Militant Islamists

[scoundrel]

Originally Posted by Dr Pepper

But William Joyce, Lord Haw Haw was hanged for treason-under legally dubious circumstances after the war-and he was a foreigner. IIRC that was part of his defence-that being a foreigner (he was Irish but held American citizenship) he could not have committed treason-it didn't save him. Some of the background papers to his case were released (1996?) after the 50 year embargo had elapsed, and indicate that some senior figures in the UK government and legal system had grave doubts about the safety of the conviction-he was charged with 3 counts, but only found guilty on one.

So things are not as clear cut as they seem-and especially in the case of those holding dual citizenship/passports.....

William Joyce was charged on three counts and convicted only on one. Two of the counts cited days after 1940, and after 1940 he had officially adopted German citizenship. The Crown tried to override this and claim that his duty of allegiance was to Britain, but the jury disagreed, even in 1945 Britain and even a jury drawn from the people who had just gone through the war and were extremely familiar with Joyce. But he also made broadcasts in 1939 before his application for German citizenship was accepted and on that count he was convicted and hanged.

His mistake was that he lived in Britain before the war and falsely, using a forged British passport, poncing on our benefits and falsely claiming the right to work here. The Crown, in the person of Attorney General Mr Hartley Shawcross, successfully argued that he couldn't have it both ways. He couldn't fraudulently pretend to be a British citizen when it suited him and then take the stand and say "I am not a British citizen and therefore Britain, her King and her people are nothing and no one to me."

On our thread topic, I would argue that conflicts of loyalty are a central theme of the present Ukraine crisis. A lot of people in eastern Ukraine have, just like Mr Joyce, bitten the hand which feeds.

[vinceprince]

Originally Posted by scoundrel

I mean no offence Vince, but I rather think it is you who have the outdated concept of treason rather than me. In modern dictionaries, treason is defined so:

No offence Scoundrel but I don't think a dictionary counts as law in the UK or any other country. Judges get the law from statutes.

As well as being legally impossible any DPP (civil servant) considering bringing a case against the PM would be instantly removed.

Treason is a legal issue not a moral one. If one's views the Government or Constitution as tyrannical then being a 'traitor' is not a bad thing and supporters prefer to use the word 'dissident'.

[scoundrel]

Originally Posted by vinceprince

Treason is a legal issue not a moral one. If one's views the Government or Constitution as tyrannical then being a 'traitor' is not a bad thing and supporters prefer to use the word 'dissident'.

It is both, in my opinion. Also I agree that where the government is itself a criminal and disloyal enterprise leading the country to destruction, it is not treason to say so and to (in the last extreme) bear arms against your traitor government. Sophie Scholl was executed with her two companions as a traitor; but in fact she was the true German and her judge, Roland Friesler, and his boss, Adolf Hitler were the traitors, leading Germany on a path towards the Twilight of the Gods. To whom do we owe our allegiance? Her Majesty the Queen is our head of state and is the figurehead around which government rotates, but she is there as our collective representative, as was her father in WW2. It may be quaint and old fashioned but it works.

[brk549]

Does anyone think it will be better when Iran takes over,their the ones that have been behind most of all this.I'd say it's working out quite well for them.

[vinceprince]

Originally Posted by scoundrel

It is both, in my opinion. Also I agree that where the government is itself a criminal and disloyal enterprise leading the country to destruction, it is not treason to say so and to (in the last extreme) bear arms against your traitor government.

But it is treason in that country whether you agree with that or not.

Treason laws by their very nature are designed for one thing - to maintain the existing constitutional status quo.

Almost every country has them, if they were there to protect the people or promote some kind of greater moral cause all tyrannical regimes in the world would have been eliminated by now. In fact it's the opposite - the more tyrannical the regime is, the more treason laws are used.

'Treachery' maybe immoral but it can be very moral depending on your political view and the circumstances.

