Controversy over bringing IS brides "home"

[mr friendly guy]

Now this type of controversy has brought down the Norwegian government

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-01-21/ ... t/11884868

Norway Government collapses over decision to bring home Islamic State bride

Norway's populist Progress Party has pulled out of the centre-right governing coalition, over the decision to repatriate an Islamic State-linked woman and her two children from a detention camp in Syria.

Key points:
The resignation robs Prime Minister Erna Solberg of her parliamentary majority, which could make the country more difficult to govern
Ms Solberg said a majority in the Government believed that concern for the woman's sick child was "paramount"
The IS-linked woman was arrested on her return to Norway and placed in an Oslo hospital with her children
Finance minister Siv Jensen announced the move to resign at a press conference on Monday (local time), adding that there had been "too many compromises" for her populist party.

"I brought us into government, and I'm now bringing the party out," Ms Jensen told the press conference.

Ms Jensen said that "the cup is now full" after the decision to allow the woman to return to Norway, on which her anti-immigration party felt it was not consulted.

The resignation robs Conservative Prime Minister Erna Solberg of her parliamentary majority and could make the country more difficult to govern, but Ms Solberg still plans to remain in office as head of a minority coalition.

Norway's constitution does not allow early elections, and the next vote for parliament will take place in September 2021.

Ms Solberg has been prime minister of the Scandinavian country since 2013 when she formed a coalition with the Progress Party. The parties won renewed support in 2017 elections.

'Used child as a shield'
To stay in office until then and pass legislation in the 169-seat parliament, Ms Solberg needs the support of parties outside the Government, including the Progress Party.

Ms Jensen's departure was triggered by the decision announced last week that an IS-linked woman and her two children would receive help to return to Norway from Syria so that one of the children could receive medical treatment.

The 29-year-old Norwegian woman of Pakistani descent reportedly travelled to Syria in 2013 and married a Norwegian foreign fighter there, who was later killed in fighting.

The woman was formally arrested on Saturday upon her return, on suspicion of being a member of the Islamist militant group that briefly controlled a territory the size of Britain across Iraq and Syria, and was placed in an Oslo hospital with both children.

While Progress had offered to help the children, the populist party sought to deny any government assistance for adults seeking to return home after joining Islamist groups abroad or marrying foreign fighters.

Ms Jensen said many believed that the woman "used her child as a shield to come back to Norway".

"There are many … who are displeased by this, not just in the Progress Party," Ms Jensen said last week.

The mother refused to let the sick child travel alone to Norway, which then allowed her to travel from the Kurdish-controlled camp at al-Hawl, where all three had been detained since March 2019.

Meanwhile, Ms Solberg said "a majority in the Government believed that concern for the child was paramount."

Decisions on whether to help women with IS ties return from Syria has caused controversy in Europe, including in Finland where the recently appointed government settled on a compromise to decide each case individually.

The Norwegian woman, who has not been named, has denied the charges against her and will fully cooperate with police during interrogation, her lawyer has said.

Ms Jensen's exit, along with six other Progress cabinet ministers, leaves Ms Solberg with a string of posts to fill, including that of oil and energy minister to oversee Western Europe's biggest oil and gas industry.

At the finance ministry, the new appointee will chart the course for the world's largest sovereign wealth fund, with assets of $1.1 trillion.

Both the UK and US has blocked women with ISIS ties returning to their territories. My take is that if such women are citizens of country X, country X has the obligation to deal with them, not dump them on a third country. If however the third country, in this case Syria wanted them, then they can apply for Syrian citizenship and when its granted, take them off country X's hand. However there is no evidence that they want Syrian citizenship anyway.

Now I don't like ISIS as much as the next sane person, but think about the precedents this could potentially set. Can Australia refuse to take a convicted child sex offender who has been released from prison back, if said offender was visiting the UK. I could imagine the outrage in the UK. But Western countries re : US and European ones think its quite cool to dump these people on third countries.

[Highlord Laan]

They betrayed their countries and peoples to take up with a horde of worthless murdering barbarians. Fuck them.

[bilateralrope]

They betrayed their countries and peoples to take up with a horde of worthless murdering barbarians. Fuck them.

So where do you think they should be left ?

