An Abomination Beyond Comprehension IV (Draft).

Sub-Titled: "Operation Featherweight: Month 58, Week 4, Day 6"

A direct continuation of Part 3; https://watchitdie.blogspot.com/2019/04/an-abomination-beyond-comprehension-iii.html

In that post I looked at the two questions the Military Tribunal will have to answer in processing captured members of ISIL;

Is the accused a Civilian or a Combatant? and Is the accused a lawful or unlawful combatant?

If the Tribunal rules that an individual is a Civilian then they are afforded the full protection of civilian law. A variety of legislation including the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR).

If the Tribunal rules that an individual is a Combatant they will lose the protections of civilian law. Instead they will be covered by military law. This can be much harsher.

For example in Britain Courts long had the option of sentencing people to either imprisonment or imprisonment with hard labour. Labour which serves no purpose other than punishment.

The policy of hard labour was abolished in 1948. However under US military law you can only sentence someone to imprisonment with hard labour.

How much protection the accused is afforded under military law is determined how the Tribunal rules on the second question. Whether they are a lawful or unlawful combatant.

If they are ruled to be a Lawful Combatant then the accused is afforded Prisoner of War status.

Prisoner of War status means that any acts they may have committed as part of the war are deemed lawful, including killing, and no further legal action is taken against them.

Prisoners of War are though imprisoned indefinitely. Until such a time as the war is over or the Convening Authority holding them decides to release them.

Whilst in custody Prisoners of War are entitled to be treated humanely, provided with adequate food, water, housing and medical attention and allowed to communicate regularly with relatives. They may undertake work for which they must be paid but also have the right to refuse to undertake work.

However if it is ruled that an individual is an Unlawful Combatant they lose all protection under both military and civilian law.

Early in this series of posts I discussed the Prophet Muhammad's instructions to soldiers. Islam's code of ethical war. And how many of those prohibitions have become offences under the Laws of War.

I specifically mentioned the offence of killing a person with protected status. Such as civilians, medical staff and prisoners.

If someone is found to be an Unlawful Combatant they are no longer considered a prisoner and lose that protected status. Essentially they are no longer considered human.

I cannot overstate this enough. As I write this I can see a Fox arrogantly sunning himself outside. That Fox enjoys more legal protection than an Unlawful Combatant.

In terms of what can be done in punishment of an Unlawful Combatant the only restrictions are really the Laws of Physics. Along with the imagination of the person doing the punishing.

So if you want to rape an unlawful combatant you're entitled to. Likewise if you want to torture them or use them as slave labour. If you want to skin them alive in order to use their pelt as a throw rug, feel free.

If you want to use Unlawful Combatants to act out the most gruesome scenes from your favourite horror movie. Go right ahead.

The reason for this complete stripping of all rights is that war itself is an abomination. War Crimes are the acts which even amongst those who choose war as a profession are considered so heinous as to be unforgivable.

Unlawful Combatants are those who wilfully choose to commit those unforgivable acts.

Amongst those who kill and risk death day-in, day-out the punishment must be extraordinarily severe to act as any form of deterrent.

The fact that there is absolutely no restriction on what can be done to punish Unlawful Combatants provides us with a fantastic opportunity to show how we are morally superior to ISIL. By self-imposing voluntarily restrictions on how far we will go in punishing them.

So we won't use them as extras in real-life horror movies. We won't rape them, sexually assault them or use them as slave labour. Nor will we torture them.

It must be said though that under the Laws of War you can still go extremely far in terms of interrogation without crossing the line into torture.

For example much of the interrogation techniques used by the Americans at Guantanamo Bay and routinely used by the Israelis do not constitute torture. Instead they go right up to the line of what is torture, but do not cross it.

Despite those self-imposed restrictions though the expected punishment for any ISIL member found to be an Unlawful Combatant should be the death penalty.

In much the same way that if a British civilian is caught drink driving the expected punishment is that they will be stripped of their driving license.

The reason for imposing the death penalty is really two-fold.

The first consideration is whether it is likely the individual can be rehabilitated. The risk of whether they will continue to pose an ongoing threat to society.

On April 21st 2019 (21/4/19) Sri Lanka was rocked by six bomb attacks. Which together killed 251 people and injured 500 more. These attacks were coordinated and carried out by ISIL members who had been allowed to return from Syria.

As such the ongoing threat that ISIL members pose to society is a severe one and not one that can be underestimated.

The main idea behind prisoner rehabilitation is that most criminals do not set out to become criminals.

Instead they almost accidentally fall into crime through a series of bad choices or adverse situations. If you can remove those adverse situations or empower to make better choices they stop committing crime.

One of the main drivers of crime, particularly theft, in western societies is addiction to illegal drugs. Drug addiction renders you unable to work, but drug addiction is also very expensive. As a result drug addiction drives people to theft in order to fund their addiction.

If you can cure the person of their drug addiction you remove their need to commit crime. Meaning they stop being criminals.

In many western societies most drug addicts convicted of minor theft offences are not sent to prison. Instead they're sentenced to drug rehabilitation because it's far more effective in stopping them reoffending in the future.

Despite that being true for the majority of criminals there is still the small minority who do set out to become criminals. For them it is a lifestyle choice. It is something they enjoy doing and are not going to stop.

The World leader in terms of rehabilitating criminals is probably Norway. On average of all the criminals that pass through Norway's criminal justice and prison system 80% go on to never commit another crime.

As a result of this focus on rehabilitation in Norway the maximum time you can be sent to prison, for any crime, is 20 years. During those 20 years they work really hard to get in there and sort you out.

However Norway still has the problem of that other 20%. The 20% who will go on to commit other crimes.

This was a key issue in the case of Anders Behring Breivik. A White Supremacist who murdered 77 people in combined gun and bomb attacks in Norway. On July 22nd 2011 (22/7/11).

Breivik's is a case I remember well. It was recently brought to renewed attention by the mass shootings at two Mosques in Christchurch, New Zealand.

Annoyingly at around 18:20 on 30/4/19 (UK date) I'm going to pick this up tomorrow.

Edited at around 16:35 on 1/5/19 (UK date) to copy & paste from another tab;

The Norwegian authorities quickly identified Breivik as part of that 20%. Someone who is not going to be rehabilitated and will continue to present an ongoing threat to society.

This presented them with a problem. Despite the severity of his crimes the longest prison sentence Norway could impose on Breivik was just 20 years.

In the manifesto he published as part of his attack Breivik declared himself to be a soldier in an international Christian military. This military force was engaged in a war against Islam's attempts to suppress European, Christian culture and the "Cultural Marxists" who aid and abet Islam.

This claim led to a short but serious discussion over whether Breivik should be tried under the Laws of War. As his actions would likely have led to him being declared an Unlawful Combatant this would have allowed Norway to execute him.

The first argument against this approach was that this international Christian military existed only in Breivik's head. There was no ISIL style international or even national network supporting Breivik. Having extensively checked it was discovered Breivik was the only solider in this personal war of his.

As a result trying him under the Laws of War would test the Laws of War to their breaking point. That could have the unintended consequence of allowing nations to unilaterally declare civilian criminals to be combatants and wrongly trying them under the Laws of War.

The other argument against this approach was that it would grant Breivik undue legitimacy. Trying him as a Combatant would involve acknowledging that there was a war being fought between European Christians and Muslim. Something which would inspire both Christians and Muslims to take up arms and join the fight.

In response to the March 15th 2019 (15/3/19) Christchurch attacks New Zealand's Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern has almost revelled in declaring the gunman to be a terrorist. A soldier in the war between European Christianity and Islam.

Following the Christchurch attacks New Zealand police have had to intervene to prevent two other attacks. One in the Richmond Park area of Christchurch on March 26th (26/3/19). Another just yesterday (30/4/19) in  the Phillipstown area of Christchurch.

On Sunday (28/4/19) a gunman attacked a Jewish Synagogue in Poway in the US state of California. In a manifesto published prior to the attack the alleged gunman declared himself to be a White Supremacist who was inspired by the Christchurch attacks.

So I don't think Prime Minister Ardern's response to the Christchurch attacks is something to be commended. It strikes me as a catastrophic failure of leadership which has made people both in New Zealand and the World over less safe.

Another thing that was obvious from Breivik's manifesto is that he was a bit nuts. For example he declares himself to be a soldier in a wholly imagined Christian military. Yet also declared himself to not be a Christian. Instead following the pseudo-religion of Odinism.

So another option that was seriously discussed was declaring Breivik to be criminally insane. That would have allowed for him to be locked up indefinitely in a hospital without the need for a trial.

However it was found that while Breivik was a bit nuts he did not meet the high threshold of criminal insanity. So dealing with him in that way would test the way that confinement of the mentally ill is used to its breaking point. Again running the risk of the unintended consequence system being abused in the future.

What really shut down both of these discussions is that Norway found a legal loophole. If a Judge is convinced that an individual continues to be a threat to society they can impose a new sentence at the end of their existing sentence.

So when Breivik's initial 20 year sentence ends in 2032 it's likely he's just going to be sentenced to another 20 years. Until he eventually just dies in prison. Although if anyone is going to manage the impossible task of rehabilitating the likes of Breivik it's likely to be Norway.

In the years since the September 11th 2001 (11/9/01) attacks there have been numerous schemes to rehabilitate or "deradicalise" Muslim extremists. In the UK the main one of these is known as; "Prevent."

As the name suggests the Prevent scheme is intended to intervene before Muslims with extreme views cross the line into becoming terrorists and criminals. This makes it hard to assess its effectiveness.

There's really no way to tell if those in the Prevent scheme who don't go on to become criminals do so because of the scheme. Or whether they would have never crossed the line from holding extreme views into violence regardless of the Prevent scheme.

One thing that is obvious about the Prevent scheme are its failures. Many of the British ISIL members who've been captured in Syria are themselves graduates of the Prevent scheme.

In terms of deradicalising Muslim terrorists specifically Saudi Arabia is currently seen as the World leader.

Saudi Arabia operate the Prince Mohammed Bin Nayef Centre for Counselling and Care. Of the 3,300 who inmates who have passed through the centre, which resembles a luxury health spa, 123 were transferred there directly from Guantanamo Bay.

Saudi Arabia is a vastly wealthy country. Meaning that it can spend more per inmate than even wealthy nations like the US and Britain can only dream of. It is also home to the two holiest sites in Islam. Meaning that there is no shortage of people in Saudi Arabia who are experts in Islam and Islamic theology.

Despite all these advantages which are unavailable elsewhere the Prince Mohammed Bin Nayef Centre for Counselling and Care still has an official failure rate of 20%. Although the true figure is believed to be much higher.

Yesterday (30/4/19) US President Trump put forward a figure of 1,800 as the number of European ISIL members who are currently being detained by the SDF. A 20% failure rate for 1,800 inmates translates as 360 people who will reoffend.

The April 21st (21/4/19) bombings in Sri Lanka killed 251 people. They were the work of just 6 ISIL members who'd returned from Syria.

So a failure rate of 20% represents a wholly unacceptable ongoing risk to society.