A government may break even international law but this is not 'treason' if it's within it's own constitutional powers.

I'm an English republican and so like many don't recognise any allegiance to the Monarchy. Promoting this view is still a treasonable offence under the Treason Felony Act 1848. Punishable by life imprisonment.

So I'm a traitor but consider myself very moral in just wanting a democratic Head of State.

[deepsepia]

On treason, we may again return to the wisdom of Talleyrand who noted that one's loyalty to a doomed regime is very much a timing issue.

On the matter of Marshal Marmont, who abandoned Napoleon in 1814 (at Talleyrand's urging), Talleyrand reduced this calculus to the simplest:
"His watch was running 15 minutes fast, while everyone else's was fifteen minutes slow"

Alexander Dumas rendered this sentiment in the more memorable formulation:
“The difference between treason and patriotism is only a matter of dates.”

Both of these address the issue of betraying a leader, a regime . .. not betraying a country.

It is not a habit of betrayed leaders to be generous in recognizing the distinction.

Those departing to fight for ISIS don't fall into either category-- they are effectively choosing to become citizens of another nation, and to fight for it. I don't see them as "traitors", just enemies.

[Tarkus666]

Originally Posted by brk549

Does anyone think it will be better when Iran takes over,their the ones that have been behind most of all this.I'd say it's working out quite well for them.

No because regardless of what the neo-cons want to say Iraq is not a country. It is three major areas of distinctiveness that we want to believe is a single country. Even if they stop ISIL the Sunni will never trust the Shia Government just like the Shia has never trusted the Sunni Government and the Kurds will remain the odd player out.

It is time to face the humous in the hubris and accept that the Shia majority will become either part or a satellite state to Iran. The Sunni will continue to exist in the west-northwest with no resources so they will be a burden on Saudi Arabia which the Saudi's believe the west should fund and Turkey will accept anything other than the Kurds having any legitimate stance in the world because it would affect 10% of their country.

Good luck with that.

[SanteeFats]

Originally Posted by 9876543210

Iranian artillery and troops backing up Iraqi troops?

9 the only reason, IMO, that it is going on is because Iran and ISIS are both radical outfits. Iran sees ISIS as a rival for domination in the area. After all it was just 26 years ago or so that Iran and Iraq ended an 8 year plus war between them. Push ISIS back and guess who will try and fill the void?

[scoundrel]

Originally Posted by deepsepia

Those departing to fight for ISIS don't fall into either category-- they are effectively choosing to become citizens of another nation, and to fight for it. I don't see them as "traitors", just enemies.

I do not recognise the legal existence of any country called Islamic State. I note also that none of these people has formally renounced citizenship of the UK, and already quite a few of them have been caught whilst trying to discreetly resume the appearence of citizenship. They are British citizens and they are going to Syria and Iraq to fight against Britain and Britain's allies.

Meanwhile, once again to remind us all of what this thread is supposed to be about, the supposed ceasefire seems still to be a turning down of the volume rather than the end of the music. The "separatists" (Ukrainian citizens and servants of a foreign power have persevered with offensive action in places where they see immediate gains to be had. They too are traitors and worthy of the traditional punishments.

Footnote: transferred from Putin thread because we cant stop banging on about ISIL instead of Putin.

[deepsepia]

Originally Posted by scoundrel

I do not recognise the legal existence of any country called Islamic State. I note also that none of these people has formally renounced citizenship of the UK, and already quite a few of them have been caught whilst trying to discreetly resume the appearence of citizenship. They are British citizens and they are going to Syria and Iraq to fight against Britain and Britain's allies.

I guess I differ there.

I think ISIS is a state-- they're much more than a terrorist organization, they actually administer a territory, have courts, schools, and so on.

And they're a state with which we're at war.

I'd prefer to treat those who go off to ISIS as "enemy nationals and combatants" rather than UK or US citizens.

Strip them of their US/UK citizenship, invite them to enjoy their new country.