Hunting down British jihadis and killing them
 

https://www.theguardian.com/politics...vin-williamson

I guess it boils down to two main issues. Do we get rid of the few to protect the many or do we put the rights of the few above the rights of the many.

Do we work on the vague and fanciful notion that such people can be ‘reintegrated’ or do we focus on what is more important - the safety of the vast majority of British citizens including our children.

im hoping this gets done anyway, no need to publicise it, just get it done.

Agreed.

The knee jerk reaction Is to kill them, but some will say, they should be put in prison.

We don't kill child killers or serial killers they get put in prison in this country.

My view is, if you take a life, you don't deserve to keep your life.

If we knew they would get life fair enough. But many have come back and are still walking the streets.

Besides these crimes were committed overseas so our main concern has to be for the protection of the people here. We know these people are dangerous and full of hate and it will only be a matter of time.

Why should anyone lose their lives to protect their rights if indeed you believe they have any after what they have done which is commit murder and treason against our country.

kill them tbh

If they are killed in action then I don't have a problem with it.
If they want to come back then a court of law should deal with them, perhaps in these circumstances they should be tried for treason, and bring back the death penalty for treason. Providing it can be proven they were willing to kill British people then I think that's reasonable.

People come from all over the world and kill people in this country not in the name of religion.

They do indeed but we generally don’t know who they are beforehand and therefore can do little to stop them.

If you knew a loved one of yours would be a victim of one of the returning jihadists would you still be happy to let them back I wonder. Innocent children could die as the direct result of a decision to let them back. You may think that is a price worth paying - I most certainly don’t.

I've often thought a cheaper and safer solution to monitoring the Jihadis etc would be for them to "meet with accidents" tbh.

I don't agree with state sponsored murder no, keep them alive for info radicalisation is real why do you think the govt is pouring so much money in AI?....It works.

We face a threat from 3000 extremists already in this country, should we kill them just in case they might kill.

We don't even kill those that have killed in this country, instead we prosecute the soldiers that risk their lives to keep us safe.

They haven’t committed treason, yet!

Your last point demonstrates what a joke this country is. Our soldiers are heros but have suffered at the hands of PC.

I totally agree with you, we live in a messed up world.

Obviously in a war setting you have no choice but to kill the enemy on the battlefield otherwise captured terrorists should face justice, executing them only turns them into martyrs. Imprisoning them for life does not turn their story into a recruiting tool for others.

If they aren't killed on the battlefield, should we be sending hit squads out to other countries to take out those that are considered "undesirable"? If so, that's a slippery slope I think.

If they aren't killed on the battlefield and they are British citizens, then, if they return to the UK, they would need to go through the court system. That's what our society is all about.

They should not be allowed back in the country and should be treated as enemy combatants and as many as possible taken out in the arena of battle.
There’s already enough Jihadis in our prison system radicalising gullible inmates.

It's a tough one really. If they're not originally British citizens (born and raised) then they shouldn't be accepted back into Britain for obvious security reasons. Sending out groups to specifically hunt them down in other countries seems a bit... err... "war-crimey" I guess.

But then there are those who are British born and raised - what to do there? You can't really say "don't let them back in", they are our responsibility, by not letting them back on UK soil... they don't just evaporate... they are still out there in the world free to main and kill in countries that, supposedly, we are trying to help liberate from these people. And as the UK does not have the death penalty - the ONLY obvious answer is that they should be brought back into Britain and then prosecuted for treason and, presumably, murder and other crimes.

https://www.itv.com/news/2017-12-12/...error-attacks/

Over 400 returned so far, most of which are free to plant bombs and go on stabbing frenzies anywhere in Britain. We are all unwitting potential victims in the making - for what - to preserve the ‘rights’ of terrorists and murderers at the expense of the safety of the many so we can say we are better than them! :rolleyes:

Human rights apply to everyone otherwise they don't work. For someone that claims to care about the Military and veterans you do seem quick to throw away rights they fought and died to protect when it suits you.