Particularly foreign ISIL members are not victims of circumstance.

They have left often extremely comfortable lives in their native countries to travel thousands of kilometres to commit these War Crimes and Crimes Against Humanity. Many on the promise that ISIL will allow them to commit those unforgivable acts.

These are the people for whom crime has been a lifestyle choice. It is something they enjoy doing and will not stop for anyone.

They are the ones who will reoffend and continue to pose a serious threat to society.

At around 16:50 on 1/5/19 (UK date) I'm going to have to pick this up again, later.

Edited again at around 19:45 on 1/5/19 (UK date) to copy & paste from another tab;

The obvious follow up question is why the threat of these captured ISIL members be managed in the same way the threat of Breivik is managed? Through life imprisonment.

A large part of ISIL's recruitment strategy is based on prison radicalisation. ISIL members in prison convincing other prisoners to join the group. The group itself was founded in Camp Bucca, a prison operated by the US military in Iraq following the 2003 invasion.

In November 2015 ISIL conducted a coordinated series of attacks in Paris, France. Those attacks killed 130 people. In March 2016 ISIL followed this up with a coordinated series attacks in Brussels, Belgium. Those killed 32 people.

Both the Paris and Brussels attacks were carried out by the same ISIL cell. The leader of that cell, Abedelhamid Abaaoud, had been radicalised in prison. As had other members of the cell such as Salah Abdeslam and the El-Bakraoui brothers, Ibrahim and Khalid.

The November 2015 Paris attacks came just 11 months after the January 2015 Ile-de-France attacks. This series of attacks included the Charlie Hebdo attack and the Hypercacher Kosher supermarket attack. All three of the attackers, Said Kouachi, Cherif Kouachi and Amedy Coulibaly had also been radicalised in prison.

So if you put these captured ISIL members in prison there is a high risk they will radicalise other prisoners who will be released. Even if all the 1,800 European ISIL members only radicalised one other prisoner you're talking about the number of ISIL members doubling to 3,600.

That's not managing the threat to society. That's making it worse.

Norway also identified the threat of prison radicalisation Breivik presented. As a result he is being kept completely isolated from all other prisoners. Limited to just three cells within a dedicated prison wing.

So when you talk about jailing these 1,800 European ISIL members you're not talking about finding 1,800 prison places. You're talking about finding 1,800 prison wings. Which will have to be maintained for the prisoner's entire natural life.

Building 1,800 new prison wings is simply not something European nations have the resources to do.

Another argument which has been put forward against using the death penalty is that it will turn these members of ISIL into Martyrs. Symbols used to convince others to join the group.

I think this risk is being significantly overstated.

During the course of this war tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of ISIL members have been killed. Including members of the Brussels cell responsible for the attacks in France and Belgium. Other members of ISIL have proudly Martyred themselves carrying out attacks in the war.

So when it comes to creating ISIL Martyrs there are already many to choose from. That rubicon has firmly been crossed. A few more members of ISIL being killed is not going to make much difference in terms of propaganda.

That argument against using the death penalty also badly under-estimates the damage, in terms of propaganda, which can be done by living prisoners.

The history books are full of examples. The first generation of the Red Army Faction (RAF) held at Stammheim Prison. Marwan Barghouti and a host of other Palestinian Political Prisoners.

South Africa's Nelson Mandela went on to be extremely effective from his prison cell.

Even the 10 Provisional Irish Republican Army (PIRA) hunger-strikers led by Bobby Sands caused more disruption in their protest than in their deaths. Including Bobby Sands standing for and being elected to the British Parliament whilst in prison.

Breivik himself is a good example.

He is being held in isolation with severely restricted visits and communications, such as letters.

Yet he still manages to maintain a public profile. Notably through his attempts to sue Norway's prison service, both in Norway then through the European Court of Human Rights (UNHCR).

He has been cited as inspiration by several copycat attacks. Most recently in New Zealand in Poway in the US.

By contrast the dead tend to just disappear and be forgotten.

At around 19:50 on 1/5/19 (UK date) I'm going to have to finish the final bit of this section tomorrow.

Edited again at around 15:10 on 2/5/19 (UK date) to copy & paste from another tab;

The second consideration is whether the punishment will deter others from committing the same crimes in the future.

The crimes of which ISIL stand accused are the worst imaginable. The most serious of them are consider to be so severe as to be crimes against all of humanity.

The most serious, Extermination/Genocide, has its own international memorial day. On January 27th each year. This sees political leaders the World over gather and collectively mumble their way through the phrase; "Never Again."

For "Never Again" to be more than just an empty phrase it must be backed up by action. Even if that action is difficult or uncomfortable.

The people who commit crimes such as genocide have no qualms about killing. They often operate in harsh conditions where they themselves are at almost constant risk of being killed.

The prospect of living out the rest of your life in a safe prison with adequate food, water, medical attention and regular contact with loved ones does not serve as any deterrent to these people. Often being sent to prison will be a marked improvement on their living conditions while they were committing their crimes.

So to help prevent these crimes in the future the World must take the opportunity to send the clear the message to those thinking about committing them;

"We Will Fight You. We Will Stop You. And We Will Kill You."

Traditionally this has always been the message the World has sent out following a genocide. However it started to change with the International Criminal Tribunal on Yugoslavia (ICTY) and the formation of the International Criminal Court (ICC).

Then the message became;

"It doesn't matter if you murder 8,000 Muslims at Srebrenica. We only think that's worth you spending a few years in a comfortable prison in the Netherlands."

I can't help but wonder if it was that new found tolerance of genocide which led ISIL to think they could get away with it.

15:25 on 2/5/19 (UK date).

An Abomination Beyond Comprehension III (Draft).

Sub-titled; "Operation Featherweight: Month 58, Week 4, Day 5"

A direct continuation of Part 2; https://watchitdie.blogspot.com/2019/04/an-abomination-beyond-comprehension-ii.html

In that post I looked at how captured ISIL members have to be dealt with under the Laws of War. Specifically the Third Geneva Convention.

This will see the US-led coalition - Combined Joint Task Force: Operation Inherent Resolve (CJTFOIR) act as a Convening Authority. Trying those captured members of ISIL through a Military Tribunal mechanism similar to the US military's Special Courts-Martial.

Once convened that Military Tribunal must answer two questions;

Is the Accused a Civilian or a Combatant?

The definition of; "Combatant" goes far beyond whether the individual participated in any fighting. Or even if they themselves carried weapons.

One of the most famous Military Tribunals is the Nuremberg Military Tribunal (NMT) which dealt with the crimes of Nazi Germany at the end of the Second World War. It was actually made up of three sets of Military Tribunals.

The second of these is known as; "The Doctors' Trial." It dealt almost exclusively with medical doctors, 20 of 23 defendants. The third round of the NMT is known as; "The Judges Trial." It dealt exclusively with Judges and Lawyers who had presided over and acted in civilian trials.

Article 4 of the Third Geneva Convention provides a non-exhaustive list of; "Persons who accompany the armed forces without actually being members thereof" who are considered combatants. Such as supply contractors and providers of services responsible for the welfare of the armed force.

The legal test of whether an individual is combatant is whether they have provided material or moral support to the armed force in question. This precedent was confirmed through the conviction of Charles Taylor by the International Criminal Court (ICC) in 2012.

So the question over foreign ISIL members has never really been over whether they should be prosecuted in their native country?

It's whether people who remain in those native counties but have provided material or moral support to ISIL should be extradited to Syria to face trial by Military Tribunal?

In Britain the issue of captured ISIL members has been highlighted by the case of Shamima Begum.

However in the Republic of Ireland it has been focused on the case of Lisa Smith. A former Corporal in the Irish Defence Forces who travelled to join ISIL in 2014.

Indications are that the Republic of Ireland is going to attempt to help Smith evade justice by rescuing her from Syria. The Irish Taoiseach (Prime Minister) Leo Varadkar has declared that simply being a member of ISIL is not enough for Smith to be considered a combatant.

In making that declaration Taoiseach Varadkar is simply incorrect on a point of law.

If the Tribunal determines that the accused is a civilian then civilian law is to be applied to them.

This includes all the usual civilian crimes such as murder, assault, theft etc. It also includes all the protections afforded to civilians such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR).

Military Tribunals actually do have the authority to try civilians for civilian crimes. However the also have the option not to, leaving those cases up to local civilian Courts.

Justice is something which is always best decided by the communities in which the perpetrators and the victims live. I don't think the people of North-Eastern Syria particularly want a load of outsiders coming in telling them how to deal with every thief of every fist fight that breaks out between neighbours.

So once an individual has been determined to be a civilian I don't think it is in anyone's interest to have CJTFOIR's Military Tribunal mechanism pursue them any further. Any civilian crimes they may have committed are best dealt with by the local Syrian Democratic Council (SDC).

If the Tribunal determines that an individual is a combatant they are stripped of the protections afforded to civilians. They are then to be dealt with under military law.

Meaning the Tribunal then needs to answer the second question;

Is the Accused a Lawful Combatant or an Unlawful Combatant?

The meaning of the term; "Lawful Combatant" is defined by Article 4(A)(2) of the Third Geneva Convention.

One requirement of a Lawful Combatant laid out in Article 4(A)(2)(b) is that the armed force of which they are a member meets the condition; "That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance."

Even on this most simply of tests I think that ISIL fail miserably. As their battle emblem or; "fixed distinctive sign" they use the Islamic declaration of faith or "Shahada" written in white on a black flag.

As one of the five pillars of Islam this Shahada is common to all Muslims and the black flag with white writing is used by many Muslims who have absolutely nothing to do with ISIL. As such it can hardly be described as a sign distinctive to ISIL.

ISIL are also distinctly un-Islamic. Therefore their use of the Shahada as a battle emblem could well constitute the War Crime of flying a false flag.

However the most important condition of a Lawful Combatant is Article 4(A)(2)(d); "That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war." This means that in order to be considered a Lawful Combatant you must uphold all the other Laws of War.

This can be a question of an individuals own actions. If a single soldier breaks any one of the Laws of War, such as murdering a civilian or prisoner then, through that individual act, that single soldier becomes an Unlawful Combatant.

However the question is more commonly applied to the behaviour of the armed force as a whole. Rather than the actions of an individual member.

Armed forces are generally large organisations. The US military has around 1.3 million active members while the British military currently has around 150,000 active members.

Within any large organisation or society there are always going to be one or two people who think they can get away with breaking the rules. Or under stress make an error of judgement which sees them break the law.

In 2011 Britain's Royal Navy faced one such case. Marine Sergeant Alexander Blackman, known as; "Marine A" illegally shot and killed a Taliban prisoner in the Helmand Province of Afghanistan.

The US Navy is currently dealing with a similar case. Directly relating to the war against ISIL.

Navy SEAL Special Operations Chief Edward Gallagher is accused of various War Crimes committed in the Iraqi city of Mosul in 2017. Including wilfully shooting at and killing civilians and murdering a captured ISIL member.

The facts of the Gallagher case have yet to be determined. However both his and Marine A's actions appear to be members of the US and British military's acting as Unlawful Combatants.

