Shamima Begum #2

[Merpedy]

I was looking at this yesterday and the government has actually tried to hold a fully secret trial on terrorism charges before:

Fully secret terror trial blocked by Court of Appeal

An unprecedented attempt to hold the first ever completely secret criminal trial in the UK is blocked by the Court of Appeal.

www.bbc.com

A Terrorism Case in Britain Ends in Acquittal, but No One Can Say Why (Published 2015)

A group of journalists are among the very few people who know why a student was finally acquitted of terrorism charges. Problem is, they cannot report what they know.

www.nytimes.com

Erol Incedal trial: media groups lose appeal over reporting restrictions

Court rules against attempt to lift reporting restrictions on terrorism trial held in conditions of unprecedented secrecy

www.theguardian.com

Though it was interesting that the very basic facts were at least released into the media too. The best we can guess about Shamima is the few articles that claim she was part of the morality police or/and helped prepare suicide bombers. From what I remember, the podcast wasn’t able to verify the latter? And we don’t even know if the Government’s assessment is based on those facts, and the judges can’t comment on the merits of the evidence they do have

 

[monga]

I was looking at this yesterday and the government has actually tried to hold a fully secret trial on terrorism charges before:

Fully secret terror trial blocked by Court of Appeal

An unprecedented attempt to hold the first ever completely secret criminal trial in the UK is blocked by the Court of Appeal.

www.bbc.com

A Terrorism Case in Britain Ends in Acquittal, but No One Can Say Why (Published 2015)

A group of journalists are among the very few people who know why a student was finally acquitted of terrorism charges. Problem is, they cannot report what they know.

www.nytimes.com

Erol Incedal trial: media groups lose appeal over reporting restrictions

Court rules against attempt to lift reporting restrictions on terrorism trial held in conditions of unprecedented secrecy

www.theguardian.com

Though it was interesting that the very basic facts were at least released into the media too. The best we can guess about Shamima is the few articles that claim she was part of the morality police or/and helped prepare suicide bombers. From what I remember, the podcast wasn’t able to verify the latter? And we don’t even know if the Government’s assessment is based on those facts, and the judges can’t comment on the merits of the evidence they do have

A jury can only convict on the evidence in front of them,not intel! People saying she’ll go down for years isn’t correct ,when any forensics etc linking her to crimes doesn’t exist, if you’ve ever sat on a jury you’ll know it’s very technical, not like it’s portrayed on TV lol.

 

[Merpedy]

A jury can only convict on the evidence in front of them,not intel! People saying she’ll go down for years isn’t correct ,when any forensics etc linking her to crimes doesn’t exist, if you’ve ever sat on a jury you’ll know it’s very technical, not like it’s portrayed on TV lol.

If the intel is so weak as to not result in a conviction then perhaps there is a bit of a problem?

A woman was convicted for being an ISIS member, think we mentioned her on the thread before:

British woman who joined Isis is jailed for six years

Tareena Shakil travelled to Syria with her young son and was found guilty of encouraging acts of terror on social media

www.theguardian.com

Jailing her for four years for her Isis membership and two years for encouraging acts of terror in messages she sent via social media, the judge said she would be entitled to release on licence after the halfway point.

I assume this was under s.11 of the Terrorism Act
https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidan...ution-individuals-involved-terrorism-overseas

Proscribed terrorist groups or organisations

www.gov.uk

 

[monga]

If the intel is so weak as to not result in a conviction then perhaps there is a bit of a problem?

A woman was convicted for being an ISIS member, think we mentioned her on the thread before:

British woman who joined Isis is jailed for six years

Tareena Shakil travelled to Syria with her young son and was found guilty of encouraging acts of terror on social media

www.theguardian.com

I assume this was under s.11 of the Terrorism Act
https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidan...ution-individuals-involved-terrorism-overseas

Proscribed terrorist groups or organisations

www.gov.uk

Like I said they need concrete evidence to convict…We don’t know what intel they have on Begum ? The others may not have committed anything near what they have on her? …Do you not think it strange an array of different judges have backed the gov?

 

[Merpedy]

We don’t know what intel they have on Begum ? The others may not have committed anything near what they have on her?

Exactly the problem. We, as the public, don't know what they have on Begum. Justice generally functions in the interest of the public and here we are meant to blindly believe that the Government can prove she's a danger to national security but not that the evidence can be shared

Do you not think it strange an array of different judges have backed the gov?

The judges haven't said anything about the merits of the Government's evidence on her as far as I understand. Their decisions are based on the legal questions before them

The court has not expressed a view one way or the other on whether she is a security risk. What it has said is that parliament conferred the power of decision on the home secretary, and the assessment of the security risk was a matter for him. It is not for the courts to take the decision out of his hands and make it for themselves.

Supreme Court rules that home secretary is the best judge of national security risk

The Supreme Court’s decision in the Shamima Begum case will arouse much partisan fervour and will no doubt be widely misrepresented. But it is an important case

www.thetimes.co.uk

Supreme Court rules that home secretary is the best judge of national…

archived 6 Mar 2021 02:16:40 UTC

archive.ph

This whole matter on evidence seems to link to why her lawyer retired or 'quit' - the story was posted here a while ago I think

In open statements made, the Home Secretary does appear to be relying on a threat to national security. He no doubt has evidence, it is said, but that evidence cannot be made public. This is a circular argument. . The evidence can be tested in the Special Immigration Appeals Commission (SIAC) but any evidence which relates to security considerations will be tested behind closed doors. Shamima will not have access to it and cannot challenge it and indeed the whole process is conducted while she is abroad with significant legal challenges for her lawyers in obtaining funding for her case and instructions from her.

