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

[brihard]

Going off what’s open source, there are, broadly, two types of offenses in play for this stuff. One is terrorism offenses, easiest being 83.181, leave Canada to participate in the activities of a terrorist group. Pretty much an ISIS catch-all. Depending on what acts can be proven, the whole gamut of terrorism offenses are potentially in play. The other broad category is offenses found in the Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Act. Quite difficult to prove because of the specifics needed, but it affords options too. Either can be prosecuted for offences outside of Canada.

As for charging them here versus charging them there, the limited available information I’ve seen in the news suggests that most of the known CETs are in Kurdish controlled Syria, either in Al Hawl or Al Roj camps. That’s SDF territory. They have their work cut out for them to try to govern their autonomous region. I’m not sure we can justify leaving our problem children there. My amateur prognostication is we’ll see more of the women come back with kids in tow probably next winter after the election. Whatever handful of men still survive, tougher to say- but then we’re more likely to have viable and weighty criminal charges against the men too.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

ISIS...anyone wonder where they came from? How they came to be in the first place (if you're looking to place blame...or just understand)? PBS Frontline - Losing Iraq

I spent a considerable amount of time over Iraq and Syria hunting "ISIS"...I'm torn in 2 directions on this. Some of the adults, and all of the kids, are 'victims of ISIS'. Bring them home.

There's the other part of me, though, that fears some of them might be 'seeds of the future'...and they will be in our backyards.

But abandoning citizens, most of them young children, to indefinite, unlawful detention in deeply degrading conditions will not make Canada safer. Instead, it denies ISIS victims and their families their day in court, while creating grievances that risk aiding ISIS recruitment drives and perpetuating cycles of violence.

 

[brihard]

CANCIT “Abu Ridwan al-Kanadi” - Mohammed Khalifa - has been charged by the US and brought to Virginia in FBI custody. This is a big development.

This guy was the English language “voice of ISIS”. Anyone who’s seen any of their slick propaganda videos - particularly Flames of War and its sequel - has heard this guy. He’s been in Kurdish custody for a while now.

This could be one of the most prominent ISIS foreign fighter trials to come.

ISIS Media Figure and Foreign Fighter Charged with Conspiring to Provide Material Support to a Terrorist Organization, Resulting in Death

As alleged in a criminal complaint unsealed today in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, Mohammed Khalifa, a Saudi-born Canadian citizen, who was a leading figure in the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham’s (ISIS) English Media Section and served as an ISIS fighter, was...

www.justice.gov

 

[The Bread Guy]

CANCIT “Abu Ridwan al-Kanadi” - Mohammed Khalifa - has been charged by the US and brought to Virginia in FBI custody ...

Stand by for "why isn't he being tried in Canada?"

VERY good catch - thanks for sharing!

 

[brihard]

This is the same guy that made the news in June; the court unsealed some documents indicating the Mounties were looking to charge him. Looks like the Americans called ‘dibs’. RCMP preparing charges against Toronto IT worker who became ‘voice of ISIS,’ document reveals | Globalnews.ca

 

[daftandbarmy]

Repatriation? I'm a hard no...

Dilemmas regarding returning ISIS fighters​

The actual and anticipated return of ISIS fighters and supporters is a different matter for several reasons. These include the extraordinarily cruel nature of ISIS actions; the continuation of ISIS forces and ideology in territories outside the war zones of Syria and Iraq; the successful recruitment of non-combatant persons such as medical personnel and aspiring brides; the substantial numbers of foreign fighters and other departees within ISIS forces; globalization; the global potential of social media for recruitment; and the continuation of factors of alienation and isolation that motivated many persons who left western countries to fight or support the ISIS cause (Dawson and Amarasingham 2017; Benmelech and Klor 2018). The number of foreign fighters with ISIS was unusually large: it is commonly estimated at 40,000. This estimate includes persons from some 80 countries. We will not attempt to comment here on legal issues and social issues in these many contexts. Even restricting concern to western countries such as the UK, France, Germany, Belgium, Denmark, the Netherlands, the USA and Canada, it is estimated that some 5600 persons left to fight with or otherwise support ISIS forces. A common estimate is that about one third of these persons will become returnees (Coolsaet and Renard 2018, 3). This is a large enough number to be worrisome, especially when we consider that there are also jihadist supporters of ISIS who did not travel outside their resident countries, but may plot terrorist acts close to home with motivation and skills supported by returnees with enhanced credibility and expertise.