It is not possible though to look at those to incidents and declare either the US or British military to be an unlawful armed force as a whole and therefore all those who serve in them to be Unlawful Combatants.

Instead it is a question of the culture which exists within the armed force in question. How it and person(s) commanding it respond to these individual acts of unlawful behaviour.

One of the key pieces of information regarding Sgt Blackman's actions came from a helmet camera worn by another member of the patrol. Before killing the prisoner Sgt Blackman ordered this helmet camera to be turned off.

However the Marine in question decided what Sgt Blackman was about to do was both illegal and morally wrong. He was so appalled by this that he secretly turned the camera back on in order to collect evidence of Sgt Blackman's wrongdoing.

The other Marines on the patrol then reported Sgt Blackman's behaviour to their commanding officers. Those commanding officers were equally appalled by Sgt Blackman's behaviour so had him arrested and put on trial before a Courts-Martial.

Using the evidence from the helmet camera Sgt Blackman was convicted of murder and sent to prison.

Likewise the other SEALs in Chief Gallagher's unit decided that his actions were both illegal and morally wrong. So they reported him to their commanding officers.

Those commanding officers were equally appalled by Chief Gallagher's behaviour so had him arrested. He is currently in detention ahead of a Courts-Martial scheduled for the end of May 2019.

So while you can point to these examples of individual members of the US and British armed forces acting as Unlawful Combatants it is clear that neither armed force has tolerated their actions. Instead where wrongdoing has been uncovered it has been punished under the appropriate procedures.

The sheer number of War Crimes and Crimes Against Humanity of which ISIL stand accused of alone points to a culture of the group tolerating unlawful behaviour.

Here though I'm just going to look at one specific incident, the killing of Jordanian pilot Lieutenant Muath al-Kasabeh. On or around January 3rd 2015 (3/1/19). A captured member of the Jordanian Air Force Lt al-Kasabeh should have been considered a prisoner under the Laws of War. Likely making his killing the War Crime of murder.

Like others captured by ISIL it is alleged that Lt al-Kasabeh was held by a dedicated unit within the group. Sometimes referred to as; "The Beatles." It's alleged one of that unit's specific tasks was to plan the killing of its captives. As part of this task was to conduct mock executions of prisoners in order to prepare them for their actual execution.

That dedicated ISIL unit were not the only ones present at Lt al-Kasabeh's death. It was also attended by several hundred other ISIL members, brought in to form part of the spectacle.

The killing itself was filmed and the recording handed to ISIL's Emni intelligence unit. They edited footage of the killing together with multiple of the group's propaganda claims.

Finally the completed video was released globally via ISIL's Amaq propaganda unit.

As such Lt al-Kasabeh's killing was clearly not the actions of an isolated ISIL member going too far in the stress of battle. Instead it was a multi-layered conspiracy across multiple elements of ISIL's command structure.

Therefore it is certainly possible to argue that ISIL has/had a culture of tolerating unlawful behaviour.

It's possible to go even further than that and claim ISIL has/had a culture of encouraging unlawful behaviour.

Armed forces such as the US and British militarys provide extensive training and publish guides to make sure their members know what protections are afforded to civilians and prisoners. ISIL stand accused of publishing a guide instructing its members how to rape civilians they have taken prisoner.

Theoretically the first question, of whether the accused is a civilian or a combatant, could be addressed by a Summary Courts-Martial Tribunal mechanism. Or even a Non-Judicial Punishment Tribunal. In front of a single individual of officers rank in the military of the Convening Authority.

After all the worst outcome is that the accused is found to be a Combatant. Meaning they are held in detention ahead of a second Tribunal to determine whether they are a Lawful or Unlawful Combatant.

However it is likely that the question of whether ISIL, as a whole, is a lawful or unlawful armed force and therefore all of its members are Lawful or Unlawful Combatants will be decided at the first case. It might even be decided by a separate Tribunal of ISIL as a legal entity rather than of any individual member.

That precedent will then be applied to all subsequent cases.

Meaning that in effect that by ruling someone as a Combatant because they are a member of ISIL then you are also, almost automatically, ruling them to be an Unlawful Combatant.

So in practical terms both questions will have to be addressed by the same Special Courts-Martial Tribunal mechanism.

Part 4 to follow.

17:00 on 29/4/19 (UK date).

An Abomination Beyond Comprehension II (Draft).

Sub-title: "Operation Featherweight: Month 58, Week 4, Day 1."

A direct continuation of; https://watchitdie.blogspot.com/2019/03/an-abomination-beyond-comprehension.html

In that post I looked at the War Crimes and Crimes Against Humanity of which the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) stand accused.

In their scale and severity those crimes go far beyond what any civilian justice system routinely deals with. Many of the offences which exist under military law and the Laws of War simply do not exist in civilian life.

The ISIL members accused of those crimes were also captured on a battlefield. In an area designated as a war zone by the United Nations (UN).

So while it is fortunately rarely used the procedure of how to deal with those ISIL prisoners is well established under the Laws of War. Specifically the Third Geneva Convention.

If there is confusion over the status of a prisoner Article 5 of the Third Geneva Convention requires that they are placed before a; "Competent Tribunal." In order to determine their status and how they are to be dealt with.

It is up to the legal entity conducting the tribunal, the; "Convening Authority" to determine the meaning of the term; "Competent Tribunal." In the sense that it must be the same procedure used to discipline its own personnel.

That raises the first question of how to deal with the captured ISIL members. Who will take on the role of the Convening Authority?

The obvious suggestion would be the Syrian Democratic Council (SDC) and its military wing the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF/QSD). Who administer the Shangri-La area of Syria where these ISIL members were captured.

However it is far from clear that the SDC/SDF have the legal power to act as the Convening Authority.

The Laws of War were written and intended to be used between nation states. Nation states that are answerable to each other through a succession of international bodies. Currently the United Nations (UN).

The SDC are not a national government. Their military wing, the SDF, are not a national army. Instead they are a sub-national, regional power and a sub-national militia.

I, personally, have little problem with the SDC/SDF. However I can see significant legal problems in allowing a non-state actor or sub-national militia to act as a Convening Authority for the purposes of the Laws of War.

The first issue is the lack of accountability.

If, for example, Germany convenes a tribunal for Syrian nationals then Syria can raise any dispute with Germany in the conduct of that tribunal through the UN and its bodies. Such as the International Court of Justice (ICJ).

The SDC/SDF are not members of the UN. So if any dispute arises from the way it conducts a tribunal there is no clear mechanism for that dispute to be resolved. Short of further conflict and war.

If the SDC/SDF are allowed to act in this way it raises the question of why other non-state actors and sub-national militias are not also allowed to do so.

Just looking at Syria you have the Sudetenland area. This is under the control of Al Qaeda who have declared it to be an Emirate. A separate nation, apart from Syria. If the SDC/SDF can act as a Convening Authority in North-East Syria what is to say that Al Qaeda can't act as a Convening Authority in North-West Syria.

Then there is ISIL themselves. If we recognise the SDC/SDF as a Convening Authority and respect their decisions do we also have to recognise ISIL and respect its decisions wherever it chooses to establish itself.

Aside from the legal problems, just on a practical level I do not think that the SDC/SDF have the resources to act as a Convening Authority.

The World has already asked a lot from the SDC/SDF who have cleared ISIL from almost one third of Syrian territory. Alongside, and beyond that task the SDC/SDF also have to rebuild, secure and administer the Shangri-La area. All of this is being done on a budget of next-to-nothing.

I think it would be unfair of the World to also ask the SDC/SDF to take on the task of trying and punishing captured ISIL members. Captured ISIL members who stand accused of crimes against not just the civilians of Shangri-La or even Syria. But of crimes which are considered so serious to be against all of humanity.

The next obvious suggestion is that the United Nations (UN) act as the Convening Authority.

However the UN's default position is that it now refers matters such as this directly to the International Criminal Court (ICC). That also problematic for a host of reasons.

The ICC was born out of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY). The most recent of what have only been five, possibly six International Tribunals dealing with Crimes Against Humanity

The ICTY was established in 1991 to address allegations of War Crimes and Crimes Against Humanity in the myriad of conflicts that arose from the break-up of Yugoslavia throughout the 1990's. The so-called; "Balkan Wars."

Particularly in western nations the story of the Balkan Wars is often told in a very biased and over-simplified way. Essentially we're told that there were these; "Baddies" - the Serbs. They committed horrible atrocities against the; "Goodies" - the Croats and Bosniak Muslims.

As if often the case the reality is a lot more complicated then that.

Following the collapse of the Soviet Union the nation of Czechoslovakia decided it wished to separate into two new nations. Slovakia and the Czech Republic. This was achieved entirely peacefully through negotiation and compromise. The so-called; "Velvet Divorce."

At the same time the Croatia region of Yugoslavia decided that it to wanted to become an independent nation. Initially both Yugoslavia and what would become the nation of Croatia were prepared to allow this and set about negotiating the separation. In a similar way that Czechoslovakia peacefully negotiated its separation.

This though was unacceptable to the NATO nations, primarily the US. While it would create an independent nation of Croatia it would leave Yugoslavia largely intact. A large nation in eastern Europe that was still allied with Russia.

So the US backed Croat Ultranationalists and Neo-Nazis to overthrow the moderate Croat leadership which was engaged in negotiations with Yugoslavia. Having seized power these Croat Ultranationalists and Neo-Nazis declared war against Yugoslavia's Serb population.

This US-backed Croat declaration of war against the Serbs empowered Ultranationalists and Neo-Nazis on all sides. Leading to a decade of war which saw Yugoslavia break into six small nations and the Kosovo Province of Serbia. NATO is currently rushing to accept another of them, Macedonia, as a member.

So during the Balkan Wars the Serbs most certainly did commit numerous atrocities. However the Croats were the original aggressors and the Croats and the Bosniaks most certainly also committed numerous atrocities against each other and the Serbs.

From its inception the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY) had a clear political agenda. To vilify the Serbs while minimising and covering up the actions of the Croats and Bosniaks.

In mounting prosecutions this led to a very grubby deal being done. One which had nothing to do with the administration of justice.

The majority of prosecutions the ICTY would undertake would be against Serbs. However, in return, none of the Serbs would be sentenced to death while the Croats and Bosniaks went largely unpunished. Nations, such as the US, which backed the Croats and Bosniaks would not be prosecuted at all.

This is why the ICTY is the only International Tribunal dealing with Crimes Against Humanity which did not impose the death penalty. Meaning that the Srebrenica massacre is the only prosecuted genocide where the prepetrators were not executed.

The victims of the Srebrenica massacre were all Muslims. The failure to prosecute the perpetrators as harshly as, say, the perpetrators the Nazi Holocaust sends the unfortunate message that Muslim lives are not worth as much as the lives of followers of other religions.

Another side effect of the political agenda behind the ICTY is that it dragged on for nearly three decades. When in did finally conclude in 2017 it simply passed its remaining cases onto the ICC.

Having been formed out of the ICTY and having inherited many of the ICTY's cases the International Criminal Court (ICC) has also inherited many of the ICTY's political flaws.

