Hoda Muthana

[Dill]

(02-21-2019, 07:01 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: I think it's a great story as it is.
She did what she did and now regrets what she did. Sadly the US won't allow her to come back, makes for a good story for other women seeking the same and being misled by the false promises.

That's why I think the story should get more coverage and detail--if it sheds light on how people are recruited to ISIS.

[Dill]

(02-21-2019, 10:48 AM)michaelsean Wrote: Treason involves armed conflict, not necessarily a declaration of war.  

And sorry to the 20 year old, but you don't get a redo.  We have a lot of people her age in prison who didn't get a do over.  "Oh my bad.  Won't happen again."

John Walker Lindh fought with the Taliban and was tried for "conspiracy" to kill Americans and offering material support to terrorist organizations. 

But so far as I can tell, he was not accused of treason.  It's not clear he actually fought against Americans, as he appears to have been captured by the Northern Alliance.  That's why I am wondering if the legal status of the U.S. opponent is important in determining treason.

[Bengalzona]

(02-21-2019, 09:24 AM)fredtoast Wrote: Is she hot?

ISIL married her to three different fighters in order to make her a baby factory. So, by their standards she is, I guess.

[*michaelsean*]

(02-21-2019, 08:54 PM)Dill Wrote: John Walker Lindh fought with the Taliban and was tried for "conspiracy" to kill Americans and offering material support to terrorist organizations. 

But so far as I can tell, he was not accused of treason.  It's not clear he actually fought against Americans, as he appears to have been captured by the Northern Alliance.  That's why I am wondering if the legal status of the U.S. opponent is important in determining treason.

They aren’t required to charge you with treason. I’m sure there are s lot of factors that go into the decision.

[Dill]

(02-21-2019, 11:44 PM)michaelsean Wrote: They aren’t required to charge you with treason. I’m sure there are s lot of factors that go into the decision.

Lindh was a complicated one. They had him on a number of charges. He pled to two. My assumption was that his U.S. citizenship was complicating things--especially after the mishandling.  He only got 20 years with no parole.

I remember at the time that Ann Coulter wanted him charged with treason and executed.

[BmorePat87]

Apparently her father lost his diplomat status months before she was born and her mom became a citizen prior to her birth. The State Dept initially contested this when he sought a passport for her when she was a year old, but then accepted it after the UN confirmed he lost his diplomat status (as Yemen was going through instability at the time) and confirmed her citizenship at the time.

So she's likely a citizen. I say let her back in and imprison her.

[*michaelsean*]

(02-22-2019, 09:48 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Apparently her father lost his diplomat status months before she was born and her mom became a citizen prior to her birth. The State Dept initially contested this when he sought a passport for her when she was a year old, but then accepted it after the UN confirmed he lost his diplomat status (as Yemen was going through instability at the time) and confirmed her citizenship at the time.

So she's likely a citizen. I say let her back in and imprison her.

Considering her child, I would say that's her best option.  You'd think they would both end up dead before long if they remain.

[Dill]

(02-21-2019, 11:44 PM)michaelsean Wrote: They aren’t required to charge you with treason. I’m sure there are s lot of factors that go into the decision.

Another idea just came into mind. Maybe it has some applicability to the Muthana case too.

In 2002, the US did not want to accord AQ and Taliban fighters the status of POWs, calling them rather "enemy combatants." 

To do that they could not regard them as armies of a legitimate state.

To charge John Walker Lindh with treason would have possibly affected the legal status of the Taliban and all other fighters by redefining the Taliban as the army of a state, their prisoners requiring Geneva protections and the like (including international inspections), which would mean sending them all home once the hot war was over rather than the indefinite detention desired.

Muthana might present a similar set of problems. It's hard to see what the legal consequences might be for future captives, so they want to avoid the problem altogether.  This continues to be a grey area for US law. Legally we only have a round hole and a square hole, but this peg is a triangle

[*michaelsean*]

(02-22-2019, 12:30 PM)Dill Wrote: Another idea just came into mind. Maybe it has some applicability to the Muthana case too.