The most obvious challenge in this context is that of public safety. Credibility assessments are needed in this area, obviously. Some men and women and even older children may remain jihadist supporters. Risks to the public arise because even a few seeking terrorist involvement and achieving success can do enormous damage; dangers arise even if not every returnee is a threat.

Dilemmas regarding returning ISIS fighters

(2020). Dilemmas regarding returning ISIS fighters. Ethics & Global Politics: Vol. 13, No. 2, pp. 93-107.

www.tandfonline.com

 

[brihard]

Interesting timing in light of this. Earlier this week, prominent lawyer Lawrence Greenspan filed an action in federal court on behalf of the families of detained Canadian ISIS suspects. Khalifa is believed to be one of the individuals his action is on behalf of. The filing basically argues that the Canadian government has failed to take reasonable steps to bring them home.

Families of ISIS detainees held in Syria take Canada to court over inaction | Globalnews.ca

Eleven families accused Ottawa of failing 'to take all reasonable steps' to repatriate Canadian detainees captured by U.S.-backed Kurdish forces.

globalnews.ca

 

[Remius]

Interesting timing in light of this. Earlier this week, prominent lawyer Lawrence Greenspan filed an action in federal court on behalf of the families of detained Canadian ISIS suspects. Khalifa is believed to be one of the individuals his action is on behalf of. The filing basically argues that the Canadian government has failed to take reasonable steps to bring them home.

Families of ISIS detainees held in Syria take Canada to court over inaction | Globalnews.ca

Eleven families accused Ottawa of failing 'to take all reasonable steps' to repatriate Canadian detainees captured by U.S.-backed Kurdish forces.

globalnews.ca

Settlements incoming.

 

[CBH99]

Interesting timing in light of this. Earlier this week, prominent lawyer Lawrence Greenspan filed an action in federal court on behalf of the families of detained Canadian ISIS suspects. Khalifa is believed to be one of the individuals his action is on behalf of. The filing basically argues that the Canadian government has failed to take reasonable steps to bring them home.

Families of ISIS detainees held in Syria take Canada to court over inaction | Globalnews.ca

Eleven families accused Ottawa of failing 'to take all reasonable steps' to repatriate Canadian detainees captured by U.S.-backed Kurdish forces.

globalnews.ca

Where does one even begin to comment on such an article?

- While not entirely Trudeau’s fault, we put absolutely zero effort into relocating our Afghan interpreters/contractors & bringing them to Canada. And in many cases that was a very much agreed upon perk of their employment.

If we put 0 effort into relocating Afghans who were imbedded with our own forces during combat operations… what makes you think we would put any effort into relocating captured ISIS fighters? Like really??

Considering the absolutely horrific things ISIS did during its short yet dramatic emergence… sitting in some dirty and overcrowded camps is far better than what they did to random civilians en-masse.

Between ISIS brides, beheadings, burning people alive, etc etc - I have a hard time feeling sorry for a guy living in an ‘unsanitary detainee camp.’ Especially when this person travelled to Syria FROM Canada during that time, and was captured by allied forces in the company of ISIS militants.

Not only did they travel to that region during that time FROM Canada, but the older men already admitted to being ISIS members, narrating execution videos, etc.

They aren’t ‘suspected ISIS members, but the poor guys are innocent and haven’t had access to any real legal processes.’ They are ADMITTED ISIS members, who can rot where they are.

Also, at the end of the article, I chuckled when they said “Trudeau could change all of this if he can find the moral courage to do so.”

Is he completely unfamiliar with who Trudeau is?



My overall point?

Given our financial situation between Covid and having a guy like JT at the helm, I’m happy if my tax dollars don’t go towards bringing home the older men who are detained.

(The children are a different issue altogether.)


