posted on Feb, 15 2019 @ 02:05 PM
a reply to: EternalSolace
War crimes are crimes based on international consensus in regards to proper conduct, she's got terrorist connections, anything else without evidence
We have no evidence of her partaking in war crimes, we don't have evidence that she ever lifted a weapon.
That was always the problem with groups like ISIS, determining war crimes is a tricky business, they're not a professional army. Many of them fall
under the category of mercenary... A clusterf# for national and international judiciary systems. Isis wasn't a nation so they cannot sign treaties,
many if it's 'citizens' are citizens of actual nations, therefore to convict them within their own nations becomes tricky since any crimes committed
require evidence and those crimes were committed abroad.
There's other ways of getting them of course, there's also controversial deradicalization programs too.
Point being, she's British and we cannot leave a human being stateless. Isis is not a state and we would never ever recognise it as such... Especially
to convict people.
Forfeiture of British citizenship?
That's impossible unless you went down the legal route of being adopted by another state which is highly unlikely. The process of which is extremely
There's a way for her to abandon citizenship, smarter people than I know this already. She can become a political refugee.
Maybe Sudan would take her?
Don't shoot the messenger I'm just pointing out how things work, I don't see the point in ripping up the rule book for a bunch of wannabe
revolutionists/jihadists. In the end that's a victory for them.
edit on 15-2-2019 by RAY1990 because: (no reason given)