• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Bringing 'Em Back or Not? (I.D.'ed Cdn ISIS fighters, families, kids?)

OldSolduer

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
1,623
Points
910
Questions to ponder about the former ISIS fighters.

1) Had they won would they want to come back home and live with the unwashed, or would they want to live in their self made kingdom of what ever? Rest of the world would call it hell on earth I am sure.

2) Since they all volunteered to go and they flew there, hitched rides, lied their way there, why is up to the Canadian Government to bring them back? Went on their own dime, let them come back home on their own dime? They must of been well paid after all ISIS was making money to buy equipment, and feed the troops, video feeds, on line presence etc, all black market money I know but where is the money?

3) If these family members are so concerned now about their safety, why did they not try and stop them from going over there? Not much of a family values before they went and lost .Being concerned after the fact is compelling but not enough for me to raise a thought to email my MP to ask for help on their behalf. ( selfish maybe)

4) Once they are bought back, does Canadian Law cover them their crimes over seas? War Crimes, Crimes against Humanity? Do we want to pay to detain and hold them in jail for their crimes? Or does our leader pay them for their harsh treatment by another country and treatment under the other country's laws? How much is it worth this time around?

5) Does the neighbours of their families want them come live next door again, they will always wonder if the former ISIS fighter is going to snap today, and who is going to bear the attack.

Just my thoughts.
A Canadian is a Canadian is a Canadian.
 

FormerHorseGuard

Sr. Member
Reaction score
53
Points
280
commit a crime go to jail. I am sure there are or were laws being broken here in Canada, and over there. Let the lawyers over there sort it out then maybe we can do something
 

CBH99

Army.ca Veteran
Donor
Reaction score
691
Points
990


There are a few things about these types of articles that bug me:

a) “It is unclear if Ottawa knew that the US would be taking Mr. Khalifa into custody”

So as the reporter of the article, you are basically saying you don’t know if Ottawa was aware or not. So why bother writing it? The RCMP National Security Division has constant communication with the FBI Counter Terror Division (constant as in daily.)

I’m sure the folks on this file were well aware. Whether they briefed some bureaucrat about it, who knows.



b) “We shouldn’t be relying on the FBI to repatriate Canadians for us, in this manner.”

We didn’t ask the FBI to repatriate this person, nor were we relying on them to bring this person back to North America. This person is not someone in distress the same way a hostage would be, we weren’t relying on the FBI to rescue them and bring them home.

They are an admitted member of ISIS, and our government chose to not give a shit about their well-being. (I am usually very frustrated by the federal government in action on many things, but in this case I am finding it hard to really care to be honest.)



c) When government agencies refer questions to each other, don’t provide strong statements, etc - it eats away at public confidence, and gives the appearance of poor leadership.

How difficult is it to make a broad yet vague statement akin to what the FBI said on the matter?

“Anybody who participates in terrorism or terrorist activities, or supports terrorist activities in any way, will absolutely be held accountable. We have coordinated this file with our American colleagues, and Mr. Khalifa was brought to the United States to be prosecuted.”

Boom - it’s that easy to maintain public confidence in our agencies, and not appear to be a bumbling idiot.
 

The Bread Guy

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
335
Points
1,130
How Germany's handling one of their cases ....
A Munich court on Monday sentenced a German woman, who had allowed a young Yazidi girl to die of thirst, to 10 years in prison after finding her guilty of supporting Islamic State militants in Iraq, aiding and abetting attempted murder, attempted war crimes and crimes against humanity.

Prosecutors had accused the 30-year-old woman, identified as Jennifer W. in court documents, of joining the militant group in 2014 and integrating herself into the decision-making and command structure of the group.