0.02

 

[brihard]

The men will probably be viable for prosecution, particularly if they flew over after the new offence of leaving Canada to participate in the activities of a terrorist group was created. Any who left before that offence was created, it’ll be a bit trickier as activities on behalf of a terrorist group will need to be directly proven. But not impossible.

The kids should come back to Canada, on pure humanitarian grounds.

The challenging ones will be the women, the ‘brides of ISIS’, where there may not be viable criminal charges. Is leaving Canada to marry an ISIS member “leaving Canada to participate in the activities of a terrorist group”? There could be compelling arguments either way. Will it make a difference if, say they were purely a homemaker, or if they worked as a nurse?

I don’t think the legal action on this will go very far, but the dilemma remains: eventually, many/most of these individuals will probably return to Canada. Then what?

 

[daftandbarmy]

The men will probably be viable for prosecution, particularly if they flew over after the new offence of leaving Canada to participate in the activities of a terrorist group was created. Any who left before that offence was created, it’ll be a bit trickier as activities on behalf of a terrorist group will need to be directly proven. But not impossible.

The kids should come back to Canada, on pure humanitarian grounds.

The challenging ones will be the women, the ‘brides of ISIS’, where there may not be viable criminal charges. Is leaving Canada to marry an ISIS member “leaving Canada to participate in the activities of a terrorist group”? There could be compelling arguments either way. Will it make a difference if, say they were purely a homemaker, or if they worked as a nurse?

I don’t think the legal action on this will go very far, but the dilemma remains: eventually, many/most of these individuals will probably return to Canada. Then what?

Maybe we should give them the option of returning to ISIS as double agents.

Don't worry, we'll look after the wife and kids for you while you're away

 

[CBH99]

Don't worry, we'll look after the wife and kids for you while you're away

I know how you meant it, but when I first read this part I was just like “Wowa, daft is feeling DARK today…”

The men will probably be viable for prosecution, particularly if they flew over after the new offence of leaving Canada to participate in the activities of a terrorist group was created. Any who left before that offence was created, it’ll be a bit trickier as activities on behalf of a terrorist group will need to be directly proven. But not impossible.

The kids should come back to Canada, on pure humanitarian grounds.

The challenging ones will be the women, the ‘brides of ISIS’, where there may not be viable criminal charges. Is leaving Canada to marry an ISIS member “leaving Canada to participate in the activities of a terrorist group”? There could be compelling arguments either way. Will it make a difference if, say they were purely a homemaker, or if they worked as a nurse?

I don’t think the legal action on this will go very far, but the dilemma remains: eventually, many/most of these individuals will probably return to Canada. Then what?

Agreed on the children whole heartedly. They did nothing wrong, made no conscious choices to be there, and while exposed to a lot more than most western children who are born & raised in the west - probably had/have zero true understanding of the big picture.

To say shame on the parents for bringing their child to a violent war-zone, and one as twisted as that theatre, would be an understatement.

Regardless of religious beliefs, bringing your child to a war zone VOLUNTARILY is just plain messed up. Especially the lengths they had to go to, to get there.

If some of them were born to parents who are now detained, as the article states, that complicates things from a legal perspective. Regardless, doing what’s morally right shouldn’t be a matter related to paperwork or bureaucracy.


As for many of these people coming back and then what? Detain upon arrival. No possibility of bail, as they have already admitted to their activities & clearly are a threat to society, and prosecute them to the fullest extent possible.

(Pretty hard to argue someone doesn’t present a possible threat to society when they admit to narrating execution videos.)



My humble 0.02

 

[daftandbarmy]

I know how you meant it, but when I first read this part I was just like “Wowa, daft is feeling DARK today…”

What? Is one of the wives named 'Dark'?

Asking for a friend

 

[Kat Stevens]

Maybe we should give them the option of returning to ISIS as double agents.

Don't worry, we'll look after the wife and kids for you while you're away

At least we don't call them "hostages", to promote proper behavior, any more.

