say "their country, their laws".

Very recently, Japan executed seven member of a religious sect which launched a ricin attack on the Japanese subway in the 1990's. There wasn't much mention of it on the TV news over here.

[Suff]

Didn't we strip them of their British citizenship?

I thought we did and it seems to be reported in the press. If that is the case, we have no right, or reason, to ask for clemency from the US and the argument that were setting a precedent is lessened.

Worth a thought.

[TheOstrich]

The Times today carries an interview* with them, in captivity in Syria, by Anthony Loyd, a noted war reporter. What comes across in the article is that they are largely unrepentant and trying to play the system as the evidence bar for conviction is set higher in this country than elsewhere.

The fact that they are no longer British citizens (that's correct, Suff) in my book should preclude the British government from getting involved in their case. The very last thing we want is these jihadists back on British soil. And indeed, the report indicated that no British authorities have visited / interviewed them, only Americans and Kurds.

I understand the arguments about precedent-setting but these four "Beatles" were so barbaric, I think they fully deserve what's coming to them.

* behind a paywall, on-line, unfortunately.

[Workingman]

I want to make it perfectly clear that I do not have one elementary Quantum particle's sympathy to these two - I could not give a stuff what happens to them.

They did indeed lose their UK citizenship in absentia, but the legal reasons for how and why are clouded in mist. All we have to go on is what the media told us.

However, they do not look to have lost their UK nationality - made stateless. That is probably because it is illegal under international law. This still makes them liable to representation by the UK. What it also does is allow them to approach a third country and apply for citizenship and then naturalisation in order for them to renounce their UK nationality. That is proper procedure.

What is happening at the moment is that it opens the door to the Home Secretary, and future HSs, to decide on a whim and without any reference to the law and protocols who will and will not be represented.

That's fine for those we dislike, but what if it was a member of our family on the receiving end?

If we are going to let these monsters be executed, and I am all in favour, then let us do it in a way that does not store up problems for the future.

[Suff]

What is happening at the moment is that it opens the door to the Home Secretary, and future HSs, to decide on a whim and without any reference to the law and protocols who will and will not be represented.

That's fine for those we dislike, but what if it was a member of our family on the receiving end?

If we are going to let these monsters be executed, and I am all in favour, then let us do it in a way that does not store up problems for the future.

I get your issue WM. It comes down to Trust and there is very little of that going around right now.