The International Criminal Court (ICC) is also a very young and immature international body. It only came into being in 2002 and is currently only recognised by 125 of the 193 nations recognised as members of the UN.

The ICC has really only been able to get that far is through the support of the nations of the European Union (EU). In order to secure the support of the EU nations the ICC had to give up its ability to impose the death penalty for any offence, no matter how serious.

I think that all people involved in the ICC understand that it is a work in progress. The best that can be achieved at the moment. Rather than a fully functioning Court which can provide justice for all.

Instead the ICC has been limited to only prosecuting small, poor nations who cannot stand up for themselves. Aside from the cases it inherited from the ICTY the ICC has only ever prosecuted Africans, for crimes committed in Africa.

When it comes to larger, more power nations it is a very different story.

For example back in November 2017 the ICC's Chief Prosecutor Fatou Bensouda opened an investigation into America's conduct in Afghanistan. This was met with a furious response by the US which withdraw travel visas for Bensouda and other ICC officials.

Just on April 12th (12/4/19) the ICC announced that it was discontinuing its investigation to the US.

The issue of the ICC has also emerged as a barrier to the recognition of Palestine as a nation state and a full member of the UN. There is significant concern that the Palestinian Authority will follow through on its oft-repeated threats to use this new status to refer Israel to the ICC.

The concern about this is not that people think referring Israel to the ICC would not be valid. It's that nations like America would not allow the ICC to survive going after Israel.

The only case in which the ICC has issued an arrest warrant for a sitting Head of State on Crimes Against Humanity charges is of course against an African. Then Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir. Rather than being due to anything then President Bashir did this was more motivated by the ICC's frustration that is unable to go after Israel.

The ICC's deserved reputation as a Court which only goes after Africans means that many people have started to lose faith in it. Following the initial optimism of  its launch it is now more common for nations to withdraw from the ICC than to join it.

The idea behind the ICC is that it will become an enduring International Court. Existing long after the issue of ISIL have been dealt with. My concern is that ICC involvement will keep the issue of ISIL alive. Damaging the ICC for a long time to come.

A concern that is increased by the way that supporters of ISIL and associated groups have long attempted to weaponise the ICC. As a tool in their efforts to overthrow the Syrian state.

The ICC is a also intended as a Court of last resort. Something which is used only when there is no other entity available.

The issue with this is that the UN has already authorised another entity to deal with ISIL. Through the UN Security Council Resolution (UNSCR) 2170 (2014). Which established the US-led coalition against ISIL - Combined Joint Task Force: Operation Inherent Resolve (CJTFOIR).

UNSCR 2170 (2014) is issued under Chapter 7 of the UN Charter. This famously authorises the use of military force. However it actually authorises any measures up to and including the use of military force to maintain or restore international peace and security.

That includes measures which fall short of military force. Such as imposing sanctions, passing laws and launching criminal prosecutions. The conducting of Military Tribunals is just another part of normal military operations.

As such CJTFOIR has already been authorised to and should act as the Convening Authority.

Formally CJTFOIR is known as; "The Global Coalition." Although it is US-led it is made up of 79 members. Encompassing a wide variety of standards of rule of law and human rights.

In acting as Convening Authority the CJTFOIR coalition is able to define; "Competent Tribunal" in terms of the lowest standard accepted by one of its members.

Looking at the list of Coalition members that standard can be incredibly low. Just this week Saudi Arabia simultaneously executed 37 convicted terrorists. Including one who was literally crucified.     

I am very tempted to say that in dealing with captured ISIL members CJTFOIR adopts the standard of the Turkish Military. After all Turkey is the most likely to oppose any punishment of ISIL members. Using their standard gives them the least opportunity to object.

However I have not had the opportunity to research the rules of procedures of the Turkish military.

So instead I'm going to recommend that CJTFOIR adopts the standard of the US military. Although there are some variations this is generally the accepted standard of the NATO members. Including EU nations.

The procedures of the US military are also widely, publicly available. Published in the "Manual For Courts-Martial." Which, as legal textbook's go, is very easy to read.

The most widely used "Competent Tribunal" employed by the US and other, equivalent militarys is known as; "Non-Judicial Punishment Tribunal." This is extremely simple in its operation.

This type of Tribunal is presided over by a single military officer. Known as a Presiding Officer.

Recent changes to the rules mean this presiding officer must be advised by a military lawyer. Another military officer who is also a qualified lawyer.

However their role is merely to advise on points of law, rather like a Court Clerk. The decisions and rulings of the Tribunal are made exclusively by the single Presiding Officer.

The first phase of the Tribunal sees the accused appear before the Presiding Officer. They are then informed of the charges against them.

At this point the accused is able to seek legal advice, provided to them by the Convening Authority.

However the accused does not have a right to legal representation. While the legal advice may well be provided by a lawyer that lawyer does not represent the accused at the Tribunal.

The accused has the option of employing an independent lawyer or other advocate to represent them at the Tribunal. However that is done entirely at their own expense, with no cost to the Convening Authority.

The second phase of the Tribunal gives the accused the option of either admitting the offence or presenting evidence in their defence or mitigation. This is then considered by the Presiding Officer. Often in a matter of minutes.

The third phase of the Tribunal sees the accused being told whether they have been found guilty of the offence and what their punishment is.

As the name suggests a Non-Judicial Punishment Tribunal is not considered a criminal proceeding.

As a result they are used for only the most minor of offences against military law and can only hand out the most minimal of punishments. Therefore they are not sufficient for the types of crimes captured ISIL members stand accused of.

It also means that at the end of the Tribunal the accused is given a choice. To accept the finding of the Tribunal and its punishment or to seek a full Courts-Martial.

In the US military there are three types of Courts-Martial Tribunal. Summary, General and Special.

Summary Courts-Martial Tribunal: This is almost identical to a Non-Judicial Tribunal. It is presided over by a single military officer. With the advice of a military lawyer.

The only, barely noticeable difference is that it is considered a criminal proceeding. As a result the accused does have the right to legal representation, provided by the Convening Authority. They also have a right to appeal the verdict.

In return for these increased rights for the accused a Summary Courts-Martial Tribunal can deal with more serious offences. It can also impose more severe punishments.

However it is still only able to deal with the more minor offences meaning it is insufficient for the type of crimes captured ISIL fighters stand accused of.

At around 16:40 on 25/4/19 (UK date) there is obviously more to follow.

Edited at around 15:20 on 26/4/19 (UK date) to copy & paste from another tab;

General Courts-Martial: This is almost identical to what most people would recognise as trial in a civilian Court. The only obvious difference is that all those involved will be wearing military uniform.

A General Courts-Martial is presided over by a Military Judge. Known as the Presiding Judge.

This is someone who holds an officers rank in the military of the Convening Authority. They must also be a qualified lawyer, as defined by the country of the Convening Authority. So if they are a member of the US military they must have passed the criminal bar in at least one of the US states.

With one exception the role of the Presiding Judge is not to determine the guilt or innocence of the accused. Instead it is their job to oversee the trial, making sure that the rules are followed and order is kept.

Proceedings at a General Courts-Martial are adversarial. This means the prosecution lays out its allegations of guilt. Then the defence lays out a rebuttal to the prosecution's accusations.

As it is in a civilian trial this is done through the presentation of evidence and the calling of witnesses. Along with the cross-examination of the presented evidence and witnesses.

The prosecution has to be represented by a Military Lawyer. That is someone who holds an officers rank in the military of the Convening Authority and is also a qualified lawyer. As defined by the country of the Convening Authority.

In their defence the accused has the right to be represented, free-of-charge, by another Military Lawyer. Again this is someone who holds an officers rank in the military of the Convening Authority and is also a qualified lawyer. As defined by the country of the Convening Authority.

The accused also has the right to be represented by a person of their own choosing. That though is done at no cost to the Convening Authority. The person the accused chooses also has to be approved by both the Convening Authority and the Presiding Judge.

The case which has pushed this issue into the spotlight is that of Shamima Begum.

It seems unlikely that her British lawyer, Tasnime Akunjee, would be granted approval to represent her at a Military Tribunal. Although qualified as a lawyer in the UK he appears to have never served in the military nor has any experience of military law. That lack of experience would likely undermine his clients defence.

At a General Courts-Martial the guilt or innocence of the accused is decided by a Jury. This has to be made up of a minimum of at least five members. Normally these Jury members have to be people who hold the an officers rank in the military of the Convening Authority.

The exception is if the accused is of enlisted rank. Meaning they are not an officer. In that case they can insist that at least one third of the Jury is made up of members who are of enlisted rank in the military of the Convening Authority.

As within civilian trials the decision of the Jury has to be unanimous. There is though the option for a majority verdict to be accepted if only one or two members of the Jury are in disagreement with the other members of the Jury.

A General Courts-Martial can deal with any offence under military law, including the Laws of War and the Rome Statute on Crimes Against Humanity. Regardless of their severity. A General Courts-Martial can also impose the maximum sentence allowed for any particular offence.

However in imposing the death penalty a General Courts-Martial must convene with a Jury of no fewer than sixteen members. Of the composition mentioned above. It is only the Jury, rather than the Presiding Judge which can impose the death penalty.

There is one exception to cases before a General Courts-Martial being decided by a Jury.

The accused has the right to waive their right to a Jury trial. However only the accused can decide to do that. It is not something that can be imposed on them by the Convening Authority, the Presiding Judge or the prosecution.

If the right to a Jury trial is waived then the case is decided by a panel of three Judges.

At the head of this panel is a Presiding Judge. Someone who holds an officers rank in the military of the Convening Authority. They must also be a qualified lawyer, as defined by the country of the Convening Authority.

The second member of the panel is someone who holds an officers rank in the military of the Convening Authority. However is not a qualified lawyer.

This can also someone who holds the rank of Warrant Officer or Non-Commissioned Officer (NCO) in the military of the Convening Authority. That is someone who has the responsibilities of an officer but achieved it by rising through the ranks. Rather than attending an officer training school such as Westpoint or Sandhurst.

The third member of the panel depends on the status of the accused. If they are of officer rank then the third panel member must be an officer or Warrant Officer/NCO. If the accused is of enlisted rank they can insist that the panel's third member is also of enlisted rank.

In matters of trial procedure, such as allowing a piece of evidence, the Presiding Judge alone makes the decision.

In determining guilt or innocence the decision of the panel should be unanimous. However a majority of two against three can be accepted. Unless it is the Presiding Judge who is in the minority. In which case a mis-trial is declared.

As there is no Jury General Courts-Martial cases heard in this way cannot impose the death penalty. Regardless of the nature and severity of the offence.

Special Courts-Martial: This is a streamlined version of a General Courts-Martial, used when there is a need to process cases quickly.

As Special Courts-Martial is almost identical to a General Courts-Martial where the right to a Jury trial has been waived.

The case is decided by a panel of three Judges.

At the head of this panel is a Presiding Judge. Someone who holds an officers rank in the military of the Convening Authority. They must also be a qualified lawyer, as defined by the country of the Convening Authority.

