Thread by @visadreams

The decision by @sajidjavid to compromise the UK's official opposition to the death penalty in the case of the 'ISIS Beatles' should not come as a surprise to anyone. Rather, it is reflective of official UK policy when dealing with those accused of particularly heinous crimes.

At the height of the War on Terror, despite its official opposition to torture, the UK was a key player in the extraordinary rendition programme whereby terror suspects were kidnapped and sent to other countries to be tortured, often in the presence of UK intelligence officers

UK officials were present while people were tortured in Guantanamo Bay, Bagram airbase, the UAE, and elsewhere and supplied questions to interrogators for their own purposes theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/j…

The idea that UK laws are insufficient to prosecute these men is laughable. Of the 1,043 individuals charged with a terrorism related offence since
11 September 2001, 81% (845) were proceeded against, and of those
85% (716) have been convicted

Furthermore, of the 110 persons charged with a terrorism-related offence in the year ending December 2017, 29 have been prosecuted so far, all of whom were found guilty. This comes from the Commons Library Briefing 7 June 2018.

In terms of prosecuting those suspected of fighting in Syria, as far back as 2014, British courts have been convicting such individuals even where the CPS has admitted not having evidence of their being involved with any rebel group

cage.ngo/when-does-trav…

Even in terms of sentencing, judges are regularly handing down life sentences with minimum terms of 40 years in accordance with the new sentencing guidelines

sentencingcouncil.org.uk/wp-content/upl…

One possible reason why the government fears that these men may not be able to be successfully prosecuted in the UK is because the evidence against them has been extracted by torture, which is inadmissible. In essence, the UK is simply forum shopping.

Ironically while there is disquiet about these men being executed following conviction in a court of law, the first indication that the UK position on the death penalty had changed should have been when it admitted extrajudicially killing terror suspects via drone strikes.

The argument that these are all exceptions to the general rule is difficult to accept. A study of the implementation of terrorism laws in the UK over many decades shows that once on the books, those laws and powers are used against other 'undesirables’.

When the government began depriving terror suspects of their citizenship, it was argued that such a draconian measure was reserved only for these people accused of terrorism. Fast forward a few years and paedophiles were also being stripped of their citizenship.

Despite the depravity of the crimes involved, when the UK as a society has decided that it opposes the death penalty, torture and rendering people stateless, these should remain absolute principles. Otherwise, the categories of 'undesirables' is dependant on the public mood.

A final point on the issue of deprivation of citizenship itself. What many are unaware of is that the measure is taken without any due process or evidence in a court of law, with the only redress being to appeal the decision after it has been implemented.

In the past, once secretly deprived of their UK citizenship, individuals have been killed in drone strikes by the US

thebureauinvestigates.com/stories/2013-0…

So sending them to the US to be executed should not come as a surprise but as a logical progression of the same policy.