Jihadi John 'dead': Jeremy Corbyn says 'far better' if militant had been tried in court

[brooklynite]

Source: The Independent

Jeremy Corbyn has said it would have been "far better" if the Isis executioner Jihadi John had been tried in court rather than killed by a US drone strike.

US officials have said they are "99 per cent sure" that a targeted air strike killed Mohammed Emwazi but David Cameron said his death had not yet been confirmed.

The Labour leader acknowledged that Mr Emwazi had been held account for his "callous and brutal crimes."

But he added that capturing the terrorist and holding him to account in court would have been a better way of revenging his actions, which have included the beheading of British nationals in Isis-controlled parts of Syria and Iraq.

Read more: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/jihadi-john-dead-jeremy-corbyn-says-far-better-if-militant-had-been-in-tried-in-court-rather-than-a6733316.html

---

Under current circumstances, I don't think this is going to help to sell Labour to the British electorate.

[CJCRANE]

1. A parade of boogeymen that get zapped...

We never really find out much about them.

[brooklynite]

3. Perhaps we could send ISIS an extradition request?

[CJCRANE]

6. We could have carpet-bombed the mile long convoy of pickup trucks waving black flags

as they cruised through the open desert. That would have nipped it in the bud.

[redstateblues]

34. toyota tacomas

[Renew Deal]

2. He could have turned himself in.

[bluestateguy]

4. He was welcome to turn himself in

but since he chose not to, he gets to be turned into a charcoal briquette.

[geek tragedy]

5. a bit awkwardly phrased, but had he said "it would have been better had there been the opportunity"

no one would be blinking.

But he has a history of saying stupid shit, so this bites him

[branford]

7. Emwazi was not tactically important, or a significant military or intelligence asset.

Rather, he was integral to ISIS' propaganda and recruitment efforts.

It wouldn't have been worth the blood and treasure to capture him, and any actionable intelligence would be minimal, at best. More importantly, his ignoble end by drone is a great media victory for our forces, and helps "deglamorize" ISIS recruitment efforts in western countries.

Although I'm no expert in British politics, I also agree that Corbyn's lukewarm response to Emwazi's demise is unlikely to help Labour's electoral prospects.

[24601]

24. I'm going to disagree because of the importance recruitment plays. The necessity for a continuing

inflow makes recruitment one of ISIL's center's of gravity. (The other two would be holding of territory and the ISIL's brutality.)

Why recruitment? It's a valid question - and the answer is that the numbers of ISIL cannot survive a war of attrition with the number of people it has on hand. They simply cannot reproduce sufficiently or quickly enough.

That makes recruitment an existential issue for ISIL.

[muriel_volestrangler]

8. Families of those killed by Emwazi agree with Corbyn

“It saddens me here in America, we are celebrating the killing of this deranged, pathetic young man,” Diane Foley, mother of slain journalist James Foley, told ABC News in an exclusive interview. “It’s just so sad that our precious resources have been concentrated to seek revenge, if you will, or kill this man when if a bit of them had been utilized to save our young Americans, that’s what our country should be doing, I think. Not trying to seek revenge and bomb… Jim would have been devastated with the whole thing. Jim was a peacemaker.”

Asked if there would be any sense of justice in the death of “Jihadi John”, identified in February as naturalized British citizen Mohammed Emwazi, Diane Foley said, “Justice? No, no… That’s very sad to me.”
...
“I personally would have liked to be able to come to the trial, look him in the face and see what kind of man is that,” Dragana Haines told the AP. She said Emwazi’s death “means very little because David is not here with us and there is no way to bring him back.”

http://abcnews.go.com/International/families-hostages-jihadi-john-strike-justice/story?id=35180436

[KoKo]

10. Rule of Law and Justice ....We forget, don't we...?

Violence against Violence leads to just More Death and Destruction.

[redstateblues]

35. at least it won't be jihaddi john

or however you spell it. He got what he deserved. A trial would have been nice but I don't think the ISIL authorities were going to turn him over

[PersonNumber503602]

50. Capturing him would have been rather violent too.

Let's say they had solid intel on his location, and they were willing/able to send in ground forced to get him. Such an operation would have likely been violent and destructive too.

[KoKo]

9. I agree with with Corbyn......

So Attack Me..

And, go back to Bush II.