The second member of the panel is someone who holds an officers rank in the military of the Convening Authority. However is not a qualified lawyer. This can also someone who holds the rank of Warrant Officer or Non-Commissioned Officer (NCO) in the military of the Convening Authority.

The third member of the panel depends on the status of the accused. If they are of officer rank then the third panel member must be an officer or Warrant Officer/NCO. If the accused is of enlisted rank they can insist that the panel's third member is also of enlisted rank.

In matters of trial procedure, such as allowing a piece of evidence, the Presiding Judge alone makes the decision.

In determining guilt or innocence the decision of the panel should be unanimous. However a majority of two against three can be accepted. Unless it is the Presiding Judge who is in the minority. In which case a mis-trial is declared.

Proceedings are adversarial. This means the prosecution lays out its allegations of guilt. Then the defence lays out a rebuttal to the prosecution's accusations.

As it is in a civilian trial this is done through the presentation of evidence and the calling of witnesses. Along with the cross-examination of the presented evidence and witnesses.

The prosecution has to be represented by a Military Lawyer. That is someone who holds an officers rank in the military of the Convening Authority and is also a qualified lawyer. As defined by the country of the Convening Authority.

In their defence the accused has the right to be represented, free-of-charge, by another Military Lawyer. Again this is someone who holds an officers rank in the military of the Convening Authority and is also a qualified lawyer. As defined by the country of the Convening Authority.

The accused also has the right to be represented by a person of their own choosing. That though is done at no cost to the Convening Authority. The person the accused chooses also has to be approved by both the Convening Authority and the Presiding Judge.

Special Courts-Martials are generally used for intermediate offences. Things with are too serious to be dealt with by a Summary Courts-Martial but not so serious they have to be dealt with by a General Courts-Martial.

In dealing with the more serious offences a Special Courts-Martial is not able to impose as severe punishments as a General Courts-Martial would.

Special Courts-Martials do not include a Jury. So normally cannot impose the death penalty, regardless of the serious of the offence.

There is though an accepted exception to this. When so-called; "Military Exigency" requires. That is to say there is an urgent need or difficulty of circumstances which mean the usual rules are impossible to follow.

The exact meaning of Military Exigency is something which is decided on a case-by-case basis, in accordance with precedent and relevant case law. Even if I had time to study them I doubt I could get access to those precedents and case law.

However Military Exigency must go beyond mere inconvenience. Such as it would be expensive to do so. The mere fact that a Tribunal is being held in a war zone would not, on its own, satisfy the criteria of Military Exigency. This is the military we're talking about after all.

I think though there is a very strong argument that Military Exigency does apply in this situation.

CJTFOIR have the authority to operate in Syria without the permission of the Syrian state under UNSCR 2170 (2014). However that only gives them the authority to act against ISIL, Al Qaeda and associated groups. It most certainly does not give them the authority to act against the Syrian state.

This is a very unusual situation militarily. Normally when an armed force enters a country without that country's permission its purpose is clear. To fight and defeat they armed forces of that nation. Here CJTFOIR is trying to avoid conflict with Syria's armed forces.

That effort to avoid conflict represents a Military Exigency. It has required CJTFOIR to keep its operational footprint within Syria to the absolute minimum needed to complete the task it has been authorised to do by UNSCR 2170 (2014).

One example of how CJTFOIR has minimised its operational footprint in Syria is in how it deals with its own battlefield casualties.

If a member of the NATO force in Afghanistan is wounded on the battlefield then the aim is to have them attended to by Casualty Evacuation helicopter within 10 minutes.

That Casualty Evacuation helicopter is equipped with the type of trauma team you would expect in any leading hospital. Staffed by Doctors, nurse and paramedics. Equipped with advanced medical technology such as monitoring, surgical and blood transfusion equipment.

The aim is then to have the casualty transported by that helicopter to a fully equipped hospital within one hour. Fifty minutes after being attended to by the Casualty Evacuation helicopter.

Throughout the conflict in both Syria and Iraq there has been a long running debate over whether CJTFOIR should provide this level of medical support.

The argument against is that not only do you have to supply the Casualty Evacuation helicopter you also have to provide at least two crews. So it can operate 24 hours a day. You also have to provide at least two ground and maintenance crews to keep the helicopter operating 24 hours a day.

Once you've brought in all those crews you then need to bring in a logistical team. To feed, water and house the personnel along with keeping the helicopter supplied with fuel and spare parts. Once you've brought in the crews and logistics teams you then need to bring in force protection to provide them all with security.

So the task of providing one Casualty Evacuation helicopter quickly leads to you having to deploy thousands of troops. That rapidly changes CJTFOIR's mission from that of a support role to one of an occupying force.

In order to minimise the risk of conflict with the Syrian state CJTFOIR has decided not to provide that level of medical support. In order to keep its operational footprint as small as possible.

As a result CJTFOIR has seen casualties who would be expected to survive in Afghanistan die in Syria. All in the name of Military Exigency.

If CJTFOIR is able to invoke Military Exigency in how it cares for its own casualties it is certainly able to invoke Military Exigency in how it treats enemy prisoners.

Now being seriously behind with my reading I don't have an exact figure of how many ISIL members are being held prisoner in the Shangri-La area of Syria. However I know that at a minimum it is over several thousand.

All of these cases potentially carry the death penalty. So normally would have to be tried by General Courts-Martial.

For each case CJTFOIR would have to deploy to the Shangri-La area of Syria a minimum of three officers to act as Presiding Judge, Prosecution advocate and Defence advocate. Along with various Court officers such as recorders and bailiffs. CJTFOIR would also have to deploy sixteen officers/enlisted to act as members of the Jury.

Obviously Judges along with Prosecution and Defence advocates can act in multiple cases. Even in civilian cases it is considered a part of a Court's normal operation.

I am not aware of a specific rule that says Jury members can only act in one case. However it would certainly look very bad if the same sixteen member Jury decided every single case. In the interests of justice being seen to be done you would want to use a different Jury for each case.

So to process 3,000 cases through General Courts-Martial you're talking about CJTFOIR having to deploy some 48,000 officers/enlisted to Syria just to act as Jury members. Along with the support troops needed to feed, water and house them along with providing security.

That would massively increase CJTFOIR's operational footprint. Turning into an occupation force and massively increasing the risk of conflict with the Syrian state.

So with CJTFOIR acting as the Convening Authority these captured ISIL members should be processed by Special Courts-Martial Tribunals. 

Special Courts-Martial Tribunals which, due to Military Exigency, have the added power to impose the death penalty.

The other change I would consider is in the composition of the third member of the Tribunal's panel.

As I've said in normal circumstances this is determined by the status of the accused. If they hold an officers rank then the third panel member has to also be of an officers rank. However if the accused is of enlisted rank then they can require the third panel member is also of enlisted rank.

The purpose of this is so there is at least one member of the panel who is able to see things from the accused's perspective. In deciding the ISIL cases the issue of rank is really non-applicable.

So I propose allowing that third member of the panel to be a civilian member of the local population.

Someone who lived through ISIL's occupation so is able to see how the accused could be swept up into or coerced into joining ISIL.

Part three to follow.

15:45 on 26/4/19 (UK date).

Sri Lanka's Easter Bombings.

Sunday (21/4/19) marked Easter Day.

This is the most important festival in the Christian calender. Coming at the end of the fasting month of Lent it marks the execution and resurrection from the dead of Jesus Christ. A symbol of God's power to absolve humans of their sins.

In Sri Lanka the day was marred by a series of multiple bomb attacks. Almost all of which occurred at 08:45 (local) 03:30 (GMT).

The majority of the attacks occurred in the capital Colombo. Striking the Shangri-La Hotel, the Kingsbury Hotel, the Cinnamon Grand Hotel and the Christian Saint Anthony's Shrine.

At the same time another bomb struck the Christian Saint Sebastian's Church in Negombo. A city located around 35km (20 miles) north of Colombo.

Also at 08:45 (local) 03:15 (GMT) a sixth bomb struck the Zion Christian Church in Batticaloa. A city located on the opposite side of the island. Located around 220km (130 miles) east of Colombo.

Subsequently the Sri Lankan security forces raided two properties in Colombo resulting in two further explosions. At a hotel close the Dehiwala Zoo at 13:45 (10:15) and at a residential property in the Dematagoda district of the city at 14:15 (10:45).

A seventh, unexploded bomb was discovered at Colombo's International Air Port. Today (22/4/19) an eighth, unexploded bomb was discovered in a van close to the Saint Anthony's Christian Church in Colombo. This was destroyed in a controlled explosion.

So far the combined death toll from these multiple attacks stands at an astonishing 290. With a further 500 significantly wounded.

Although unprecedented these attacks seem intended to invoke memories of Sri Lanka's long, 1983 to 2009 Civil War.

Within Sri Lanka the largest ethnic group is the Sinhala. However there is a sizable Tamil minority.

The civil war stemmed from an attempt by the Tamils to establish an independent nation, known as Tamil Eelam in the North and East of Sri Lanka. The largest Tamil armed group during the civil war was the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE). Commonly known as the Tamil Tigers.

With no group claiming responsibility for Sunday's (21/4/19) attacks it seems inevitable that suspicion would fall on the Tamil Tigers or other Tamil groups. Particularly with the tenth anniversary of the end of the civil war coming in mid-May 2019.

Quite apart from the fact the Tamil Tigers have been inactive for a decade Sunday's (21/4/19) attacks do not resemble any of the tactics the group has used in the past.

Although the Tamil Tigers did make widespread use of suicide bombers, particularly suicide bombers they generally focused their attacks on so-called military targets. Members of the Sri Lankan security forces and their leaders.

Also while many Tamils are Hindu and many Sinhala are Buddhist the Sri Lankan civil war simply never had a religious element. It instead was focused entirely on national liberation. Establishing a Tamil nation. The Tamil Tigers certainly never had any conflict with Sri Lanka's Christian population.

In fact the Tamil Tigers were part of a loose international network of national liberation movements. These included the Irish National Liberation Army (INLA) in Northern Ireland, UK, The Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) in Colombia and the Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK) in Turkey.

During the Cold War this network of national liberation movements were backed by the Communist nations, led by the Soviet Union. As a result they adopted revolutionary socialist ideologies which include the aggressive rejection of all religions. Which they consider to be anti-revolutionary.

Current Turkish President/Prime Minister/Emperor Recep Tayyip Erdogan is continually trying to convince people that the PKK is the same as the Syrian Democrat Forces (SDF/QSD). Erdogan is attempting to do this to use the threat of PKK terrorism to secure permission to invade and occupy the area of Syria currently under SDF control. An area designated Shangri-La.

If Sunday's atrocious attacks were wrongly blamed on the Tamil Tigers it would obviously deeply damage their reputation. By extension it would also damage the reputation of the other groups in the global network. Including the PKK.

Erdogan has long attempted to claim that the PKK and the SDF are the same thing. So the backlash created by Sunday's (21/4/19) attacks in Sri Lanka would strengthen his demands to attack the SDF in Shangri-La. To defend Turkey from terrorism of the sort seen in Sri Lanka.