 

[brihard]

I know how you meant it, but when I first read this part I was just like “Wowa, daft is feeling DARK today…”


Agreed on the children whole heartedly. They did nothing wrong, made no conscious choices to be there, and while exposed to a lot more than most western children who are born & raised in the west - probably had/have zero true understanding of the big picture.

To say shame on the parents for bringing their child to a violent war-zone, and one as twisted as that theatre, would be an understatement.

Regardless of religious beliefs, bringing your child to a war zone VOLUNTARILY is just plain messed up. Especially the lengths they had to go to, to get there.

If some of them were born to parents who are now detained, as the article states, that complicates things from a legal perspective. Regardless, doing what’s morally right shouldn’t be a matter related to paperwork or bureaucracy.


As for many of these people coming back and then what? Detain upon arrival. No possibility of bail, as they have already admitted to their activities & clearly are a threat to society, and prosecute them to the fullest extent possible.

(Pretty hard to argue someone doesn’t present a possible threat to society when they admit to narrating execution videos.)



My humble 0.02

I think most of the kids were born there. My knowledge of this is far from encyclopaedic, but definitely better than average. We had women heading over there in 2013-2014, getting married and firing out ISIS babies. As you say, those kids had no choice.

The men, as I said, are probably in most cases not a tough one. While prosecutions won’t be easy, I would venture to guess that most if not all could be chargeable and arrestable on return. They would of course have the right to a bail hearing.

The women- like I said, tougher. If police (RCMP, by virtue of national security) don’t have sufficient grounds to charge them with an offense, there’s no real legal mechanism to hold them in custody.

The law is the law, and police working on these will face significant challenges around evidence availability and evidence admissibility. Because we’re a rule of law country, the ability for Canadian authorities to act arbitrarily is extremely limited both in scope and duration. Unfortunately this isn’t nearly as easy a situation as we’d like it to be.

 

[CBH99]

I think most of the kids were born there. My knowledge of this is far from encyclopaedic, but definitely better than average. We had women heading over there in 2013-2014, getting married and firing out ISIS babies. As you say, those kids had no choice.

The men, as I said, are probably in most cases not a tough one. While prosecutions won’t be easy, I would venture to guess that most if not all could be chargeable and arrestable on return. They would of course have the right to a bail hearing.

The women- like I said, tougher. If police (RCMP, by virtue of national security) don’t have sufficient grounds to charge them with an offense, there’s no real legal mechanism to hold them in custody.

The law is the law, and police working on these will face significant challenges around evidence availability and evidence admissibility. Because we’re a rule of law country, the ability for Canadian authorities to act arbitrarily is extremely limited both in scope and duration. Unfortunately this isn’t nearly as easy a situation as we’d like it to be.

You are, ofcourse, quite right. And it is a good reminder for us to be thankful that we live in such a country.

I, too, just remember the basic gist of the situation. I suppose I was envisioning what I ‘hope would happen in the event they do return’ in a general sense, but I wasn’t forgetting about the rule of law.


______


Some of the men have admitted to committing atrocities, and one has admitted to narrating execution videos.

Do they have a right to a bail hearing? Yes.

My argument was that the police could make quite compelling arguments that the individual IS a threat to the public, and therefore should be remanded until trial.


______


You are right, it is tricky. While some of them have admitted to participating in atrocities, those actions did not occur in Canada. Admissibility will be a difficult minefield to navigate.

Is their admission enough, given that presenting witnesses will be a challenge?

Is them travelling to that region from Canada enough, given the situation at the time and their subsequent admissions?

I have no idea, either way.


______



But do we have a legal obligation to bring them back as prudently as possible, as the lawsuit seems to suggest? I also don’t know.

They left Canada voluntarily to join a terror organization, and ISIS at that. Now they are detained, and have been for a while. Good. Canadian legal specifics aside, I don’t think we should be in a huge hurry to rush to their aid.


______


The letter presented by the lawyer in the article states that these individuals haven’t been given some of the specifics that are granted to them under Canadian law, and that their Charter rights are being violated.

Would the protections of the Charter apply to someone who willfully travelled outside of the country to join a terror organization, and are now being detained without a clear plan for their release?

The more I think about it, the more complicated the legal challenges ahead would be. Again, you are very right.


