Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
Extremists return to U.S./Canada. Now what?
Topic Started: Sep 18 2014, 02:43 AM (285 Views)
split decision
Member Avatar
Porn savant
ISIS is attracting people with radical leanings from Canada and the U.S. who are going over there to take up the fight.

But some of them are quickly becoming disillusioned. They realize the ideology of the crazies is really appalling. So then they turn around and come home, and some of them are being detected by government operatives.

The question is what should the American and Canadian governments do about these types?

Some say they should be jailed, or stripped of their citizenship and deported if they are foreign-born.

Some say they've learned their lesson so let them be.

Others argue that their value now would be in helping "deradicalize" those who are at high risk of becoming extremists themselves. They could be persuasive since they saw the dark side and pulled back from it.

Whaddya think?


Dealing with foreign fighters who return home must go beyond imprisonment, experts say

With reports surfacing that some westerners fighting in Syria and other conflict zones have become fed up with what they signed up for, governments are wrestling with how to deal with this disillusioned bunch if they come home.

Should they be prosecuted or does it make more sense to monitor them, use them to gather intelligence, steer some of them — particularly the less battle-hardened ones — into de-radicalization programs and counterterrorism campaigns?

Canadian public safety officials aren’t saying much about the game plan they have for dealing with returning foreign fighters, but some experts said this week they would be wise not to focus exclusively on punishment.

“They’ll have to be assessed to see if they’re dangerous, scrutinized if they’ve committed major atrocities that should be prosecuted. But a lot (of them) may just be foot soldiers working at low levels,” said Lorne Dawson, an expert on radicalization at the University of Waterloo.

“If we don’t do anything more than threaten imprisonment, then they’ll come back in a covert way. If we can offer some kind of program of counselling and reintegration, some may come back in a more forthright manner.

“There has to be a legitimate possibility to restore their lives.”

Staff at the International Centre for the Study of Radicalization at King’s College London have spoken with some British militants in Syria who have expressed frustration with in-fighting among rebel groups. Some of them want to come home but fear being locked up in prison.

British terrorism experts told the Washington Post that some foreign fighters should be allowed to come home and be monitored, placed in de-radicalization programs and used as spokesmen against extremism.

“Clearly, people like that could become very powerful spokespeople that you could send into Muslim communities to speak out against (Islamic State),” Peter Neumann, the centre’s director, was quoted as saying.

The RCMP said this week that, as part of its counterterrorism efforts, “formerly radicalized individuals” could be tapped to “provide a realistic account of their past experience and discourage individuals at risk from going down the path of violence.”

Using former fighters to counter extremist propaganda is a good idea because they have “street credibility,” said Muhammad Robert Heft, a Toronto-based RCMP community outreach liaison. The tricky part is making sure they’re sincere in renouncing extremist views, he said.

Some western leaders have said returning fighters could pose a greater threat than when they left because of the terrorist training they’ve acquired abroad.

That concern was echoed in a recent Public Safety Canada report, which said some returnees “have the credibility to encourage and recruit aspiring violent extremists” and “could plan and carry out terrorist attacks in Canada.”

More than 130 people with Canadian ties are believed to be involved in terrorism-related activities abroad, the government says.

About 80 people have returned to Canada after taking part in terrorist-related activities, which could include paramilitary activities, fundraising and attending extremist schools. It is unclear what their status is. Josee Picard, a spokeswoman for Public Safety Canada, would say only that “not all returnees represent a domestic threat.”

Asked what the options are for dealing with returnees, she said they could be charged under the Combating Terrorism Act, which makes it a crime to travel for terrorist purposes. There is also an option to strip Canadian citizenship from dual citizens or deny citizenship to permanent residents.

Wesley Wark, an intelligence expert at the University of Ottawa, said returning fighters have to be dealt with on a case-by-case basis, but he suspects priority is being given to gathering as much information as possible about their activities.

“It is vital to try to identify recruitment and transmission networks for foreign fighters going to Iraq and Syria,” he said. “Intelligence collection may, in some cases, trump law enforcement activities.”

He said building criminal cases that will hold up in court is challenging, so only the most egregious cases — especially where violence or murder can be documented — will go to trial.

It is clear that some westerners who went abroad in search of adventure and purpose are now regretting their decisions, said Ray Boisvert, a former assistant director at CSIS. “They realize they are surrounded by pathological, irreligious figures who are enamoured with blood-letting and not the liberation of people or communities. So at this point they just want out,” he said.

“We need to accept that, versus being focused on punishment. But, and a big but, they need to be heavily supervised and Canada really does not have any de-radicalization program.”

Liberal public safety critic Wayne Easter has tabled a motion for the House of Commons public safety committee to conduct an “urgent study” of Canadians joining militant groups abroad.