Currently the main issue facing the SDF in Shangri-La is how to deal with the thousands of members of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) they have taken prisoner. Particularly how to hold those prisoners to account for ISIL's War Crimes and Crimes Against Humanity.

The final stages of Sri Lanka's civil war saw multiple accusations of War Crimes against both sides. But particularly charges of the indiscriminate killing of civilians and prisoners against the Sri Lankan Army under then President Mahinda Rajapaska.

As these killings were aimed against members of a specific ethnic group there has been some debate as to whether they amount to the Crime Against Humanity of Extermination/Genocide.

Those, such as Erdogan, who wish to help ISIL evade justice will point to the failure to prosecute over crimes allegedly committed during the Sri Lankan civil war as an example of a double standard against Muslims.

The US government's concerns over War Crimes committed at the end of the Sri Lanka Civil War were exposed in the diplomatic cables which were obtained by Chelsea Manning. Then published by Wikileaks.

This is an issue which has once again risen to the fore.

Following the extension of Britain's exit from the European Union (EU), the Brexit, Ecuador allowed British police to arrest Julian Assange, the Wikileaks founder. The US has since sought Assange's extradition from Britain specifically on the charge of helping Chelsea Manning break the password protection on those diplomatic cables.

Sri Lanka is geographically close to India. The two nations are separated by just the Gulf of Mannar which is only 30km (20 miles) wide at its narrowest point. Sri Lanka is also culturally very close to India with India also having a sizable Tamil population.

Due to this cultural closeness the Indian government long supported the Tamil Tigers during the Sri Lankan Civil War. Supplying them with weapons and establishing training camps for Tamil Tiger fighters within India between 1983 and 1987.

In 1987 India effectively invaded the Tamil Eelam areas of Sri Lanka. Under the guise of providing a peacekeeping force to deescalate the civil war.

However India and the Tamil Tigers quickly fell out, with the Tamil Tigers siding with the Sri Lankan Army to attack the Indian peacekeeping force. Prompting India to withdraw its forces in 1990.

The conflict within Syria seems to be heading towards a frozen conflict. With Turkish and Turkish backed Al Qaeda forces occupying the Sudetenland, Afrin Canton and Garvaghy Road areas.

It is similar to the frozen conflict between Azerbaijan and Armenia over the Nagorno-Karabakh Region (NKR). That particularly puts Russia in difficult positions as it tries to maintain close links with both Azerbaijan and Armenia as they fight each other.

Probably the World's most famous frozen conflict is the one between India and Pakistan over the Kashmir region.

As a direct result of events in Syria the Kashmir conflict recently warmed up. Starting with the killing of 40 Indian paramilitary police in a bus bombing on February 14th (14/2/19).

This attack was very reminiscent of the August 1988 Ballgawley Bus Bomb. Carried out by the Provisional Irish Republican Army (PIRA) as part of The Troubles conflict in Northern Ireland.

In response to that attack the British government imposed a broadcast ban. Preventing the media from distributing PIRA propaganda or; "Giving voice to the terrorist cause."

In February 2019 the issue of ISIL members held prisoner by the SDF was being given global attention by Britain through the case of Shamima Begum. Given the hero status much of the western media has given to the likes of Begum even Pakistan, as a Muslim majority nations seems to think that a similar broadcast ban would be appropriate.

India blamed the February 14th (14/2/19) bus bombing on Islamist terror groups backed by Pakistan as part of the Kashmir conflict. As a result the escalating tensions have called into focus the armed groups Pakistan supports against India and the armed groups India supports against Pakistan.

The Tamil Tigers being a very famous example of an armed group that was supported by India.

India is currently in the midst of its General Election. The largest democratic election in the World this lasts for more than a month. Beginning on April 11th (11/4/19) until May 19th (19/5/19).

Escalating the Kashmir situation was part of a deliberate strategy by incumbent Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP). They are Hindu nationalists so anything that shows of India's power as a Hindu nation energises their base.

One aspect of the main opposition Indian National Congress (INC) party's campaign has been demands that Britain apologises for the 1919 Jallianwala Bagh massacre. A move intended to embarrass Modi and the BJP because despite their claims of nationalism they actually sat out India's attempts to free itself from British rule.

Narendra Modi is perhaps most notorious for his role in the 2002 anti-Muslim riots in Gujarat State. As state governor Modi was accused of fuelling anti-Muslim sentiment fuelling the riots. This is actually something that saw Modi banned from the US until he became Prime Minister in 2014.

If Sunday's (21/4/19) attacks in Sri Lanka were wrongly blamed on the Tamil Tigers it would not take long for people to point out support for the group amongst India's Hindus. Thus tarnishing Modi's reputation and hopefully harming his chances in India's ongoing General Election.

Erdogan has long attempted to present himself as the guardian of oppressed Muslims everywhere. Be it Palestinians facing Zionist Jews in Israel or Rohingya Muslims supposedly being oppressed by Buddhists in Myanmar. Like Myanmar the majority of Sri Lanka's Sinhala are Buddhist.

Sri Lanka also has a small Muslim population, around 10%. A worryingly large percentage of that small Muslim population have travelled to fight alongside ISIL and associated groups in Syria and Iraq.

Sri Lankan Muslims who have returned from fighting in Syria and Iraq have formed the National Thowheed Jamath (NTJ). In late 2017 and early 2018 the NTJ conducted a vandalism campaign targeting Buddhist statues and places of worship.

As it was intended to do that campaign escalated tensions between Sri Lankan Muslims and Buddhists. Things boiled over on February 26th 2018 (26/2/18) when a group of Muslims attacked a Buddhist truck driver. This triggered 12 days of anti-Muslim rioting.

It seems that it was the NTJ who carried out Sunday's (21/4/19) attacks. Their objective in doing this seems to be to trigger another anti-Muslim backlash and another round of anti-Muslim rioting.

With the group not formally claiming the attack the likes of Erdogan will instead claim that it was the work of the Hindu Nationalist Tamil Tigers. The government blaming Muslims and the ensuing anti-Muslim backlash is just a conspiracy by Buddhists to oppress Muslims.

As within Myanmar it is only Erdogan who can protect the World's Muslims from this evil conspiracy against them.

It also seems intended to serve as a threat to other Muslim nations to continue supporting Erdogan and ISIL. It is a particular threat to Pakistan and Bangladesh who have both very publicly rejected ISIL through, particularly, the Shamima Begum case.

Featuring eight bombs which were supposed to explode simultaneously across the breadth of Sri Lanka Sunday's (21/4/19) attack was a very sophisticated one. It was achieved despite Sri Lanka having only a small Muslim population.

Muslim majority nations like Pakistan and Bangladesh have got to look at that and be worried what Erdogan could do to them if they don't comply.

17:00 on 22/4/19 (UK date).

A New Ottoman Empire.

Sub-title: "Operation Featherweight: Month 58, Week 2, Day 7."

A direct continuation of; https://watchitdie.blogspot.com/2019/04/middle-east-north-africa.html

In that post I looked at efforts to readmit Syria back into the international community. Particularly the Arab League, a powerful regional body Syria was suspended from back in 2011.

A key part of that effort was the visit by then Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir to Syria on December 15th 2018 (15/12/18). The first visit by a sitting Head of State to Syria since the conflict began.

Omar al-Bashir was chosen specifically for this visit to signal a possible route for Syria's reintegration back into the international community. It would need to break off ties with Iran just as Sudan broke off ties with Iran back in 2016.

The problem is that in the spring of 2017 there was a massive split amongst the Gulf Arab states. Between Saudi Arabia and Qatar.

The main reason for this split is Qatar's nominal support for Iran, designed to counter Saudi Arabia's strong opposition to Iran. A close second is Qatar's support for Turkey and the Muslim Brotherhood. Particularly the group's role in Turkey's invasion and occupation of Syria.

Due to its role in Turkey's invasion and occupation of Syria Qatar and the Muslim Brotherhood are very opposed to Syria rejoining the international community. So they responded by coordinating supposedly 'popular protests' against President al-Bashir in Sudan. Starting on December 19th 2018 (19/12/18).

Initially the primary focus of the Muslim Brotherhood protests in Sudan was not to bring down President al-Bashir. Instead they were intended to target the next phase of the effort to see Syria readmitted to the Arab League.

Following his visit to Syria Omar al-Bashir visited Egypt. On January 27th 2019 (27/1/19). This came around a month after the head of Syria's National Security Bureau, Ali Mamlouk visited Cairo. To meet with his Egyptian counterpart.

As such Omar al-Bashir's visit to Egypt seemed to be a prelude to Egyptian President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi visiting Syria. Becoming only the second sitting Head of State to do so since the war began.

Egypt has had its own extensive problems with the Muslim Brotherhood.

Following Egypt's 2011 revolution the Muslim Brotherhood took power at the 2012 elections. Through Mohamed Morsi and his Muslim Brotherhood Freedom & Justice Party.

Turkey actually celebrated Morsi's June 22nd 2012 (22/6/12) inauguration as President by sending an F-4 Phantom jet to invade Syrian airspace. The thinking being that when it was inevitably shot down it would allow Turkey to officially declare war on Syria.

Securing control of two key countries in the Ottoman Empire; Syria and Egypt.

As President Morsi was a disaster for Egypt. He dedicated his entire time supporting Muslim Brotherhood affiliated terror groups rather than addressing the economic and democratic problems which triggered Egypt's 2011 revolution.

So in the summer of 2013 the people of Egypt were forced to have another revolution.

To kick out Morsi and the Muslim Brotherhood after they refused to hold fresh elections. Despite roughly one third of the entire population of Egypt coming out onto the streets in protest against them.

The Muslim Brotherhood most certainly did not peacefully cede power in Egypt. They first denounced the popular revolution as a military coup. They then established two armed camps in the centre of Cairo. At the Rabaa Mosque and al-Nadha Square.

After several weeks of violence in which occupants of the camps kidnapped, tortured and murdered opponents of the Muslim Brotherhood Egyptian security forces moved in to clear them. The Muslim Brotherhood's response was to open fire on the security forces, then kill the women and children in the camp before finally burning both camps to the ground.

The claimed death toll from these Muslim Brotherhood camps range from 638 (Egyptian Security forces) to 2,600 (Muslim Brotherhood).

The Muslim Brotherhood's purpose in conducting these killings then wildly inflating the number killed was to have them declared massacres. In order to delegitimise the Egyptian authorities and boost support for themselves.

In this effort the Muslim Brotherhood did manage to deceive much of the western media. Along with famous lawyer Amal Clooney. Which actually isn't that hard. Her husband, George Clooney played a central role in Israel's efforts to inflate the Darfur War which led to ICC arrest warrants for Omar al-Bashir.

However what the Muslim Brotherhood did not manage to do was fool the Egyptian people. As their popularity collapsed the Muslim Brotherhood resorted to ever more violent methods.

The small Islamist group Supporters of the Holy House/Ansar Bait al-Maqdis (ABM) was grown into the Sinai Province of the Islamic State of the Iraq and the Levant (ISIL). Under the direction of the Muslim Brotherhood ISIL's Sinai Province have conducted a bloody terrorist campaign against Egypt.