What process should be followed to make sure that theses people of no country actually did whatever they were accused of ?

Because the woman mentioned in the article hasn't been convicted of anything. She hasn't even had a trial.

Then there is the matter of her children. One of whom needs medical treatment. How do you propose treating the children of people who joined ISIS ?

[His Divine Shadow]

First IS terrorist ever to bring down a western government.

[wautd]

So where do you think they should be left ?
What process should be followed to make sure that theses people of no country actually did whatever they were accused of ?

Because the woman mentioned in the article hasn't been convicted of anything. She hasn't even had a trial.

The country where they committed the crimes should also have the right to persecute/punish them. Off course, a having a fair trial in a country destroyed by civil war is a difficult matter, but that was the choice that these adults made when they moved into a country that was already in a civil war for 2 years.

Then there is the matter of her children. One of whom needs medical treatment. How do you propose treating the children of people who joined ISIS ?

Taken into custody by child protective services, and have foster parents taken care of them, so they are as far away removed from their radical extremist parents and/or the environment that caused to radicalize their parents (otherwise these children will turn into the next generation of Islamist extremists and terrorists).
These children are victims and don't deserve punishments for the crimes of their parents. However, that doesn't mean that their parents can use their children as a get-out-of-jail-for-free card.

[bilateralrope]

The country where they committed the crimes should also have the right to persecute/punish them. Off course, a having a fair trial in a country destroyed by civil war is a difficult matter, but that was the choice that these adults made when they moved into a country that was already in a civil war for 2 years.

Sure, I won't argue against that. But once that country is done with them, you still have the problem of them wanting to return home. Possibly after being deported.

My stance is:
- If the person wants to return home, let them.
- If they have broken the laws of their home country, prosecute them after they return home.
- If the country they are coming back from wants them extradited, use the normal extradition procedures to decide if that happens.
But if there is no prosecution and/or extradition attempt, or if there isn't enough evidence to convict/extradite, then they get to come home as a free citizen.

[Broomstick]

That's great as an ideal, but I don't expect it to play out in that manner in the real world.

[madd0ct0r]

Now this type of controversy has brought down the Norwegian government

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-01-21/ ... t/11884868

Norway Government collapses over decision to bring home Islamic State bride

Both the UK and US has blocked women with ISIS ties returning to their territories. My take is that if such women are citizens of country X, country X has the obligation to deal with them, not dump them on a third country. If however the third country, in this case Syria wanted them, then they can apply for Syrian citizenship and when its granted, take them off country X's hand. However there is no evidence that they want Syrian citizenship anyway.

Now I don't like ISIS as much as the next sane person, but think about the precedents this could potentially set. Can Australia refuse to take a convicted child sex offender who has been released from prison back, if said offender was visiting the UK. I could imagine the outrage in the UK. But Western countries re : US and European ones think its quite cool to dump these people on third countries.

The UK cases were contentious here, as the women in question were 16 year old teenagers when they left, and because the means of blocking was 'she is eligible for a different passport therefore we can strip the the uk one' which is a horrendous precedent set for the endlessly orrible home office.
There is an argument that a prison camp with other ISIS fighters is the best place to keep them as they are unable to reach or convert others. A concentration of the problem...
yeah.

[Solauren]

Accept them back to their home country.

And then involuntarily commit them to a mental health facility.

Clearly, they have mental health issues, or they'd never had joined ISIL/the idiots in question/ISIS in the first place.

It's one thing to join ISIS or similar if you live in their territory/operating region. You may have no choice.
It's another thing to belong to the society they fight against, and are murdering members of, and go 'hey yeah, that's for me!'

[Gandalf]

What exactly are their crimes, that make their repatriation a problem?

[mr friendly guy]

What exactly are their crimes, that make their repatriation a problem?

Is giving comfort to the enemy a crime. I recall that term being brandied about when talking about Jane Fonda visiting Hanoi during the Vietnam war.

[Solauren]

I believe (I could be wrong) that comforting the enemy is only a crime if done within the charging countries territory. That's basically conspiring with invaders.

Also, Jane Fonda was making a political statement/protest by showing the Vietcon were people. She didn't join them.
Effectively, she looked around, took some pictures, and said 'this war sucks'.