[christx30]

19. So who do you think should be sent

to their possible deaths to try to arrest someone like him? How many lives are you willing to risk to bring this guy into a court room? Is his day in court worth that possible cost?
He could have avoided it if he had turned himself in at any point once he found out he was on the wanted list, had a trial, and gone to prison. But he wanted to continue his work of bringing youths from the west to be cannon fodder for the Islamic state. And now he's a smudge on the desert. And none of our soldiers were killed. I like that math.

[KoKo]

29. Could be anyone targeted. How would we know?

It's happened before. We think we got this or that Terrorist Leader and they reappear again. Too much room for mistaken identity. Too much need to claim a success.

[christx30]

33. Then how would you suggest we stop people from

recruiting fighters for ISIS? What would you do different?

[Gregorian]

11. Uh oh, an adult got in office.

That whole rule of law thing gets in the way of plans.

[branford]

14. The "adult" is leading a minority party,

and his comments are unlikely to improve the electoral prospects of Labour in the UK.

Moreover, what law prevents us from attacking a combatant in war zone?

[Gregorian]

15. I guess nothing if it's in the context of war.

I really want to aim in a different direction. Pretty soon, the world could become less violent. When war is a business, everything violent becomes an opportunity for manufacturing lines to turn. It seems war is a means, and not the last option. But that's only part of it. It really is a disorganized act in the sense that essentially some group of people made an extrajudicial conviction and execution. It's just not how justice is supposed to work. The only war zone over there is of our own making. The context of this kind of operation really should scare people. When I'm 80 will I suddenly find myself the enemy due to some kind of Trumpian shift in politics. It has happened. I'd just as soon have everyone playing by civil rules. There aren't many exceptions. This might be one of them, but I had to type because this is the internet!

[Rosa Luxemburg]

16. Labour is hardly minority

[branford]

17. Huh? The Tories have an absolute majority in the UK parliament.

Labour is indeed a minority political party.

http://www.parliament.uk/mps-lords-and-offices/mps/current-state-of-the-parties/

[T_i_B]

36. Labour lead the opposition to the Tories

Jeremy Corbyn is leader of the opposition. If he makes it to the next general election without being deposed by his own party, then it will be either him or the Tory leader who becomes PM.

Even people who loathe Corbyn and Labour don't consider them a "minority" party. That's more the SNP, UKIP, Greens and Lib Dems (now that they've been destroyed by Clegg)

[branford]

37. If the Tories have an absolute majority of seats in parliament,

all other political parties are minority parties by definition, regardless of size.

Is there some unusual linguistic exception in British political terminology that refuses to refer to the second largest political party with an undisputed minority of seats in parliament (for the last two British elections) as a "minority party?" Do our allies across the pond use a different math than us backwoods colonials?

In any event, comments that appear even remotely sympathetic to Emwazi or disappointed in the murderous psychopath's demise, as those of Corbyn, certainly will not endear him to the British public or help him become the next Prime Minister, even in the more liberal United Kingdom.

[T_i_B]

41. We have more than 2 parties

Conservatives and Labour are the major parties. And then we have the minor parties.

Worth remembering that our politics isn't quite so dominated by the big 2. Lib Dems used to be very important, the SNP have effectively turned Scotland into a 1 party state and UKIP are also an important (if dreadful) force in UK politics.

[branford]

42. I'm well aware that the UK has more than two political parties.

Nevertheless, every political party from the Labour to the Greens or UKIP, each with one seat, are all minority parties. Everyone but the Tories, who currently maintain an absolute majority in parliament, are minority parties. It's basic math.

I'm not accusing Labour of being a "minor" party (or anything else), as in insignificant or with a comparatively small following or number of parliamentary seats, but rather a "minority" party, as in simply possessing fewer than a majority of seats in parliament.

Is "minority" too semantically close to "minor" that it's somehow a personal affront to Labour members? Although there's some linguistic drift, these words still have different meanings here and in Britain.

Regardless, the argument is pointless and immaterial. Labour is not in power, and Corbyn's foolish comments about the death of Emwazi are unlikely to help reverse Labour's electoral decline.

[T_i_B]

43. Are you aware of the difference between theory and reality?

Because that's where your argument falls down. Come to think of it most theoretical arguments about the British political system fall apart on this point.

To put things simply, only 2 people can possibly become prime minister after the next general election

a) The leader of the Conservative Party
b) the leader of the Labour party.

That much didn't change when Blair held landslide majorities, and it doesn't change now that the Tories have a majority.

