- Joined
- Mar 17, 2007
- Messages
- 17,634
- Reaction score
- 6,372
Hindus =/= muslim
Sadly yes. We should all expects the Liberals to call for his release so they can bring him 'home'. They will probably say it is so his crimes can be examined here but once home they would be unlikely to pursue him for any crimes. He would be free to reintegrate.
Poor guy is just tuckered out. I hope Trudeau lets him back in. He would bring such diversity to our country.
>Hindus =/= muslim
Ministers are refusing to let seven captured Islamic State fanatics back into the UK.
One is being held by a Free Syrian Army group on Syria’s border with Turkey and the rest are in the custody of Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces in eastern Syria.
British officials have refused to cooperate with the SDF on the issue of their return and have been in contact only with US agents who interrogated them.
Five of the suspects, including members of the execution gang known as The Beatles, have been publicly named.
But the identities of two others, as well as of two women and their children, are being protected.
Those named are: Alexanda Kotey, Shabazz Suleman, Jack Letts, Mohammed Anwar Miah and el Shafee Elsheikh.
One of the unidentified men is understood to have told the SDF he was a doctor and had been working as a medic in IS territory.
The other is a Londoner who dropped out of university to join the terror group, the Daily Telegraph reported.
All have British citizenship except Elsheikh and Kotey, who had theirs revoked.
The younger children were born in the so-called IS caliphate and would therefore be considered stateless.
Sajid Javid, meanwhile, was said yesterday to have dropped objections to the death penalty for Elsheikh and Kotey for fear of enraging Donald Trump.
The Home Secretary reversed the Government’s original stance after being warned it would ‘wind up’ the American President, a court was told.
Elsheikh and Kotey, who are accused of belonging to the four-man cell of executioners in Syria known as The Beatles, are at the centre of a row over whether they should be tried in Britain or potentially the US.
The case has been brought to the HighCourt by Elsheikh’s mother, Maha Elgizouli, who is asking judges to prevent the UK from sharing evidence under a ‘mutual legal assistance’ deal with US authorities unless they receive assurances that her son will not face the death penalty.
Her lawyers told Lord Chief Justice Lord Burnett and Mr Justice Garnham yesterday that Mr Javid’s decision, which was outlined in a letter to US attorney general Jeff Sessions, would put the suspected pair at risk of an ‘inhuman punishment’.
Edward Fitzgerald QC said Mr Javid’s decision was taken ‘against advice from officials’ that an assurance should be sought.
The barrister said that one of the key events leading to Mr Javid’s decision was a briefing by the UK ambassador to Washington in which he warned seeking assurances would ‘provoke something close to outrage among the Trump administration’.
He is said to have told Mr Javid that doing so would ‘wind up the president and he will hold a grudge’ that could damage bilateral relations, Mr Fitzgerald said.
Accusing the Government of ‘washing its hands’, Mr Fitzgerald added: ‘We submit that that about-turn was both unreasonable and unlawful.
‘Effectively he gave up. Mr Javid didn’t even try, he made no attempt to ask for assurances at all.
'We submit that that was an unworthy capitulation.’
Mr Javid faced intense criticism over his decision after a letter he wrote to Mr Sessions was leaked, with MPs accusing him of breaching the UK’s long-standing opposition to the death penalty.
The Government’s former reviewer of anti-terror legislation, Lord Carlile, said it was a ‘dramatic change of policy’.
The Crown Prosecution Service says there is insufficient evidence to prosecute them in the UK.
The case continues.
The British government has been accused of “kowtowing” to Donald Trump’s administration by dropping objections to the death penalty for two Isis militants.
A debate in the House of Commons saw MPs criticise home secretary Sajid Javid for his decision to hand evidence on two alleged members of the “Beatles” cell to the US, without the normal assurances they would not be executed.
The mother of one of the men is attempting to launch a judicial review into the decision, which her lawyers called “unprecedented and unjustified” in the High Court this week.
Labour MP Chris Bryant accused the government of reversing its position “secretly” after posing an urgent question on the matter.
“The US government barked and the UK cowed,” he said. “The government got the collywobbles. Jeff Sessions huffed and puffed and blew the home secretary down. The prime minister decided to kowtow to Trump, and the government changed the policy secretly without telling this House.”
The UK received hundreds of “mutual legal assistance” requests from other countries, as they attempt to gather or exchange information on criminals.
But the government usually demands assurances that the death penalty will not be used in exchange for handing it over.
Ben Wallace, the security minister, said assurances had been waived on two previous occasions since 2001 but refused to provide further details “due to the potential to harm ongoing criminal investigations or future prosecutions”.
Afzal Khan, the Labour MP for Manchester Gorton, noted the government had restated its “absolute opposition” to capital punishment on the World Day Against the Death Penalty earlier this week.
“Does the minister agree that making exceptions undermines our own credibility on human rights issues around the world?” he asked.
Chi Onwurah, the Labour MP for Newcastle-upon-Tyne Central said it was of “essential importance not to outsource our moral and ethical base by helping in the execution of the death penalty” and undermine the democratic values Isis seeks to destroy.
Mr Wallace said the UK’s “overseas security and justice assistance guidance” allows assurances to be waived in exceptional circumstances.
He added that the case of Alexanda Kotey and Shafee El Sheikh “has no easy solutions” after they were stripped of British citizenship and detained by non-state actors in Syria.
“The options before this government, our security forces and our citizens do not include a magic wand to get people miraculously into a UK court or provide evidence that matches the statute book that we happen to have,” Mr Wallace told MPs.