ISIS brides on the other hand; they effectively defected.

Like I said. To defect to people that literally want to obliterate your entire culture.... mental health issues.

[Highlord Laan]

Also, Jane Fonda was making a political statement/protest by showing the Vietcon were people. She didn't join them.
Effectively, she looked around, took some pictures, and said 'this war sucks'.

Fonda also handed over messages american PoW's tried to giver her over to the vietcong in charge of the camps. The bitch should have been met with a noose at the airport.

[Patrick Ogaard]

Also, Jane Fonda was making a political statement/protest by showing the Vietcon were people. She didn't join them.
Effectively, she looked around, took some pictures, and said 'this war sucks'.

Fonda also handed over messages american PoW's tried to giver her over to the vietcong in charge of the camps. The bitch should have been met with a noose at the airport.

That last bit doesn't seem to have actually happened.
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/jane-fonda-pows/

[Gandalf]

What exactly are their crimes, that make their repatriation a problem?

Is giving comfort to the enemy a crime. I recall that term being brandied about when talking about Jane Fonda visiting Hanoi during the Vietnam war.

I get that, though to my knowledge there isn't a great definition of that phrase, and especially the term enemy.

[EnterpriseSovereign]

What exactly are their crimes, that make their repatriation a problem?

Is giving comfort to the enemy a crime. I recall that term being brandied about when talking about Jane Fonda visiting Hanoi during the Vietnam war.

I get that, though to my knowledge there isn't a great definition of that phrase, and especially the term enemy.

I was going to say, isn't that one of the things that counts as treason?

[Gandalf]

Is giving comfort to the enemy a crime. I recall that term being brandied about when talking about Jane Fonda visiting Hanoi during the Vietnam war.

I get that, though to my knowledge there isn't a great definition of that phrase, and especially the term enemy.

I was going to say, isn't that one of the things that counts as treason?

Yeah, and it's vague enough that Jane Fonda's photo op is considered apparently to be a treasonous act.

[The Romulan Republic]

Also, Jane Fonda was making a political statement/protest by showing the Vietcon were people. She didn't join them.
Effectively, she looked around, took some pictures, and said 'this war sucks'.

Fonda also handed over messages american PoW's tried to giver her over to the vietcong in charge of the camps. The bitch should have been met with a noose at the airport.

Due process? What due process?

Tell me, Tough Guy: what do you think should be done with former ISIS brides (who in at least some cases may or may not have been consenting brides)? If not their home country, which country should take responsibility for them? Or do you think that they, too, should be "met with a noose at the airport"?

[bilateralrope]

Accept them back to their home country.

And then involuntarily commit them to a mental health facility.

Clearly, they have mental health issues, or they'd never had joined ISIL/the idiots in question/ISIS in the first place.

It's one thing to join ISIS or similar if you live in their territory/operating region. You may have no choice.
It's another thing to belong to the society they fight against, and are murdering members of, and go 'hey yeah, that's for me!'

What happens when an evaluation of their mental health determines that they are healthy ?

Which might be the day they come home, before they get committed. Or it might be some time later.

[EnterpriseSovereign]

Accept them back to their home country.

And then involuntarily commit them to a mental health facility.

Clearly, they have mental health issues, or they'd never had joined ISIL/the idiots in question/ISIS in the first place.

It's one thing to join ISIS or similar if you live in their territory/operating region. You may have no choice.
It's another thing to belong to the society they fight against, and are murdering members of, and go 'hey yeah, that's for me!'

What happens when an evaluation of their mental health determines that they are healthy ?

Which might be the day they come home, before they get committed. Or it might be some time later.

Then we're into the realms of fitness-to-plead (which in the UK is a can of worms in its own right), however they're going to be arrested the minute they set foot on home soil, the only question is whether they'll wind up in a psychiatric hospital or prison.

[Solauren]

Accept them back to their home country.

And then involuntarily commit them to a mental health facility.

Clearly, they have mental health issues, or they'd never had joined ISIL/the idiots in question/ISIS in the first place.

It's one thing to join ISIS or similar if you live in their territory/operating region. You may have no choice.
It's another thing to belong to the society they fight against, and are murdering members of, and go 'hey yeah, that's for me!'