For example there was the April 9th 2017 (9/4/17) Palm Sunday Church Bombings. These occurred on Palm Sunday which marks the start of Holy Week. The week leading up to Easter Sunday, the most important festival in the Christian calender.

The attacks saw Muslim Brotherhood suicide bombers target the Saint George's Church in the Egyptian city of Tanta and the Saint Mark's Cathedral in Alexandria. Resulting in the deaths of 47 civilians at prayer and the serious wounding of 126.

Then there was the November 24th 2017 (24/11/17) attack on the al-Rawda Mosque on the Sinai Peninsula.

This saw the Muslim Brotherhood attack the Mosque with suicide bombers, Rocket Propelled Grenades (RPG's) and heaving machine guns. Resulting of the deaths of 305 civilians at prayer and the serious wounding of at least 128 more.

As such the Muslim Brotherhood protests in Sudan were not initially directed at President Omar al-Bashir. Instead they were targeting Sudan's neighbour Egypt.

The threat being quite clear. If Egypt supported Syria's readmittance to the Arab League then the Muslim Brotherhood would massively increase its violence against Egypt.

This threat seems to have been successful. On February 4th 2019 (4/2/19) Egypt's Foreign Minister Sameh Shoukry declared that Egypt would not support Syria's readmittance to the Arab League.

Syria's rehabilitation has been further hampered by the involvement of the United Nations (UN). Particularly its newly appointed Special Envoy on Syria Geir Pedersen. Who met with Ahmed Gheit, the Secretary General of the Arab League on January 27th 2019 (27/1/19).

Many bodies of the UN are funded by the Muslim Brotherhood through Qatar. The role of Special Envoy to Syria is almost exclusively funded in this way.

So very early on in the conflict the UN decided that it was going to disregard its own charter and act to support the Muslim Brotherhood's overthrow of the Syrian government. Primarily through the so-called Geneva Process on Syria.

Under the Geneva Process the recognised Syrian opposition are exclusively members of the Muslim Brotherhood. Specifically they are members of the United Turkmen Army (UTA). They do not represent the Syrian population in the Central Syria area. Nor do they represent the Syrian population in the Shangri-La area.

Instead the supposed 'Syrian Opposition' recognised by the UN's Geneva Process represent only the small group of extremists occupying the Sudetenland, Afrin Canton and Garvaghy Road areas. Many of them are not even located in Syria at all. Instead living in Turkey.

Despite all reality the UN remains committed to the Geneva Process. They see Syria's readmittance to the international community, starting with the Arab League as a threat to that.

So the purpose of UN Special Envoy Pedersen's meeting with the Secretary General of the Arab League was to warn the Arab League against readmitting Syria.

Both the intimidation of Egypt and Special Envoy Pedersen's visit had their effect. On February 11th 2019 (11/2/19) the Arab League announced it was suspending plans to readmit Syria as a member.

So we now find ourselves in a very bizarre situation.

Syria's Arab, Muslim neighbours now want to end the war and welcome Syria back as an ally. Yet they are being prevented from doing so by Western, Christian nations.

As for Omar al-Bashir he very quickly identified the cause of the protests against them. In mid-February he broke of ties with Muslim Brotherhood organisations within Sudan and started expelling members of the group from the country.

Unsurprisingly removing members of the Muslim Brotherhood from positions of power within Sudan did temporarily quell the protests.

However after a short period the Muslim Brotherhood were able to regroup and the protests restarted in earnest. This time with a clear purpose of overthrowing al-Bashir and putting the Muslim Brotherhood in full control of the country.

On or around April 7th 2019 (7/4/19) the Sudanese military stepped in. Easing Omar al-Bashir from power on April 11th (11/4/19).

Very much following the model of Egypt's 2013 revolution the Sudanese military will now hold power until elections can be held in two years.

That short period of military rule is vitally important for Sudan. It allows everyone to calm down a bit and start thinking rationally again as the excitement of revolution fades.

This allows for the legitimate demands of the Sudanese people to be separated from the extremist agenda of the Muslim Brotherhood. As has had to be done in Egypt and Syria.

If the Sudanese people want to see the consequences of not going through this vital stabilisation phase they only need to look at Libya, Syria or, to a lesser extent, Egypt.

I find it particularly ironic that the European Union (EU)  are demanding Sudan rushes to hold elections which will be democratic in name only.

While EU is demanding that Britain voids the democratic vote it held to leave the EU.


16:40 on 17/4/19 (UK date).

Middle East, North Africa.

Sub-title: "Operation Featherweight: Month 58, Week 2, Day 6."

Once again I have found myself called away from the conflict in Syria. To deal with the issue of Brexit. Britain's exit from the European Union (EU).

Frustratingly Brexit has still not been resolved.

The issue is likely to flare up again around the time of the EU Parliament elections. Held between May 23rd (23/5/19) and May 26th (26/5/19). It is also likely to flare up again when the EU Council (EUCO) formally review progress on the issue at a summit in June 2019.

Currently the British Parliament is on holiday. There are no indications that the British government has any strategy of how to move forward on Brexit.

This makes it hard to predict what that strategy is and what its impacts will be. However it is fair to assume the Brexit issue will flare up at least one more time between June and when the latest Brexit extension expires in October 2019.

This is hugely annoying for me. I'm still trying to catch up from the last time I was pulled away to deal with Brexit. In December 2018 through to January 2019. This was the month where everything seemed to happen in Syria.

The conflict in Syria can be divided into five areas of operations;

Shangri-La: This is located in the north-east of Syria. It is essentially everything to the north-east of the Euphrates River.

Shangri-La is now under the complete control of the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF/QSD). A coalition of Kurdish, Arab, Turkmen and Assyrian forces. Backed by the US-led coalition, Combined Joint Task Force: Operation Inherent Resolve (CJTFOIR).

Garvaghy Road: This area stretches roughly 100km (60 miles) west from the point where the Euphrates enters Syria from Turkey. The western boundary of the Shangri-La area.

Garvaghy Road is under the occupation of Turkish forces. Both members of the regular Turkish military (TSK) and the irregular United Turkmen Army (UTA).

The UTA are an offshoot of the "Grey Wolves" paramilitary wing of the fascist Turkish National Movement Party (MHP). Which is now aligned with the Islamist Justice & Development Party (AKP).

Afrin Canton: A traditionally Kurdish area of Syria this stretches roughly 50km (30 miles) west from the boundary with Garvaghy Road.

As with Garvaghy Road the Afrin Canton area of Syria is under the occupation of Turkish forces. Both members of the regular Turkish military (TSK) and the irregular United Turkmen Army (UTA).

The Sudetenland: This stretches roughly 130km (80 miles) south from its boundary with Afrin Canton. It actually stretches across four of Syria's provinces. However is primarily centred around Idlib City, the capital of Idlib Province.

The Sudetenland is wholly under the occupation of Al Qaeda. Using the name; "Organisation for the Liberation of the Levant/Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS)."

In November 2018 Al Qaeda declared the Sudetenland to be the; "Idlib Emirate." A separate country, apart from Syria.

In January 2019 all groups, armed and political, in the Sudetenland declared themselves to be under the full command of Al Qaeda.

Within the Sudetenland Al Qaeda are under the protection of the regular Turkish military. Who operate a network of small military bases along the boundary of the area.

Central Syria: This is all the parts of Syria which are not otherwise designated. It is under the control of the Syrians themselves.

I would refer to the area simply as; "Syria." However that would grant undue legitimacy to Turkey's occupation of the Garvaghy Road and Afrin Canton areas. Along with Al Qaeda's declaration that the Sudetenland is a separate nation.

The Central Syria area was largely established by a nearly year long Syrian operation in 2017. In both the north and the south of the country this saw them advance from west to east.

In the north of the country the Syrians set out from Aleppo City in May 2017. By late July 2017 this northern axis had arrived at and liberated the town of Dalhah which sits on the southern bank of the Euphrates.

To the south of the country the Syrians set out from the Syrian capital Damascus. Also in May 2017. By early June 2017 this southern axis had reached the border between Syria and Iraq at the town of al-Tanf.

From al-Tanf the Syrians then advanced on the city of Palmyra which sits almost exactly in the centre of Syria. Palmyra had been liberated from ISIL by the Syrians in March 2017.

In August 2017 Syrian forces from both Palmyra and Dalhah converged on the town of as-Suknah. From there they began the operation to liberate the southern banks of the Euphrates.

In December 2017 the Syrians liberated the towns of Qataa, Jalaa, Ramadi and Buqan. This allowed them to declare the southern bank of the Euphrates fully liberated from ISIL.

The Central Syria area was expanded in February 2018. With a Syrian operation to liberate the East Qalamoun Mountains area. Along with the East Ghouta and Yarmouk Camp for Palestinian Refugees in the suburbs of Damascus. This was completed in May 2018 with the Syrians taking full control of the Yarmouk Camp.

The Central Syria area was further expanded in June 2018. With a Syrian operation to liberate the Yarmouk River Basin area. An area on Syria's borders with Israel and Lebanon made up of the basin of the Yarmouk River. This was completed in August 2018 with the Syrians taking full control of the area.

The expansion of the Central Syria are made one thing clear to all. Despite the claims of the past eight years there has always been a military solution to the conflict in Syria.

Not only that, the military solution has succeeded. The war has been all but won by the Syrians.

Nothing in war can ever be described as easy. However in comparison to what they have already achieved it will not present much of a challenge for the Syrians to liberate the Sudetenland from Al Qaeda.

It is then merely a question of Turkey withdrawing its occupation forces from the country.

Despite the propaganda the Syrian government has always been keen to introduce democratic change to the country. This actually led to them being unduly tolerant when the invasion began back in 2011. They should've struck much harder, much faster in order to nip it in the bud.

Any political change in Syria will now come from negotiations between the Syrians and the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF).

The SDF are actually in a very strong position ahead of these future negotiations. The Shangri-La area under their control contains most, but not all, of Syria's oil and gas fields.

Over this past winter that has caused significant fuel shortages in the Central Syria area. In January 2019 Syria was forced to import 2,400 tonnes of natural gas from Iran. A huge embarrassment for what has traditionally been an oil producing and oil exporting nation.

The only thing which can weaken the SDF's hand in these negotiations is the withdrawal of international, CJTFOIR support. That would leave the SDF at the mercy of further Turkish aggression, forcing them to rely on the Syrians for security.

With it clear that the war is now all but won efforts have been underway to restore normal relations with and apologise to Syria. Both from its regional neighbours and from nations more globally.

For example the border between Syria and Jordan was re-opened in July 2018. In December 2018 the 1999 Land Transport Treaty between Syria and Jordan was reactivated. This allows Jordanian vehicles to use Syrian roads and vice versa.

The border between Syria and Lebanon was re-opened in October 2018.  In June 2018 Lebanon began repatriating Syrian refugees with around 100,000 returning by the end of the year.

Work has also begun reconnecting Syria to the international system of transport and trade.

