An Abomination Beyond Comprehension V (Draft)

Sub-titled: "Operation Featherweight: Month 58, Week 5, Day 1."

A direct continuation of Part 4; https://watchitdie.blogspot.com/2019/04/an-abomination-beyond-comprehension-iv.html

In that post I laid out how the expected punishment for captured ISIL members should be the death penalty. Provided they are found to be Unlawful Combatants by a Competent Military Tribunal.

This will no doubt prompt people to ask how that is different from ISIL's practice of killing hostages.

ISIL have normally attempted to justify killing hostages by using the concept of; "Takfir" or, strictly speaking; "Mukaffir." This involves a person being declared to be a non-Muslim and then punished.

This use of a declaration of Takfir is one particular area where ISIL have firmly broken away from Islam.

There is absolutely no mention of the concept of Takfir in either the Qu'ran or the Hadith.

Followers of Whabbist Islam believe that it was introduced by the first Caliph, Abdallah bin Abi Quhafah (Abu Bakr). However he never used the term and that claim is widely disputed.

The concept of Takfir is actually a 20th Century invention. Created by the Egyptian Sayyid Qutb of the Muslim Brotherhood in the 1950's.

Of the Muslims who believe Takfir to be an Islamic concept many think that it is a declaration that can only be made by God or his Prophet Mohammad through divine intervention.

Of those who think it can be adjudged by humans none think that it is a decision which can be made unilaterally. Instead it is a decision which can only be made collectively through the agreement of the wider community.

Before even the wider community can declare an individual Takfir it must first put its allegations to that person. They are then given the opportunity to respond and put forward their defence.

A declaration of Takfir is similar to a declaration of excommunication by the Catholic Church.

The punishment is normally only the shunning of an individual and denying them Muslim rites such as burial. Predominately it is nothing more than a rhetorical device. A way to discredit someone's argument.

It is almost unheard of for a declaration of Takfir to result in someone being executed. That punishment is only used for the most serious of crimes. Such as attempting to kill a large number of Muslims.

One of the World's oldest and respected institutions of Islamic theology is the Al-Azhar Mosque and University in Egypt.

In 2015 they published an open-letter utterly destroying ISIL's claim that its ideology was Islamic. Al-Azhar particularly focused on ISIL's use of a declaration of Takfir to execute people.

Pointedly Al-Azhar ended their letter by refusing to declare ISIL to be Takfir. Until such a time as ISIL were given the opportunity to defend themselves from the allegations.

The decision to execute any captured ISIL member is not one that will be taken lightly. Nor one that will be taken unilaterally.

Instead it will be taken collectively through the global community.

In the sense that the UN has empowered CJTFOIR to establish Military Tribunals. By agreeing the rules of those Military Tribunals CJTFOIR will empower a panel of three to decide guilt or innocence of each individual ISIL member. In accordance with the agreed rules.

You would be extremely foolish to think there are not Muslims serving as officers in either the American or British military. There are certainly Muslims serving as officers in the militaries of CJTFOIR nations such as Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan and the United Arab Emirates.

Personally I would very much like to see the third member of the Tribunal panel being made up of a civilian from the local community. In line with a person of enlisted rank being entitled to insist that the third member of the panel is also of enlisted rank.

That though may be difficult. The law requires that the Tribunal must be conducted in line with the existing rules used by the Convening Authority to discipline its own personnel. Including a civilian on a Military Tribunal is a substantive divergence from the existing rules.

However I think it should be allowed. It is a change which is certainly keeping with the spirit, if not the letter of the existing rules. It is also a change primarily for the benefit of the accused. Allowing the Tribunal to better able to see the situation from their perspective.

During these Tribunals the accused will be provided with opportunity to answer the allegations against them. They will also be afforded an advocate to assist them in putting forward their defence.

If these Tribunals do result in executions then the manner of those executions will be extremely different from the executions carried out by ISIL.

Firstly they will be conducted as humanely as possible. Meaning they will be carried out by either hanging or firing squad. Nobody is going to have their heads sawn off by a bayonet. No-one is going to be burnt alive and no-one is going to be thrown from a tall building.

They will also be conducted in private. That is to say they may be attended by specific parties to the case. Such as members of the Convening Authority to check the sentence is being carried out or individual victims of the person being executed.

Without prejudice to the specific case there is one ISIL member in captivity. Martin Lemke. It is alleged that he was captured whilst in possession of a Yezidi woman who he and his wife had been holding as a slave. If Lemke is to be executed then that Yezidi woman would be allowed to attend his execution. If she so wishes.

The executions may even be video recorded or photographed. However only to show that the sentence is being carried out and is being carried out in as humane as way as possible. Without causing unnecessary suffering to the executed person.

Any video recordings or photographs will not be made public for propaganda purposes. The relatives to those executed will not be forced to watch the deaths of their loved ones played on an endless loop on the TV news and on the Internet. As ISIL did to the relatives of the people it killed.

Despite this some people will still attempt to argue that executing people simply for being members of ISIL is Collective Punishment.

It's not.