In 2002, the US did not want to accord AQ and Taliban fighters the status of POWs, calling them rather "enemy combatants." 

To do that they could not regard them as armies of a legitimate state.

To charge John Walker Lindh with treason would have possibly affected the legal status of the Taliban and all other fighters by redefining the Taliban as the army of a state, their prisoners requiring Geneva protections and the like (including international inspections), which would mean sending them all home once the hot war was over rather than the indefinite detention desired.

Muthana might present a similar set of problems. It's hard to see what the legal consequences might be for future captives, so they want to avoid the problem altogether.  This continues to be a grey area for US law. Legally we only have a round hole and a square hole, but this peg is a triangle

If I remember correctly, they don't have to be from a recognized state.  It can be a group that you are in armed conflict with.  Sort of like you can declare war against a group like we did with the Barbary pirates.

My guess is they weren't positive of a treason conviction so they took the sure thing, but that's completely a guess.

[Dill]

(02-22-2019, 12:44 PM)michaelsean Wrote: If I remember correctly, they don't have to be from a recognized state.  It can be a group that you are in armed conflict with.  Sort of like you can declare war against a group like we did with the Barbary pirates.

My guess is they weren't positive of a treason conviction so they took the sure thing, but that's completely a guess.

That's not very clear cut, though. We are in "armed conflict" with drug cartels, even working with state militaries of Mexico and Columbia, but if we catch one of our guys working with them, there is no pressure to call that treason, even if it involves a conspiracy to defraud the US.

The Barbary pirates are a good analogy, though in that case we were dealing with states, and I don't think Congress ever declared war in both our conflicts with those guys; in the first one the Pasha of Tripoli actually declared war on us. And prisoner status was not a big problem.

I think the difference might be that, unlike a drug cartel or a gang like MS, a "group" like the Taliban or ISIS or AQ is a political organization with political goals, and in conflict with the US AS A STATE. But we don't want to treat them as states for fear of how international law would regulate our handling of prisoners.  Guantanamo would have to go, or it is just a US Gulag, complicating our policing of human rights everywhere else (Like China and Russia).

Same issue arose with the extra-judicial killing of U.S. citizen Anwar Al Awlaki in Yemen. A similar (but not identical) issue hobbled Jackson when he wanted to clear the Cherokee out of Georgia, and didn't want a tribe defined as a "state."

Muthana's citizenship may activate the problem again here, so our Justice Dept. may not want a trial in the US.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

I heard an interesting point regarding this girl and the one from the UK. The media is more sympathetic to these girls than they were to a kid wearing a MAGA hat and smirking! Smirking I tell you!

[fredtoast]

(02-22-2019, 07:20 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I heard an interesting point regarding this girl and the one from the UK.  The media is more sympathetic to these girls than they were to a kid wearing a MAGA hat and smirking!  Smirking I tell you!

That says a lot about the sources of information you listen to.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(02-22-2019, 07:28 PM)fredtoast Wrote: That says a lot about the sources of information you listen to.

It doesn't really, I listen to a very wide variety of sources.  I do notice you didn't address the point made though.

[*bfine32*]

(02-22-2019, 07:28 PM)fredtoast Wrote: That says a lot about the sources of information you listen to.

I agree!!

Anyone/source that was vindictive toward the MAGA kids and used terms such as smirking should absolutely be disregarded. 

[fredtoast]

(02-22-2019, 07:39 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: It doesn't really, I listen to a very wide variety of sources.  I do notice you didn't address the point made though.

But the ones you quote seem to be hard right leaning.

(02-22-2019, 07:39 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I do notice you didn't address the point made though.

I have not read a single story in the media that was "sympathetic" to this women.  All I have seen are stories like in the OP that just state what is going on.  And also pretty much every media outlet I listen to says that the video of the kid in the MAGA hat was deceptive.

So I really don't know what you are talking about.  I don't see the media being sympathetic to this woman but I do see them reporting on the poor boy being unfairly criticized.