“The strong reasons that, we would say, mean that the rights of those individuals detained are better served by a judicial trial in the United States are that they have a better chance of proper representation in a court of law than if they were left in detention by non-state actors in a war zone in north Syria, sent to Guantanamo Bay - something that the government opposes fully - or allowed to go back into the battlefield and wreak murder and death in the same way that they have been accused of doing in the past. Those were the options on the table.”
Lawyers representing El Sheikh’s mother told the Lord Chief Justice, Lord Burnett, and Mr Justice Garnham that the “unprecedented and unjustified” decision was taken against advice from government departments.
Edward Fitzgerald QC said it was influenced by the “anticipated outrage” of members of the Trump administration if the UK demanded assurances that the pair would not face the death penalty.
“This country should not facilitate the imposition in another country of a punishment which we ourselves recognise as inhuman and unlawful,” he told the Administrative Court in London."
He said that Mr Javid "took those steps in large part because of the anticipated outrage of certain political appointees in the Trump administration if the UK insisted on death penalty assurances."
He added: “We submit that the anticipated outrage of those US officials was not a proper consideration as a matter of law.”
Mr Fitzgerald accused the home secretary of “giving up” on asking for assurances following a meeting with US attorney general Jeff Sessions in May, and performing an about-turn that was “both unreasonable and unlawful”.
The court heard that Mr Sessions had expressed indignation at the prospect of having his “hands tied” by the UK while it refused to prosecute the pair, and suggested they could be detained at Guantanamo Bay instead.
A briefing by the British ambassador in Washington warned that continued demands for a guarantee against execution prompted fears that senior members of Donald Trump’s administration would “wind the president up to complain to the PM and potentially, to hold a grudge” that could damage bilateral relations.
Patrick Grady, the Scottish National Party MP for Glasgow North, asked: “What is the point of the special relationship if we cannot speak clearly and honestly to what is supposed to be our closest ally?”
Yasmin Qureshi, the Labour MP for Bolton South East, added: “We either believe in the death penalty or we do not."
Judges will announce their decision on whether to grant permission for a judicial review on the decision at a later date.
El Sheikh and Kotey, who remain in Syrian Democratic Forces detention, were allegedly members of a cell dubbed “The Beatles” that killed a series of hostages including James Foley, Alan Henning and other British and American victims.
Made Specially Designated Global Terrorists by the US, captives have told of their brutality, which included waterboarding, electric shocks, mock executions and crucifixions.
Executioner Mohammed Emwazi, who became known as “Jihadi John”, was killed in a drone strike, while the remaining “Beatle”, Aine Davis, is imprisoned in Turkey.
Kurdish leaders have called for hundreds of captured Isis fighters to be repatriated to their countries of origin, but the UK and other nations have been stripping militants’ citizenship and taking measures to prevent their return, and there are concerns that they could be freed if the stalemate continues.
UK has no legal obligations towards Isis suspects, court toldThe Isis terrorist suspect and former British citizen El Shafee Elsheikh has no enforceable rights under human rights legislation or common law in the UK, the high court has heard.
Mother of suspect is challenging UK decision to assist US without seeking assurances men will not face death penalty
Owen Bowcott | Oct 2018
Alexanda Kotey, left, and El Shafee Elsheikh were captured in February by Syrian Kurdish fighters.
Elsheikh, who is facing extradition to the US, where he could be sentenced to death, has been “assessed” to be a Sudanese citizen, Sir James Eadie QC, for the Home Office, told the court on Tuesday.
Elsheikh, who was stripped of his British citizenship in 2014, is being held by Syrian democratic forces in Syria, Eadie said. “[He] chose to go to Syria. He is suspected of involvement in the beheading of British, American and Japanese [hostages].”
Eadie said: “The seriousness of the crimes is at the apex of the seriousness of crimes. For that reason there’s the most powerful interest in the investigation of these crimes and the trial of those involved.”
Elsheikh and Alexanda Kotey, who both were raised in Britain, are alleged to have been part of an Isis terrorism cell, some of whom were known as “the Beatles”, which is thought to have carried out 27 beheadings of US and UK citizens in Isis-held territory. Those killed included the British aid workers Alan Henning and David Haines and the American journalists James Foley and Steven Sotloff.
The pair were captured in February by Syrian Kurdish fighters, prompting behind-the-scenes negotiations between the UK and the US governments over where they should be prosecuted.
Maha El Gizouli, Elsheikh’s mother, is challenging the Home Office’s decision to provide mutual legal assistance to US prosecutors without seeking assurances from the US that the two men would not face the death penalty – the approach taken by previous home secretaries, including Theresa May.
Eadie said: “There’s no domestic authority which establishes that the government is under an obligation not to provide mutual legal assistance to a friendly foreign state which is governed by the rule of law and which [has] the death penalty.”
No such prohibition applies under the EU charter, Eadie added, while Elsheikh, who is no longer a UK citizen and is in Syria, is beyond the jurisdiction of the European convention on human rights.
The high court has heard that the security minister Ben Wallace, the home secretary, Sajid Javid, and the former foreign secretary Boris Johnson, all approved the decision not to seek assurances from the Trump administration that Elsheikh and Kotey would not face the death penalty.
Judgment is expected to be reserved to a future date.
https://www.theguardian.com/law/201...s-suspects-el-shafee-elsheikh-high-court-told
Imagine if those UK cunts complaining about this cared as much for their own citizens as they do for Islamic TRAITORS. Why are they fighting so hard to save people who want them dead? They are fighting to save their own enemies. WHY?
These problems shouldn't even exist.