We must have faith that justice will win the day and that people who fought for IS will face justice the right way. The second we change the law to satiate a sense of bloodlust is the second we lose.

Veterans fought and died to defend and protect the freedoms of their families and fellow countrymen, not terrorists. That is insulting them in my opinion. You really think they died to preserve the rights of terrorists over the safety and lives of children. They would probably turn in their graves if they could see what these people are getting away with and how some are trying to justify it - all in the name of so-called progress. Who are you trying to kid!

Those terrorists ARE British though and as such they are entitled to a trial if captured. It's best to capture terrorists when possible, use them for information and dish out life sentences and rob them of the martyrdom of dying for their cause would provide.

Human Rights apply to every citizen of the UK, you can't pick and choose. You are either for Human Rights for everyone or you are completely against it, it is quite a black and white issue. You are on one side of the fence or the other.

https://www.itv.com/news/2017-12-12/...error-attacks/

I care about the human rights of their future victims and there will be many. I care about the human rights of the innocent not terrorists. When people commit such atrocities they lose any entitlement to any human rights.

If they're British born and want to return we should be allowed to make them stateless. Of course, we can't do that under international law, but it would make sense. There are SO many Islamic countries that would suit them so much better, countries where women aren't protected and where gay people are murdered... sounds like the perfect environment for them. That said, wherever possible, kill them.

So you don't care about Human Rights, like I said before, you can't pick and choose. You're either all in or all out.

I disagree. Stupid people make stupid rules that fail to take into account the harm they cause and in this case sacrifice the many for the few. However rules can be changed - especially when it can be clearly seen by most that in order to protect the rights of the many, the ‘rights’ of the evil few become less relevant. Terrorists are the scum of the earth and effectively not human.

When it comes to Human Rights, I care very much about children who have no access to medicine, or even clean water. I care very much about women with no access to medicine, education or the law. I care about the people bombed out of their homes, living every day in fear of their lives. I care not one jot for murderous terrorists who have proved themselves to be inhuman.

I believe the Human Rights Act will never be taken really seriously until it it used to protect the rights of the vulnerable and not to save the skins of murderers, rapists, terrorists and others who have proved themselves to have no humanity.

British my foot! Do you truly and intelligently believe that nationality should be determined by simple geography and where someone happened to be born. That description is based on simplicity.

A true definition would be based on where one’s heart, loyalty and allegiances lie. Geography is nothing in comparison. It means very little and should carry no legal weight when it comes to such cases.

The clue is in the namee, 'human rights'. There's no wriggle room on it, any country that upholds human rights does so for everyone. Picking and choosing invalidates it AND risks setting a dangerous precedent that could be abused down the line.

Legally, they are British and they are our problem to deal with. You are applying emotion to an issue of rights and law.

And you will be quick to apply emotion when you post RIP to future victims of these terrorists. Personally I find that disturbing when you supported the ‘rights’ of the terrorists over the rights of the victims. You may choose not to see it that way, but that’s what it amounts to. As I said when people gets their priorities right - rights and laws can be reviewed and changed.

Human behaviour should determine humanity and the associated human rights - not an accident of birth. Most will rightly describe them as animals - and that is how they should be treated.

You've completely misunderstood me if you think that's the case and I expect an apology from you for essentially suggesting that I'm a terrorist sympathiser.

I value Human Rights, I value the sacrifices made to uphold them. I don't want to see them warped into something that's easily abusable and retractable just so people like you can engage in a bit of wanton bloodlust from the safety of your armchair.

If your approach came to pass, how long would it be before the denial of basic human rights became commonplace for crimes other than Terrorism? Would it go as far as to the point we'd withold rights from suspects too? Do you not see how slippery the slope is? Attitudes like yours piss all over the sacrifices people have made for our rights and I can't stand it. There's nothing I abhor more than people willingly throwing away their rights for no good reason.