The case of Shamima Begum: A threat to national security or populist witch hunt? | Bindmans

We discuss the debate surrounding whether it is right or wrong to allow Shamima Begum back into the country

www.bindmans.com

 

[Moth]

The problem with the argument that she should be put on trial in the UK is a lack of understanding about what her charges would be and even if convicted what would be her sentence. It is by no means certain that she would be charged with anything and extremely unlikely that any sentence would involve prison time. FWIW I don't really care whether he comes back to the UK or not.

 

[Moley1]

The problem with the argument that she should be put on trial in the UK is a lack of understanding about what her charges would be and even if convicted what would be her sentence. It is by no means certain that she would be charged with anything and extremely unlikely that any sentence would involve prison time. FWIW I don't really care whether he comes back to the UK or not.

It is a she not a he. It isn’t a question of what she has or has not done. It’s about her British citizenship being stripped from her. After being born and raised here how would you feel if a vote chasing politician decided that you were no longer a British citizen because what you may or may not have done in another country?
Her alleged crimes are a side issue.

 

[Emsie]

It is a she not a he. It isn’t a question of what she has or has not done. It’s about her British citizenship being stripped from her. After being born and raised here how would you feel if a vote chasing politician decided that you were no longer a British citizen because what you may or may not have done in another country?
Her alleged crimes are a side issue.

this!
You can't just strip people of citizenship because you want to.
They stripped her because of public outcry not because of justice and that's a scary thing to happen.

 

[emm]

this!
You can't just strip people of citizenship because you want to.
They stripped her because of public outcry not because of justice and that's a scary thing to happen.

Exactly, imagine the government basically just having the right to remove anyone's citizenship based on some.hidden charges (not saying she hasn't committed a crime, I do.think she has) but that's not the point. It's a terrifying prospect what could happen if we go down that route

 

[Moth]

this!
You can't just strip people of citizenship because you want to.
They stripped her because of public outcry not because of justice and that's a scary thing to happen.

Exactly, imagine the government basically just having the right to remove anyone's citizenship based on some.hidden charges (not saying she hasn't committed a crime, I do.think she has) but that's not the point. It's a terrifying prospect what could happen if we go down that route

You don't have to imagine it. The power to deprive some people of their British citizenship has existed since at least 1915. Over the years and particularly the last 20 years, that power has expanded. The Home Secretary can deprive someone of their British Citizenship without 'due process' in advance if they are satisfied that it is "conducive to the public good". While there is a right of appeal, this is no longer "suspensive' i.e the decision isn't held up while the appeal is heard. Over 1,000 citizenship deprivation orders were made from 2010 to 2022 so Shamima Begum isn't the first or the last person to suffer that fate. The evidence is that in recent years Home Secretaries have removed the citizenship of every person that they believed they could legitimately do so. Shamima Begum wasn't singled out because of "public outcry", she is simply the one that everybody has heard about because the media have been all over her story since the moment she left the UK to join ISIS.

 

[Salted Caramel]

Shamima Begum and other jihadi brides could return to UK over international pressure

Dozens of jihadi brides like Shamima Begum could return to the UK

The moves, which are being led by the US government, could lead to the return of 'dozens' of brides such as Shamima Begum, left.

www.dailymail.co.uk

Shamima Begum could return to UK due to international pressure

International calls increase pressure for UK ministers to bring back 'jihadi brides' who joined ISIS.

www.express.co.uk

 

[Erikafei]

Interested to see the outcome.

 

[Deeznutslol]

Interested to see the outcome.

I honestly reckon she’ll end up coming back to the UK at the end of all of this tbh.

 

[monga]

When you look at the ridiculous amount of taxpayers cash spent on keeping the most dangerous criminals here it’s a given they’ll use the same loophole with her, gov have no duty of care to it’s citizens anymore, the ECHR only seems to apply to criminals, rest of us just have to cross our fingers and hope for the best.

Islamist extremism 'not being effectively tackled by Government'

archived 21 Feb 2024 22:42:46 UTC

archive.ph

 

[smirkingrevenge]

I’m not sure why she wants to go back. Her life in the UK will be miserable. Her story is so polarising I’m not even sure she will get much airtime and wouldn’t be able to make money that way. She is setting herself and her whole family up for a really miserable life.

 

[Erikafei]

I’m not sure why she wants to go back. Her life in the UK will be miserable. Her story is so polarising I’m not even sure she will get much airtime and wouldn’t be able to make money that way. She is setting herself and her whole family up for a really miserable life.

I mean what's the alternative? She lives in a tent now in a camp that she can't leave. Naturally she wants to leave.

 

[monga]

I’m not sure why she wants to go back. Her life in the UK will be miserable. Her story is so polarising I’m not even sure she will get much airtime and wouldn’t be able to make money that way. She is setting herself and her whole family up for a really miserable life.

Far from it ! she’ll be classed as a martyr to the cause, extremists will gather round her , if anything it’ll push more into her way of thinking once she’s labelled a victim .

 

[monga]

They’ve dismissed her appeal.
Shocking if they allow more money to be wasted on this case .

 

[UsernameBlank]

Is she still married? I’ve read her say no and him say yes. He claims she gets his wage from Isis while in the camp?

 

[smirkingrevenge]

Far from it ! she’ll be classed as a martyr to the cause, extremists will gather round her , if anything it’ll push more into her way of thinking once she’s labelled a victim .

Some, yes, but those who mostly would are busy with the Israel - Palestine war. Her case is also on such high levels, trying to platform her could come with consequences.