What happens when an evaluation of their mental health determines that they are healthy ?

Which might be the day they come home, before they get committed. Or it might be some time later.

Then you have to determine the following -

Why are they home? If they came home willingly, have they been converted and are now a threat?
(actually, I'd put that under 'mental health issues' anyway)

Did they commit anything that they could be convicted off?

Does the country they were working with ISIL in, want them back to face charges?

If that answers are 'No', then, really, there is nothing you can legally do to keep them from being free.

However, I doubt any would be found to be safe to release. Nothing to back that, beyond the fact they joined those nut-jobs.

[loomer]

I am uncomfortable with the idea of using the mental health system as an unquestionable means of imprisoning political enemies that you're advocating, Solauren.

[Solauren]

I am uncomfortable with the idea of using the mental health system as an unquestionable means of imprisoning political enemies that you're advocating, Solauren.

I don't consider them political enemies. I don't even consider this political.

I consider this evaluating if someone that willingly joined a national-scale cross between a Doomsday Cult and the Manson Family is safe to release into the general public. (You do know one of the goals of ISIL is to occupy a specific area of land in order to cause what they believe will be the return of the Messiah, and the death/damnation of all infidels, right?)

If returning ISIL members are shown not to be a threat, by qualified professionals, I'd happily welcome them back. People make mistakes. (In fact, it's why people are generally not executed for all but the most serious crimes in most countries.)

However, until it's shown it was not a mistake, and not a deliberate malicious choice, and that they do not intend to continue with ISIL or similar activities, I consider them a risk to public safety.

I mean, it's not like they could go rent a heavy vehicle, and use it to play human-ping pong down a busy street....
Oh wait, they could.

[loomer]

I am uncomfortable with the idea of using the mental health system as an unquestionable means of imprisoning political enemies that you're advocating, Solauren.

I don't consider them political enemies. I don't even consider this political.

I consider this evaluating if someone that willingly joined a national-scale cross between a Doomsday Cult and the Manson Family is safe to release into the general public. (You do know one of the goals of ISIL is to occupy a specific area of land in order to cause what they believe will be the return of the Messiah, and the death/damnation of all infidels, right?)

If returning ISIL members are shown not to be a threat, by qualified professionals, I'd happily welcome them back. People make mistakes. (In fact, it's why people are generally not executed for all but the most serious crimes in most countries.)

However, until it's shown it was not a mistake, and not a deliberate malicious choice, and that they do not intend to continue with ISIL or similar activities, I consider them a risk to public safety.

I mean, it's not like they could go rent a heavy vehicle, and use it to play human-ping pong down a busy street....
Oh wait, they could.

It is the definition of political, dude. You're advocating for imprisoning political enemies indefinitely without trial on the pretext that they must be crazy because they threw in with the enemy. You're advocating for 'prove you AREN'T crazy or rot in prison', while arguing that they are by definition too crazy to release.

You wanna put them on trial? Put them on trial. Don't try and backdoor it. Because what you're describing is not just 'well, these people are clearly disturbed and need help', it is very specifically the abuse of the psychiatric system as a means of disposing of political prisoners. 'Let them back in the country, then involuntarily commit them. They are crazy. Why are they crazy? Because they joined ISIL.'

Also, yes, I am very well aware of da'esh's goals, purpose, and method. Those things do not justify the abuse of the psychiatric system to make political enemies disappear.

[Eulogy]

You wanna put them on trial? Put them on trial. Don't try and backdoor it. Because what you're describing is not just 'well, these people are clearly disturbed and need help', it is very specifically the abuse of the psychiatric system as a means of disposing of political prisoners. 'Let them back in the country, then involuntarily commit them. They are crazy. Why are they crazy? Because they joined ISIL.'

Also, yes, I am very well aware of da'esh's goals, purpose, and method. Those things do not justify the abuse of the psychiatric system to make political enemies disappear.

Dude, these fucks willingly joined a gang of murderous raping pillaging monsters. Note the use of the word "willingly". This isn't politics. This isn't tossing journalists into prison because you don't like what they're saying about you, or storming the house of opposing party members, it's making sure that said fucks won't then go on to murder more people.