All you are suggesting is that we become more like the countries where IS has taken hold. Do you not see that?

I’m not accusing you of being a terrorist sympathiser - I’m just saying that your opinion that the ‘human rights’ of terrorists should be protected is not a logical one in this instance as doing so will likely lead to the deaths of innocent people. One clearly has a significant impact on the other.

I think logic should come into play here - not a blind ideological view that all human rights are equal when the rights of a minority group of evil people could effectively override the safety and human rights of another more worthy group. Commonsense needs to dictate which human rights are more important in a situation like this and priority given to the safety of the majority.

Wanton blood lust indeed - I want to stop the wanton blood lust of the terrorists for Western blood. It’s madness if our country as a whole can’t take such obvious steps to protect the majority from the minority. Human rights laws that allow such a situation stink in my opinion.

We've only had the Human Rights Act in place for a few years. It's different in other countries, but in this free democracy I can only see it's been used for two things: to make HR lawyers rich (Cherie Blair, for instance) and to help prisoners play the system.

All that said, I can see what Dezzy's getting at.

The human rights of all humans should be protected otherwise everyone's rights become vulnerable to abuse. It's not about protecting terrorists, it's about maintaining standards so that everyone's rights are protected because when you create exceptions, you create a precedent. It's far from blind idealism, it's cynicism and distrust of the system to not be open to abuse. As I've said a few times already, everyone gets the same rights or eventually none of us will have any. We should fight to protect our rights, not willingly throw them away.

There's more to be gained from capturing enemy combatants (obviously it's not always possible to do so in battle) and robbing them of their martyrdom while using them as a source of information for future prevention than there is in just hunting them down and executing them with a hitsquad of Judge Dredds. Intelligence is how you make progress and a large part of that comes from captured enemies. There's nothing to be gained from a corpse. You don't save lives with executions, you save them with knowledge and an understanding of the enemy's movements and plans.

Every single man that passed through guandnamo bay was considered a terrorist. 220 of those prisoners were classed as dangerous terrorists. They were imprisoned for years and put through endless harsh treatments and interrogation techniques. 150 of those 220 dangerous terrorists were eventually found to be completely, utterly and totally innocent. Just men that were in the wrong place at the wrong time. How long did it take to find out they were innocent... days? weeks? years?

So we find someone who we highly suspect is a terrorist, just like they did for what was to become the detainees of Guantanamo Bay and we take them to a monkey court and sentence them to death? We take UK born people who fled to Syria to become foot soldiers for ISIS and we shoot them? Yes they committed an unforgivable crime and yes, they were unpatriotic in every sense but they were likely just low ranking gorillas and not something MI5 would consider dangerous terrorists.

I think any uk citizen returning from Syria, who have known links with ISIS, should be detained indefinitely and by indefinitely, I mean until this mess is truly over and done with and the detainee is considered to be safe.

Edited to say: Some of the comments by a certain person here are alarmingly fascist.

Low ranking gorillas have shown how ‘bravely’ and effectively they can mow down innocent women and children and run amok amongst unarmed people and attack them with knives. That isn’t your idea of dangerous!!

Let’s just let them walk free when some leftie psychiatrist considers them safe - until the next time. Let’s not!

Funny that I was thinking exactly the same about many other posts on SD that never seem to hold certain people to account for their actions - people they seem to see as ever the victims!

The ones who ran over innocent women and children were dangerous terrorists. Not everyone who supports ISIS does this.

Walk free? who on earth suggested that. Oh I get it, in your mind, if they are detained indefinitely that's the same as walking free :shrug:

In that case, we either shoot them or they walk free. What an bizarre world you live in.

Go and have a word with yourself.

You said to detain them until they are considered safe - what does that mean if not letting them walk. Safe, if they support ISIS who are murderers, rapists, child killers and terrorists how can they ever be considered safe!