The woman was accused of letting a 5-year-old enslaved Yazidi girl die of thirst after her husband, an Islamic State fighter, chained the child up in a courtyard without protection from the scorching heat as punishment for wetting her mattress, prosecutors said ...
a) “It is unclear if Ottawa knew that the US would be taking Mr. Khalifa into custody”

So as the reporter of the article, you are basically saying you don’t know if Ottawa was aware or not. So why bother writing it? ...
I can't read minds, but that section can also be read as, "nobody we've talked to wants to say out loud if Canada knew about charges being laid in the U.S. I'm going to guess someone at some level "knew," too, but admitting it would maybe show their hand too much - or give defence counsel (who seems to contend that Canadians should be tried in a Canadian system) some ammo. That's why you won't be likely to hear anything as clear and reasonably unambiguous as this ....
“Anybody who participates in terrorism or terrorist activities, or supports terrorist activities in any way, will absolutely be held accountable. We have coordinated this file with our American colleagues, and Mr. Khalifa was brought to the United States to be prosecuted.”

Boom - it’s that easy to maintain public confidence in our agencies, and not appear to be a bumbling idiot.
"Bumbling" can also be in the eye of the beholder, too -- those who would hear that and say, "we're going to let the Americans hold people accountable for us?" might not see that as a statement instilling public confidence in Canadian agencies and processes.
 

CBH99

Army.ca Veteran
Donor
Reaction score
691
Points
990
How Germany's handling one of their cases ....


I can't read minds, but that section can also be read as, "nobody we've talked to wants to say out loud if Canada knew about charges being laid in the U.S. I'm going to guess someone at some level "knew," too, but admitting it would maybe show their hand too much - or give defence counsel (who seems to contend that Canadians should be tried in a Canadian system) some ammo. That's why you won't be likely to hear anything as clear and reasonably unambiguous as this ....

"Bumbling" can also be in the eye of the beholder, too -- those who would hear that and say, "we're going to let the Americans hold people accountable for us?" might not see that as a statement instilling public confidence in Canadian agencies and processes.
Happy Monday, Bread Guy ☺️

- Agreed very much so about Canadian agencies staying mute on the matter, as it could give defence counsel options/ammo.


- I was thinking more or less as a generality (about public statements), rather than just this specific case.

Having various government agencies basically say “We don’t have this information, please forward your questions to insert agency here.” And then having that agency also more or less play dumb - doesn’t inspire confidence, even if it is beyond said that way quite deliberately.

The clear and unambiguous statements are more or less standard talk for most press releases, press conferences, address to the nation, etc.

Strongly oppose terrorism and violence, while also quietly preaching our values, is something the average Joe Public can hear and feel good about.

It’s not like the government doesn’t use basically watermark/robotic responses to almost any other issue.


Either way, I totally agree with your points 👍🏻
 

The Bread Guy

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
335
Points
1,130
... The clear and unambiguous statements are more or less standard talk for most press releases, press conferences, address to the nation, etc.
(...)
It’s not like the government doesn’t use basically watermark/robotic responses to almost any other issue ...
When it comes to almost all government writing, though, it's often that second bit that leads to a shortage of that first bit #AccuracyBrevityClarityPickAnyTwo :D
 

The Bread Guy

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
335
Points
1,130
One of 'em coming back to Canada ...
The lawyer for a Canadian woman who spent two years in Syrian prison camps said Friday he’s trying to help get her home from Iraq after Ottawa agreed to give her an emergency travel document.

Lawyer Paul Champ said he is working with Global Affairs Canada to get authorization from Kurdish officials in northern Iraq for her departure and to identify an appropriate flight.

In a letter Thursday to Champ, a Justice Canada official said the Immigration Department had authorized the issuance of a travel document for the woman, who cannot be publicly named due to a judge’s confidentiality order.

Global Affairs Canada will provide the woman “a viable itinerary option for her travel to Canada,” the Justice letter said.

“It is the individual’s responsibility to purchase an air ticket, at personal expense, and to provide the confirmed itinerary to GAC, noting that it will be important that your client wait for GAC confirmation of the specific date of travel prior to purchasing an air ticket.”

The development comes after the woman asked the Federal Court to compel Ottawa to give her an emergency document so she could return home ...
 
Top