May I remind also remind you that we've just come out of five years of coalition government in Britain, where the Tories dominated (and ultimately destroyed) their junior coalition partners the Lib Dems.

[branford]

49. How is any of that relevant to who is or isn't a minority party in the UK Parliament? nt

[tabasco]

12. Jeremy should have carried his ass to Syria and captured him then. n/t

[Hekate]

13. Jeremy should tell that to Congress, which doesn't want to close Gitmo or allow US trials for...

...prisoners there. Maybe the Brits can take that up, but in that case, perhaps they should work on capturing jokers like Jihadi John before the drones get there.

[George II]

18. Who cares what he thinks? Did he think we should have sent an engraved invitation?

[Turborama]

20. Surprising to see so much support for extrajudicial executions here. n/t

[Throd]

21. Nothing extrajudicial about it. Fuck him.

When one elects to create jihadi murder porn, drones strikes are an on-the-job hazard.

[Turborama]

22. It fits the dictionary definition of extrajudicial.

[Throd]

25. The precedent set in United States v. Fuck That Guy says otherwise.

[Turborama]

28. ...

[24601]

26. But the US Federal Courts already determined that it doesn't have to be Judicial to provide the due

process required by the Constitution.

https://www.aclu.org/cases/al-aulaqi-v-panetta-constitutional-challenge-killing-three-us-citizens

[christx30]

32. Hard to do judicial punishment

when a terrorist recruiter won't turn himself in for arrest and trial. And when he surrounds himself with heavily armed men that will kill anyone trying to arrest him. Launching a hellfire is the less risky way of stopping his activities. It sends an important message: "Stop your shit. Because our lives mean more to us than your day in court."

[branford]

38. Emwazi was an active ISIS combatant.

Our military's killing of a combatant in the theater of war is most certainly not an "extrajudicial execution."

The fact the some would prefer jihadis be handled as a criminal justice problem, rather than by the military, is immaterial, particularly against an organized and uniformed actor like ISIS. Similarly, Emwazi's war crimes do not actually require his capture and trial

[joshcryer]

40. Same.

Not that I am up in arms over his death, but I can say with confidence capture would've been the preferable outcome.

I said the same thing about Bin Laden.

[geek tragedy]

47. Killing the enemy is not an execution. nt

[PufPuf23]

23. IMHO the neutralization of Emwazi and similar would be far more effective

if captured, interrogated, and prosecuted in an "open" military or civil court rather than summary execution.

I include Osama Bin Laden, Omar Gaddafi, and Saddam Hussein in this group.

The demise of Bin laden would have been far more effective had he been captured and interrogated and prosecuted and his family in hiding at least interrogated.

I think one problem is that our leaders and media have thrown out so much bull shit about these icons of evil that a public trial would be an embarrassment to prosecution.

In no way am I saying that they are anything but evil assholes.

[hollowdweller]

27. I'm sort of glad we were able to assist him with his martyrdom

I'd like to see a drone light up a column of black flag vehicles as mentioned above.

These guys are assholes. I hope they kill every one of them.

[Adrahil]

30. I agree, it would have been better. But since that was unlikely to happen....

Rest in pieces muthafucker!

I prefer the use of the legal system. But since apprehending him seemed unlikely, I think killing him is the next best thing. This guy didn't shoplift form the local Marks and Sparks. He cut peoples' heads on on video. No fucks given. Not one.

[tavernier]

31. Was Paris a retaliation?

I doubt it, had to be earlier planned, but it will be a question.

[Little Tich]

39. Trying terrorists in court is always the better option.

It might not be the most feasible option, but it's still better with a trial than martyrdom.

[T_i_B]

44. Yep

That's the ideal situation, but we don't live in an ideal world, and Syria is about as far from an ideal world as it's possible to get.

[greyl]

45. No, public scrutiny should be on that militant ideology. nt

[pampango]

46. Trying him requires capturing him which requires boots on the ground.

Whose boots? (Though I do agree with Corbyn in theory.)

[randome]

48. And boots on the ground means soldiers and innocents die.

I agree with you. In theory, it's far better to stay consistent in terms of bringing attackers to justice. But consistency is not always a component of reality.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]"The whole world is a circus if you know how to look at it."
Tony Randall, 7 Faces of Dr. Lao (1964)[/center][/font][hr]

[Kablooie]

51. I disagree. He should be removed from the earth as quickly and completely as possible.

He shouldn't be allowed to glory in his evil publically.
Just make him gone and he's over.