Collective Punishment is when someone from a certain village commits a crime. So you imprison or kill 10 random people from that village as punishment. Or when someone of a certain religious/ethnic commits a crime. So you imprison or kill 10 random members of that religious/ethnic group as punishment.

Collective Punishment itself is a War Crime. If the punishment involves the killing or inhumane treatment of a certain religious/ethnic group it may well constitute a Crime Against Humanity.

In punishing members of ISIL we are not punishing them because of where they live or because of what religion they follow.

We are punishing them for their individual choice to join ISIL in the knowledge that their support would allow ISIL to carry out War Crimes and Crimes Against Humanity.

As I've said the expected punishment for captured ISIL members should be death.

However because we are punishing each individual's choice to join ISIL in setting each individual punishment we can consider the extent of each individual's choice. Essentially the extent of their commitment to ISIL.

Much of this discussion has been dominated by foreign ISIL members. Such as Shamima Begum, Martin Lemke and Lisa Smith.

The SDF have their own, much smaller International Brigade.

If you still do not understand the horrors of war a legend amongst the SDF's International Brigade was Kevin Howard. He committed suicide on Tuesday (30/4/19). Having returned to the US after serving possibly one of the longest tours of duty in Syria than any other member of the International Brigade.

Me constantly praising the SDF's International Brigade really raises the question of why I'm not out there fighting alongside them.

There are really a host of reasons. It's the long post I never seem to get time to write.

However one of the main reasons is that it's always been that people should only travel to join the International Brigade if they have some special skill to contribute to the SDF. Howard was a former US Marine Sniper.

The special skill I bring is really this. Being a bit of a loudmouth on the Internet.

If I were to travel to Syria I would probably spend my entire time sitting behind a computer in somewhere like Derik/Al-Malikiyah. Which throughout the war has been about as dangerous as London, Britain. Where it's actually easier for me to do my job from.

Another significant reason is how difficult it is to travel to Syria. Even in Gaziantep, Turkey you don't just hail a late-night Uber and suddenly end up in Raqqa.

So I probably know more than most how much planning, effort and expense has gone into these foreign ISIL members travelling to Syria to join the group.

This isn't a momentary lapse of judgement on their part. It's an extensively pre-mediated act which has required significant malice and aforethought.

Also this might be the first time that western journalists have started to wonder about what to do with captured members of ISIL. For those involved in the war it is certainly not the first time the question has come up.

It came up throughout the Battle of Mosul in the winter of 2016 through to the summer of 2017. When many members of ISIL were either captured, surrendered or chose to flee the group.

It also came up throughout the SDF's Wrath of Euphrates operation. Also in the winter of 2016 through to the spring of 2017. When many members of ISIL were either captured, surrendered or chose to flee the group.

It definitely came up during the Battle of Raqqa City in the autumn of 2017. When ISIL lost their de facto capital and very large numbers of their members were either captured, surrendered or chose to flee the group.

It came up constantly during the SDF's Cizre Storm operation throughout 2018. In which the group established the Shangri-La area by pushing down towards the Syria/Iraq border. When many members of ISIL were either captured, surrendered or chose to flee the group.

The people who've been captured during this recent Battle of the Hajin Pocket are the ISIL members who had the choice to surrender or flee the group during the Battle of Mosul. They're the ones who had the choice to surrender or flee the group during the Wrath of Euphrates operation.

They're the ISIL members who had the choice to surrender or flee the group during the Battle of Raqqa City. They're the ones who had the choice to surrender or flee the group during the Cizre Storm operation.

Every time these ISIL members were handed the opportunity to surrender or flee the group they chose not to. Instead they chose to retreat and fight on. Time and time again.

As such their commitment to ISIL and its heinous crimes is substantial. It is something they have reasserted time and time again.

Not only are these captured ISIL members the most committed to the group they also seem to be the highest ranking members of the group. Responsible for planning and carrying out the worst of ISIL's crimes.

For example when Martin Lemke was captured his wife claimed he was only a technician for the group. However he is an individual people have been tracking for a while. They think that he is a senior member of ISIL's Emni intelligence unit. A Gestapo-style political police responsible for murder of prisoners such as Lt al-Kasabeh.

Shamima Begum claims that she was just housewife. Again though she's an individual people have been tracking for a while. They think that she is a senior member of ISIL's al-Khansaa Brigade. The female equivalent of the Emni unit. Of which her husband Yago Riedijk is believed to be a member.

The senior ISIL members killed during the Battle of the Hajin Pocket include Mohammad Mamoud al-Abadi (Abu Osama al-Qurushi), ISIL's minister of oil and head of the Hisba religious police. Also Motaz al-Badri and Abu Hafas. Two of ISIL leader al-Baghdadi's favourite sons.

What has been much more overlooked is the captured members of ISIL who are local to Syria and Iraq. I appreciate their commitment to the group may be much less than the foreign members of ISIL who grab all the headlines.

I appreciate how it might have been easy to get swept up in the excitement of ISIL coming to town, promising to make like better. Only to discover much later on the horrors the group had planned. I also appreciate that it's not much of a choice to work for ISIL if ISIL's the only work in town.