But since you found the comment interesting I assume you have seen something different from me.

[fredtoast]

(02-22-2019, 07:47 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I agree!!

Anyone/source that was vindictive toward the MAGA kids and used terms such as smirking should absolutely be disregarded. 

He was smirking.  You are not going to deny that are you?

But once the media got the full story they all said the boy had been portrayed unfairly.

[*bfine32*]

(02-22-2019, 07:54 PM)fredtoast Wrote: He was smirking.  You are not going to deny that are you?

But once the media got the full story they all said the boy had been portrayed unfairly.

I sure am:
smirk

  (smûrk)
intr.v. smirked, smirk·ing, smirks
To smile in an annoying self-satisfied manner.


Folks used that term because they wanted to vilify him for no reason.


Yeah, many changed their tune once they got the whole story. That doesn't change the fact the people/sources that vilified the kid with no proof should not be dismissed as biased and ignorant.  So yeah, SSF's comment of some are willing to give the girl a bigger pass than they did a High School child has merit. 

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(02-22-2019, 07:52 PM)fredtoast Wrote: But the ones you quote seem to be hard right leaning.

Well, the left leaning ones have been sympathetic to these women, and I am not.  Hence, in this instance, I'm going to quote the right leaning ones.

Quote:I have not read a single story in the media that was "sympathetic" to this women.  All I have seen are stories like in the OP that just state what is going on.  And also pretty much every media outlet I listen to says that the video of the kid in the MAGA hat was deceptive.

Here's a few;

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/feb/18/britain-deradicalise-shemima-begum-isis

https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/hoda-muthana-isis-alabama-shamima-begum-trump-pompeo-sajid-javid-a8789931.html

https://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/foreign-affairs/should-we-forgive-isis-wives-like-hoda-muthana-and-shamima-begum/news-story/60119417f47849004f7718a2525ed0d8

Quote:So I really don't know what you are talking about.  I don't see the media being sympathetic to this woman but I do see them reporting on the poor boy being unfairly criticized.

To the former, no.  To the latter, yes, after the full story came out.  That didn't exactly happen in the beginning though did it?  So, your assertion is that the Covington kid was treated unfairly at first but not so much after the actual truth became known.  yet there are people calling for compassion for these ISIS women despite their being members of the vilest organization this world has seen since 1945.

Quote:But since you found the comment interesting I assume you have seen something different from me.

You assume correctly.  As I said, I watch/read/listen to a lot of different sources.

[Benton]

(02-22-2019, 08:32 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Well, the left leaning ones have been sympathetic to these women, and I am not.  Hence, in this instance, I'm going to quote the right leaning ones.





Here's a few;

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/feb/18/britain-deradicalise-shemima-begum-isis

https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/hoda-muthana-isis-alabama-shamima-begum-trump-pompeo-sajid-javid-a8789931.html

https://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/foreign-affairs/should-we-forgive-isis-wives-like-hoda-muthana-and-shamima-begum/news-story/60119417f47849004f7718a2525ed0d8




To the former, no.  To the latter, yes, after the full story came out.  That didn't exactly happen in the beginning though did it?  So, your assertion is that the Covington kid was treated unfairly at first but not so much after the actual truth became known.  yet there are people calling for compassion for these ISIS women despite their being members of the vilest organization this world has seen since 1945.



You assume correctly.  As I said, I watch/read/listen to a lot of different sources.

Just jumping into the middle, are there any us news sources sympathetic? Aside from MSNBC which I'm assuming has chartered a plane for her 

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(02-22-2019, 08:40 PM)Benton Wrote: Just jumping into the middle, are there any us news sources sympathetic? Aside from MSNBC which I'm assuming has chartered a plane for her 

A fair question.  The answer, I haven't seen one as sympathetic.  What I do see is them giving them a platform to make their case, something they did not do to the Covington kids before vilifying them.

http://www.msnbc.com/stephanie-ruhle/watch/alabama-isis-bride-hoda-muthana-speaks-about-returning-to-u-s-1446715971829