For example in November 2018 Syria was added to the International Maritime Organisations (IMO) White List. Allowing Syrian ships to dock at ports globally without having to undergo safety inspections.

December 2018 saw the first direct flight between Syria and Tunisia since 2011. This is significant because Tunisia was the first Arab state to overthrow its dictator, in January 2011. A spirit of revolution which was hijacked in the efforts to invade Syria and overthrow its government.

Syrian diplomats have once again found themselves welcome in regional capitals. Along with foreign diplomats suddenly being prepared to visit Syria once again.

For example a delegation from the Jordanian Parliament visited Damascus on November 19th 2018 (19/11/19). To meet with Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.

On December 22nd 2018 (22/12/18) Ali Mamlouk, head of Syria's National Security Bureau was invited to Cairo. In order to meet with his Egyptian counterpart. In early January 2019 Mamlouk visited Saudi Arabia to meet with his counterpart there.

On December 29th 2018 (29/12/18) it was Faleh al-Fayyadh, Iraq's National Security adviser, who visited Mamlouk in Damascus. A significant development with relations between Syria and Iraq having been strained since the US invasion of Iraq back in 2003.

On December 27th 2018 (27/12/18) the United Arab Emirates (UAE) re-opened its Embassy to Syria in Damascus. Fully re-establishing full diplomatic ties. On December 28th 2018 (28/12/18) Bahrain followed suit. Also re-opening its Embassy in Damascus, re-establishing full diplomatic ties with Syria.

This prompted a number of European nations to deny that they were also restoring full diplomatic ties with Syria by re-opening their Embassies in Damascus. Most notably Britain and France who issued formal denials on January 8th 2019 (8/1/19).

Britain's denial was particularly prompted by the fact it has spent several months carrying out extensive restoration and renovation work at its Embassy in Damascus. The sort of thing you would do if you were just about to re-open the Embassy.

On January 11th 2019 (11/1/19) Italy issued a statement regarding its Embassy to Syria in Damascus. Italy stopped short of denying that it was preparing to re-establish full diplomatic ties with Syria.

Instead Italy declared that it is considering re-opening its Embassy in Damascus. Consideration which seems to be at an advanced stage. Given the extensive restoration and renovation work Italy has been carrying out at its Embassy.

This flurry of diplomatic activity has been part of a concerted effort to have Syria re-admitted to the Arab League. A powerful region body which Syria was suspended from following the invasion in 2011.

Syria's re-admittance to the Arab League was a discussion topic on the agenda of the Arab Economic Summit. Scheduled to be held in Beirut, Lebanon on January 20th 2019 (20/1/19).

However the entire Arab Economic Summit had to be cancelled.

Following the last minute withdrawal of the Libyan Government of National Accord (GNA). Ostensibly in protest at the Libyan flag being replaced by the flag of the Lebanese Amal Movement. A Shia group whose leader Imam Musa Sadr is believed to have been assassinated by Libya in 1978.

The Libyan Government of National Accord (GNA) is often referred to as; "The Legitimate Government of Libya." Despite its backing by the United Nations (UN) this claim has always been pretty laughable.

Following the overthrow of Libyan leader Muammer Qaddafi in 2011 Qatar, as part of the Muslim Brotherhood, attempted to establish a puppet regime to control Libya's vast oil reserves. At the Parliamentary elections in 2012.

This involved the establishment of The Nation/Al-Watan Party. A very clear reference to the famous Qatari newspaper of the same name. To further emphasise al-Watan's links to Qatar its party colours of purple and white. The same purple and white of Qatar's national flag.

However the al-Watan Party was merely a ruse. Intended to drive voters into the arms of the main Qatar backed party by tricking them into thinking they were voting against Qatari and Muslim Brotherhood interference in the country.

The main Qatar and Muslim Brotherhood party in Libyan politics is the Justice & Construction Party. Led by Misrata based Mohamed Sowan.

The Libyan Justice & Construction Party are not to be confused with the Justice & Development Party of Turkey's Muslim Brotherhood Prime Minister/President/Emperor Recep Tayyip Erdogan. Nor is it to be confused with the Freedom & Justice Party of Egypt's short-lived Muslim Brotherhood President Mohamed Morsi.

Despite this ruse neither the Justice & Construction Party nor the al-Watan Party were able to win a majority in the Libyan Parliament. So instead they set about obstructing the Parliament. Eventually overthrowing it, forcing it into exile in the eastern Libyan city of Benghazi.

Under the military command of Khalifa Haftar this legitimate Libyan government in Benghazi has been steadily reestablishing its control over the country. The only two areas of Libya that remain under the illegitimate GNA's control are the cities of Tripoli and Misrata.

On April 5th 2019 (5/4/19) Libya's legitimate government announced an operation to liberate both Tripoli and Misrata from the GNA.

So it doesn't look as though British police will have to wait much longer to question the Tripoli based Hashem Abedi. Brother of Salman Abedi, perpetrator of the May 2017 Manchester Arena bombing.

The most significant diplomatic development in the Central Syria area came on December 15th 2018 (15/12/18).

This saw then Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir visit Damascus. To meet with Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. This was the first visit to Syria by a foreign Head of State since the invasion began in 2011.

Omar al-Bashir became Sudan's President in 1989 following an Islamic Revolution. This revolution was ideologically inspired by Iran's 1979 Islamic Revolution. In fact Sudan is probably the only place where Iran has been able to export its brand of Revolutionary Islam, despite 40 years of trying.

As a result Sudan was long closely allied with Iran. Emerging as a major smuggling route for Iranian weapons to the Hamas group in the Gaza area of Palestine.

Due to its alliance with Iran, and particularly due to its role in supplying weapons to Hamas Sudan has long been a major enemy of Israel.

In February 2003 the Justice & Equality Movement (JEM) began an armed insurgency against the Sudanese government in the Darfur region of the country. This became known as; "The War in Darfur or; "The Landcruiser War."

The Darfur War broke out during a particularly violent period in relations between Israel and Palestine. The Second Intifada of 2000 until 2005.

In order to deflect from its mistreatment of the Palestinians during the Second Intifada Israel, and other Zionist Jews demanded to know why they were being singled out for criticism.

While the international community was seeming to ignore the wildly exaggerated 'atrocities' being committed by the Sudanese government in Darfur.

In September 2004 through to October 2004 Israel conducted; "Operation: Days of Penitence" against Hamas in Gaza.

This led to a massive deterioration in relations between Israel and the international community, particularly the UN.

Israel openly accused the UN Relief Works Agency (UNRWA) of employing Hamas members. Even showing footage of a UNRWA ambulance allegedly being used to transport Hamas rockets to be fired into Israel.

In response to these accusations the UN very sarcastically listened to Israel's demand that; "They should focus on Darfur!" 

In 2005 the UN Security Council (UNSC) instructed the International Criminal Court (ICC) to open an investigation into Crimes Against Humanity in Darfur. An investigation that was only ever intended as a euphemism for Israel's Crimes Against Humanity in Palestine.

In the summer of 2006 Israel launched its war against Lebanon. In the winter of 2008 Israel launched it's brutal; "Operation: Cast Lead" against Gaza. Primarily just in an effort to rig the upcoming Israeli election in favour of Tzipi Livni.

In response the UN attempted to ratchet up its pressure on Israel. Using Sudan and Darfur as a euphemism.

In July 2008 the ICC filed 10 charges of War Crimes and Crimes Against Humanity against President Omar al-Bashir. Including the most serious, genocide or extermination.

In March 2009 the ICC issued an arrest warrant on those charges. The first, and only time such an arrest warrant has been issued for a sitting Head of State.

The thing about the War in Darfur is that it was never even the most serious conflict in Sudan. That honour went to the 1983-2005 Second Sudanese Civil War.

Here the UN went to ridiculous extremes to use Sudan as a euphemism for the Israel/Palestine conflict. To solve the Second Sudanese Civil War they partitioned the country. Establishing the new nation of South Sudan in 2011.

This is the famous; "Two State Solution" that has long been pursued as a solution to the Israel/Palestine conflict.

Unfortunately for the UN it was a disaster. The new nation of South Sudan immediately descended into its own brutal civil war.

Just on December 15th 2018 (15/12/18) the US imposed sanctions on retired Israel Major General Israel Ziv. For violating an international arms embargo to supply both sides in the South Sudan Civil War. In order to keep the conflict going.

In a clear attempt to show the international community that; "The Two State Solution Just Does Not Work!"

The ICC arrest warrants against Omar al-Bashir have always been considered a bit of a joke. Particularly amongst Arab nations in the Middle-East. Who know exactly what Israel can be like at its worst.

One thing which really helped Omar al-Bashir resist the international pressure though was that in 2016 Sudan broke off relations with Iran. This allowed Sudan to form a new alliance with Iran's powerful regional rival Saudi Arabia.

Therefore there was a specific significance in Omar al-Bashir being the first Head of State to visit Syria since 2011.

It was to show Syrian President Bashar al-Assad a possible route to reintegration with the international community. He too needed to break off Syria's longstanding alliance with Iran.

The problem has been that in the spring of 2017 there was a massive split amongst the Gulf Arab states. Between Saudi Arabia and Qatar.

The main cause of this split has been Qatar's nominal support for Iran. In contrast to Saudi Arabia's staunch opposition to Iran. A close second is Qatar's support for the Muslim Brotherhood.

On the issue of the Muslim Brotherhood Saudi Arabia and its allies are particularly aggrieved with the group's role in Turkey's invasion and occupation of Syria. Along with the group's role in propping up the Libyan GNA.

The final straw which triggered the split was the Muslim Brotherhood's bombing of Britain's Manchester Arena on May 22nd 2017 (22/5/17).

In an effort to influence the upcoming British General Election in favour of the Labour Party. In order to trigger the Brexit chaos that Britain now finds itself engulfed in.

Omar al-Bashir visited Syria on December 15th 2018 (15/12/18) at the request of Saudi Arabia. Qatar's response was to use the Muslim Brotherhood to trigger 'Popular Protests' against President Bashir in Sudan.

Exactly the same sort of horrible 'Popular Protests' we saw in Libya in 2011 leading the war.

Then again in Syria in 2011 leading to the war.

We also saw these 'Popular Protests' in Egypt in the summer of 2013. Just after the Freedom & Justice President Mohamed Morsi had been deposed by a genuine popular uprising.

In Britain the media has found time to cover nothing but Brexit.

However on the rare occasions that they are mentioned the Sudan protests are wrongly attributed to complaints about the cost of living, particularly the price of bread. A mistake which is common in much of the western media.

Sudan has seen significant increases in the cost of living. These are the result of austerity measures imposed by the International Monetary Fund (IMF) which have seen the currency devalued and subsidies for electricity and wheat, to make bread, being cut.

However those IMF austerity measures came into effect back in January 2018.

It took until four days after President al-Bashir's visit to Syria for the first organised protests to break out. Starting in the city Atbara on December 19th 2018 (19/12/18). 



I'm going to have to pick this up tomorrow.

18:00 on 16/4/19 (UK date).