I certainly appreciate that ISIL are not big on consent. The choice to join ISIL or die certainly represents the mitigation of duress in any legal system I'm familiar with.

Frustratingly at around 20:10 on 2/5/19 (UK date) I'm going to how to address how to deal with those captured members of ISIL at a later date.

Edited at around 15:20 on 6/5/19 (UK date) to copy & paste from another tab;

In light of these mitigating factors it should be possible to significantly vary the punishment from the expected death penalty.

For many of the lowest ranking, least committed, local members I'm thinking in terms of no further punishment whatsoever.

In Iraq a system has been used which is similar to the Conditional Discharge punishment used in the British civilian legal system.

This involves the accused being found guilty of the offence. Then being told by the Court/Tribunal that what they have done is wrong and they are not to do it again. They are then released with no other punishment then that stern telling off.

However the fact they have been convicted of the offence is kept on record by the police/Courts/state.

If they are arrested for another offence their previous conviction is taken into account in how that new offence is dealt with. For example a convicted ISIL member who goes on to be found in possession of a large cache of weapons should then expect the maximum punishment for that new offence.

The problem with using this system in Syria is that the Shangri-La area lacks a strong police/Courts/state system.

The SDC do an actually impressive job of acting as the government/state. However they do this with the cooperation of the local tribes and ethnic/religious groups.

They're not in the position to impose their will on the local population. In the way that a government/state is expected to do in matters of law.

For example in the summer of 2018 the SDC foolishly attempted to ban the use of the Syriac language for teaching in Shangri-La's schools. This prompted a furious backlash from the Syriac population and the SDC were forced to reverse the ban.

What I hope can be done though is that a system of "Common Law" can be agreed amongst the SDC, the tribes and the ethnic/religious groups within Shangri-La.

Common Law is one of the earliest, founding principles of the English legal system which has been widely copied the World over. It was invented at really the birth of the English legal system in the 11th, 12th and 13th Centuries.

British society at this time was a large part of the inspiration for the TV Show; "Game of Thrones." Although obviously that is not a documentary about British history. There were certainly fewer dragons and not as many branches of Starbucks.

At the time Britain as a single nation didn't actually exist. There was the nation of England and the separate nation of Scotland. The backward, impoverished place north of the wall. The wall built by Roman Emperor Hadrian back in 2nd Century.

England had one King. However it was divided up into different counties. Cumbria, Yorkshire, Lancashire etc.

Each of these counties had their own Duke who acted as something of a regional King. Ruling their county. This system was technically geographic rather than tribal but was very similar to many tribal systems.

Each county had slightly different justice systems and tax systems. However there were certain offences such as murder etc which were the same across all the counties. These laws common to all became known as; "The Common Law."

If the tribes can agree that membership of ISIL is a bad thing, and therefore a common crime, I'm happy for low level, local ISIL members to be returned to their tribe. For monitoring and, if the tribe sees the need, minor punishment.

The exception is if the person has committed a specific crime against another member of the local community. So if there's a victim who can point to an individual and say; "That person burned down my house." Or; "That person killed my brother."

In those cases there will need to be some sort of trial and some sort of punishment.

I'm not really happy though telling the tribes how they should resolve those cases. Instead I think it should be done through the way they usually resolve disputes. Which normally involves the paying some form of compensation.

Obviously though if the tribes do engage in War Crimes, Crimes Against Humanity or other cruel and unusual punishments neither CJTFOIR nor the SDC can hand prisoners over to them. It would make CJTFOIR and the SDC complicit in those crimes.

One possible way of dealing with these specific crimes is by adopting a system similar to the Gacaca Courts used in Rwanda.

Following the 1994 Genocide Rwanda discovered 130,000 people accused of participating. To process them all through the traditional Court system would have taken some 200 years.

So instead Rwanda set up this system of community courts known as Gacaca Courts to deal with those accused of the lowest levels of involvement. The term; "Gacaca" loosely translates as; "To sit amongst the grass" or; "Justice amongst the grass."

The purpose of these community courts is not really to hand out punishments. Instead it is to promote healing and rebuilding amongst the community. By allowing victim's stories to be heard and the truth established.

So a typical hearing will be held in public in front of a senior, trusted member of the community. Such as a tribal leader.

The victim is then allowed to say what the accused has done to them and how it has affected them.

Ideally the accused will then admit what they've done is wrong. Explain exactly what they did and why they thought they could behave like that. Then apologise.

In Rwanda a main purpose of these Gacaca Courts was for the perpetrators to tell relatives of the victims where the bodies of their loved ones had been dumped. Allowing them to be recovered and given a proper burial.

The community court can then impose some sort of community restitution.

So if a person has burned down a home or a Mosque they have to either pay to rebuild that building or work to rebuild it themselves. The same would go for other destroyed property such as vehicles or livestock.

If the community court does encounter a serious crime. Such as organising a massacre or mass rape. Then they would then have to hand the case to one of the SDC's formal law Courts.

Although, ideally those sort of cases would have been dealt with by CJTFOIR long before the accused was released back into the community.


Part six to follow.

15:30 on 6/5/19 (UK date).