______


In regards to the children… we agree 100%

What nationality or legal status of children born under these types of circumstances?

Regardless, bring them here. Get them set up in the appropriate homes with the right families. It won’t be simple nor easy, but growing up here under normal circumstances and having a normal childhood is so important.

The detainee camps are set up for just that - detainees. Individuals who chose to support/fight for an organization like ISIS.

The children didn’t choose that, nor did they do anything wrong. We should let them have the best chance at a normal life as possible.



Cheers mate, your post gave me lots to ponder

 

[CBH99]

What? Is one of the wives named 'Dark'?

Asking for a friend

Man if you’re feeling up some ISIS fighter’s wife, I feel like you’ve got bigger problems coming your way soon

Btw, your friend MAY want to go for an eye exam. I don’t recall any of them being jaw droppers…

 

[brihard]

You are, ofcourse, quite right. And it is a good reminder for us to be thankful that we live in such a country.

I, too, just remember the basic gist of the situation. I suppose I was envisioning what I ‘hope would happen in the event they do return’ in a general sense, but I wasn’t forgetting about the rule of law.


______


Some of the men have admitted to committing atrocities, and one has admitted to narrating execution videos.

Do they have a right to a bail hearing? Yes.

My argument was that the police could make quite compelling arguments that the individual IS a threat to the public, and therefore should be remanded until trial.


______


You are right, it is tricky. While some of them have admitted to participating in atrocities, those actions did not occur in Canada. Admissibility will be a difficult minefield to navigate.

Is their admission enough, given that presenting witnesses will be a challenge?

Is them travelling to that region from Canada enough, given the situation at the time and their subsequent admissions?

I have no idea, either way.


______



But do we have a legal obligation to bring them back as prudently as possible, as the lawsuit seems to suggest? I also don’t know.

They left Canada voluntarily to join a terror organization, and ISIS at that. Now they are detained, and have been for a while. Good. Canadian legal specifics aside, I don’t think we should be in a huge hurry to rush to their aid.


______


The letter presented by the lawyer in the article states that these individuals haven’t been given some of the specifics that are granted to them under Canadian law, and that their Charter rights are being violated.

Would the protections of the Charter apply to someone who willfully travelled outside of the country to join a terror organization, and are now being detained without a clear plan for their release?

The more I think about it, the more complicated the legal challenges ahead would be. Again, you are very right.


______


In regards to the children… we agree 100%

What nationality or legal status of children born under these types of circumstances?

Regardless, bring them here. Get them set up in the appropriate homes with the right families. It won’t be simple nor easy, but growing up here under normal circumstances and having a normal childhood is so important.

The detainee camps are set up for just that - detainees. Individuals who chose to support/fight for an organization like ISIS.

The children didn’t choose that, nor did they do anything wrong. We should let them have the best chance at a normal life as possible.



Cheers mate, your post gave me lots to ponder

The ‘narrator’, at least, is now in the US and will face trial there, though court documents released in the summer suggest he was facing charges here too. He, at least, seems to have created a lot of evidence. I’m not sure how many of the men are left… likely not many. The challenge will be knowing versus proving. Confessions alone, uncorroborated by other compelling evidence, are a chancy thing. I wouldn’t want to be the crown prosecutor having to build a case on the admissibility of a statement given by an ISIS detainee to a news reporter, the SDF, or even the FBI while detained in a Kurdish camp in northern Syria. Those are circumstances practically custom made to bring bring the voluntariness or reliability of a statement into question. Even if other evidence was taken (seized phones? Computers?), chain of custody might not be sufficiently clean, and allies may be unwilling to let us use evidence obtained by their military or intelligence.

Then again, maybe once in Canadian custody and brought into an interview room, they spill their guts. Who knows?

 

[The Bread Guy]

... I wouldn’t want to be the crown prosecutor having to build a case on the admissibility of a statement given by an ISIS detainee to a news reporter, the SDF, or even the FBI while detained in a Kurdish camp in northern Syria ...

Ask the NY Times, right?

 

[FormerHorseGuard]

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.