The government needs to be more transparent about the scope of the problem, why it’s happening and what’s being done to respond to it, he said.

http://o.canada.com/news/national/dealing-with-foreign-fighters-who-return-home-must-go-beyond-imprisonment-experts-say
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Cbear
Member Avatar

Article too long to read. They are traitors how simply pussied out on being murderous traitors. Death to traitors. This isn't a hippy dope smoking patchoulie game. If they wanted to be "rebels" and it was too tough for them, then fuck'em because their betrayal already happened, they just didn't want to work for it. Life on a chain gang breaking rocks or death. Fuck traitors.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Cbear
Member Avatar

For comparison....your wife dumps your ass to go fuck the scummiest gangbanger around and when they beat her ass, she wants to return and you take care of her. Forgive? Oh hell no.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
split decision
Member Avatar
Porn savant
Good to see you can still get the fire in your belly, ol' Cbear.

:)
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Deleted User
Deleted User

People make mistakes.

While *I* may not forgive them for those mistakes - if they've broken now laws in our land and still hold valid citizenship - then they shouldn't be jailed just because they MIGHT be a terrorist.
Quote Post Goto Top
 
Tallica
Member Avatar

BDW
Sep 18 2014, 10:02 AM
People make mistakes.

While *I* may not forgive them for those mistakes - if they've broken now laws in our land and still hold valid citizenship - then they shouldn't be jailed just because they MIGHT be a terrorist.
I can understand this, but at the very least, i think they have to lose their right to privacy. As far as I'm concerned, they should be forced to register all forms of contact and communication and it should be monitored heavily. Failure to report changes or alternate forms of communication should be a trip to the pokey for a long time.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Deleted User
Deleted User

Fuck that.

If someone feels the need to go to Egypt to fight for their families (etc) then they have that right.

They shouldn't be put in a slave state (I realize that's a Juggsy extreme view here - but it's a slippery slope once you start giving up basis human rights) when they return once they realize how insane it is over there.

Take this scenario:

You have a young Egyptian boy (GAWD that sounds so HAWT) who has been raised as a muslim, in egypt, all the way through his adult life. He then decides to come to America and goes to college, gets a degree, becomes a productive American citizen and is living his life here.

He gets a call from his family (all still in egypt) and they say that they need help. One muslim side is trying to kill another muslim side and they need him home. He hops on a bird and goes home, only to find that his family is on an "extremist side". Now, they're not killing anyone but they're helping the extremist via supply channels and ports in an effort to keep their entire town from being nuked off the face of the map.

So he helps them. He stays over there for a year, 2 years, a few months, whatever, and helps his family and town survive (and by proxy helps some extremist faction who is protecting their town).

Then he realizes how fucking stupid it is when the extremist decide to stop supporting the town and go do whatever extremists do and he moves his family elsewhere, packs his shit up, and comes back to the states.

Dude doesn't deserve to be under a microscope - even though his entire paper trail will suggest that he "used to be a terrorist".

I'm just saying there is a lot of grey area and when we give up human rights in this instance - it eventually snowballs to giving up human rights for everyone. It's just like that prison in Shawshank: the first time he chipped at it - it looked like there would never be a hole. But he was swimming a free man in sewage not that long (relatively) afterwards.
Quote Post Goto Top
 
split decision
Member Avatar
Porn savant
In your scenario, Bulldog, I agree with not punishing the guy. But let's put a twist on it. Let's say he spends those two years working alongside his family for an extremist group that also openly denounces the U.S. and declares jihad on Americans.

Let's say that guy eventually loses his enthusiasm for the cause and decides his life in the U.S., although not perfect, was better than what the wacko extremists had to offer.

What do you do about that guy?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
scarborough
Member Avatar

Can't this open the way for extremists who HAVE NOT reformed to get a free pass back to the western world to start up a cell of their own on our home soil?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
split decision
Member Avatar
Porn savant
scarborough
Sep 18 2014, 10:52 AM
Can't this open the way for extremists who HAVE NOT reformed to get a free pass back to the western world to start up a cell of their own on our home soil?
Yeah, absolutely. That is a concern. So it's a question of where you draw the line on punishment/infringing on freedoms before people under suspicion even commit a crime.

Minority Report type of stuff.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Deleted User
Deleted User

split decision
Sep 18 2014, 10:44 AM
In your scenario, Bulldog, I agree with not punishing the guy. But let's put a twist on it. Let's say he spends those two years working alongside his family for an extremist group that also openly denounces the U.S. and declares jihad on Americans.

Let's say that guy eventually loses his enthusiasm for the cause and decides his life in the U.S., although not perfect, was better than what the wacko extremists had to offer.

What do you do about that guy?
Nothing.

You certainly don't take away his rights.

Assuming he hasn't killed anyone (directly or directly assisted) - then as long as he hasn't broken any laws, etc etc - he lives his life just as anyone else would.

Shit. I don't think we should jail/imprison NON-VIOLENT supporters of terrorist organizations to be honest. It's pretty shitty that they're like that - but we don't imprison people associated with gangs when they have no violent past, do we? I dunno - it's just a very slippery slope when you start taking human rights away.
Quote Post Goto Top
 
split decision
Member Avatar
Porn savant
BDW
Sep 18 2014, 11:01 AM
split decision
Sep 18 2014, 10:44 AM
In your scenario, Bulldog, I agree with not punishing the guy. But let's put a twist on it. Let's say he spends those two years working alongside his family for an extremist group that also openly denounces the U.S. and declares jihad on Americans.

Let's say that guy eventually loses his enthusiasm for the cause and decides his life in the U.S., although not perfect, was better than what the wacko extremists had to offer.

What do you do about that guy?
Nothing.

You certainly don't take away his rights.

Assuming he hasn't killed anyone (directly or directly assisted) - then as long as he hasn't broken any laws, etc etc - he lives his life just as anyone else would.

Shit. I don't think we should jail/imprison NON-VIOLENT supporters of terrorist organizations to be honest. It's pretty shitty that they're like that - but we don't imprison people associated with gangs when they have no violent past, do we? I dunno - it's just a very slippery slope when you start taking human rights away.
Fair enough. But let's say that guy buys the house for sale next to yours and moves in.

A few weeks later you see dated footage of your neighbor on a newscast, you recognize him among a crowd of jihadists who are shouting "Death to the infidels" while burning an American flag.

You aren't going to feel uncomfortable with that guy living next door?

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Deleted User
Deleted User

Nope. Not in the slightest.

1) I wouldn't recognize him (they all look the same to me) but let's assume that I do. just because someone does some stupid shit on TV doesn't make them a ravenous murderous lunatic. My parents were hippies and have pictures of them burning American flags when they were teens. My dad ended up retiring as a Major in the USAF. People change and people can be different and have different opinions than other people and that doesn't mean you have to be afraid of them.

Now, if the guy set a bomb and blew it up and killed people somewhere, and then came back to the states - yeah - I'd have a problem with that.

But I don't think you should lose the freedoms that this country is supposedly built around just because your views might make some people uncomfortable.
Quote Post Goto Top
 
Tallica
Member Avatar

BDW
Sep 18 2014, 10:37 AM
Fuck that.

If someone feels the need to go to Egypt to fight for their families (etc) then they have that right.

They shouldn't be put in a slave state (I realize that's a Juggsy extreme view here - but it's a slippery slope once you start giving up basis human rights) when they return once they realize how insane it is over there.

Take this scenario:

You have a young Egyptian boy (GAWD that sounds so HAWT) who has been raised as a muslim, in egypt, all the way through his adult life. He then decides to come to America and goes to college, gets a degree, becomes a productive American citizen and is living his life here.

He gets a call from his family (all still in egypt) and they say that they need help. One muslim side is trying to kill another muslim side and they need him home. He hops on a bird and goes home, only to find that his family is on an "extremist side". Now, they're not killing anyone but they're helping the extremist via supply channels and ports in an effort to keep their entire town from being nuked off the face of the map.

So he helps them. He stays over there for a year, 2 years, a few months, whatever, and helps his family and town survive (and by proxy helps some extremist faction who is protecting their town).

Then he realizes how fucking stupid it is when the extremist decide to stop supporting the town and go do whatever extremists do and he moves his family elsewhere, packs his shit up, and comes back to the states.

Dude doesn't deserve to be under a microscope - even though his entire paper trail will suggest that he "used to be a terrorist".

I'm just saying there is a lot of grey area and when we give up human rights in this instance - it eventually snowballs to giving up human rights for everyone. It's just like that prison in Shawshank: the first time he chipped at it - it looked like there would never be a hole. But he was swimming a free man in sewage not that long (relatively) afterwards.
I feel like you are throwing out a scenario that doesn't really apply. In order to identify the people returning from the ME as Islamic Extremists (or apparently wannabe posers), there is more to point to other than the fact that they just went there and now they're back. A lot of these are white youths native to the west and being recruited online through social media, etc. They buy into the down with America shit and are going there to take up arms. Once they realize how real shit is there, they are scampering back, BUT they were motivated enough to harm this country that they went to the fucking Middle East!

Just because it's psychotic behavior cranked up to 11 that they can't handle doesn't mean they still don't harbor hatred and intent to harm the people and institutions in this country. Letting them even return is questionable, but demanding access to their entire network of communications for an indefinite amount of time upon return is very necessary, imo. Their intent was to betray this country and cause harm to our citizens.

This isn't about stripping a demographic of their rights as Americans, it's about monitoring genuine threats with a high level of probable cause. Oh, and if one of those fucks moved next door to me, my house would be on the market THAT DAY and I'd be getting the fuck outta this town completely.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Deleted User
Deleted User

That's fine and dandy - but again - if they've done nothing wrong other than go there and get a taste of the "WTF this is actually real shit and isn't just me rebeling against my upbringing" - then they absolutely shouldn't give up their rights as citizens of this country.

Doing so will cascade to more and more people being included in that net until - eventually, maybe 100 years from now - America isn't free.

Stupid kids make stupid mistakes - and in college people's minds are easily changed to think a certain way. They're free to make that choice and - as long as they haven't acted on it in a negative way - they're free to voice the displeasure in whatever peaceful way they choose. It's different if they start the whole "I'm going to blow this country up" stuff - but as long as they aren't acting on it - I'm fine with it.

It's no different than other people who hate how this country is run and complain about it.
Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Create a free forum in seconds.
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · General Discussion · Next Topic »
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1