Britain's Sh*t the Bed Again.

For the past five days the news in Britain has been dominated by Shamima Begum. Who is currently in the custody of the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF/QSD) in Syria.

The reason for this is that Britain has failed to understand the events over the past two months in Syria. As a result it is now incompetently flailing about.

In a way that is embarrassing to be associated with.

So my priority should be catching up on the events of the past two months.

However the Begum story has provoked such anger in Britain, Syria and Iraq that it is impossible for me to ignore. It is also so unspeakably offensive it is hard for any right thinking person to concentrate on anything else.

On Thursday (14/2/19) Britain's "The Times" newspaper published an audio interview it had conducted with Begum. This was published on the newspaper's website and re-published by almost all British TV and radio news broadcasters.

On Sunday (17/2/19) Britain's "Sky News" news channel conducted a video interview with Begum. Again this was re-published by almost all of Britain's TV and radio broadcaster.

In both the audio and video interviews Begum confirms that she is a member of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL). She uses the interviews to call for sympathy towards her as a member of ISIL. By giving Begum this platform the broadcasters involved are supporting ISIL. In almost the most literal sense.

In UK law ISIL are a proscribed terror group. Under the Terrorism Act 2000. Section 12 of the Act creates the offence of supporting a proscribed terror group. An offence which carries a sentence of 10 years imprisonment.

So this is simply a criminal matter. The police should have already arrested any journalist, editor, etc who is responsible for the decision to give support to a proscribed terror group.

Those who have committed the offence will attempt to argue that they were justified in doing so. On the grounds that the debate over what to do with captured members of ISIL is in the public interest.

This debate has been a constant thoughout the four and a half year conflict against ISIL. Particularly following the liberation of the Iraqi city of Mosul in July 2017. Also particularly following the liberation of the Syrian city of Raqqa in October 2017.

There is barely a day that goes by without news of how the strategy to deal with the children of ISIL in both Syria and Iraq is progressing.

At all of these points the British media have decided that the debate over what to do with captured members of ISIL is not in the public interest. So have taken the editorial decision not to air content relating to it.

The debate over what to do with captured members of ISIL has been running for so long we are actually at the point where there is nothing new to add. It wasn't even a particularly complex debate to begin with.

Those captured have been captured on a battlefield in a UN designated theatre of war. Therefore civilian law does not apply to them. Instead they are covered by the laws of war. Essentially the Geneva Conventions.

The Geneva Conventions lay out the judicial process to be applied to these prisoners. The; "Due Process."

As soon as is practicable they are to be placed before a Military Tribunal. That tribunal's first task is to determine whether they are a civilian or a member of an armed group.

If it is determined the prisoner is a member of an armed group the tribunal's next task is to determine whether that armed group is a legal or an illegal one.

The Geneva Conventions also lay out the exact criteria for what a legal armed group is. However ISIL's activities such as genocide, ethnic cleansing, slavery, sexual slavery and other Crimes Against Humanity are all definite no-no's under the Geneva Convention.

If the tribunal determines the prisoner is a member of an illegal armed group then the prisoner is to be executed.

Within Syria there is a small, practical problem in applying this sentence.

In the Syria conflict ISIL and Al Qaeda loosely represent Sunni Muslims. The Syrian government and Hezbollah are Shia Muslims. The YPG element of the SDF are fricking Anarchists. One of their main ideological influences is American social theorist Murray Bookchin.

Due to a deep ideological objection the YPG have been clear from their inception. They will not use the death penalty in areas of Syria under their control. Regardless of the offender and the severity of the offence.

There is fortunately a very simple solution to this. Once it has been determined that prisoners are members of an illegal armed group they are transferred to the custody of the Syrian government. Which has no such ideological objection to the death penalty.

This solution puts certain nations of Combined Joint Task Force: Operation Inherent Resolve (CJTFOIR) in a difficult position. They have spent eights years supporting ISIL and associated groups by attempting to claim that there is something wrong with Syria's execution of prisoners.

That is despite those nations being fully aware that execution is the lawful and internationally agreed punishment for members of illegal armed groups. The punishment is necessarily harsh in order to provide a strong deterrent against people joining illegal armed groups.

If you're morally outraged by the notion of the death penalty I doubt your mind can even conceive of the things you would need to do to another human being to be classed as an unlawful combatant.

Particularly in the case of ISIL it's like paedophilia. If you do understand it then that really only proves there's something seriously wrong with you.

If CJTFOIR are not prepared to allow the SDF to transfer prisoners to the Syrians for execution the prisoners can simply be transferred to Iraq instead. Iraq most certainly does execute illegal combatants. In December 2017 they hung 38 of them in a single day.

Even if Iraq are not to accept these illegal combatants CJTFOIR can execute them itself in Syria. I mean that in the sense that if transport can be arranged I will do it personally. I will then stand before God and the International Criminal Court (ICC) and happily explain why I do not feel bad about my actions for even a moment.

CJTFOIR, particularly the US are hesitant to do this because they wish to keep gathering intelligence by reinterviewing the prisoners. You have to question of how much intelligence value someone like Begum actually represents. Plus once an illegal combatant is sentenced it doesn't mean they have to be executed in a timely fashion and there is nothing to stop them being interrogated during their period of detention.

As I've stated at all other times this point has been discussed I'm only referring to foreign ISIL members. Discretion should be used to give lighter punishments to local fighters who have been conscripted by ISIL. Such as the local fighters the SDF have already released to the supervision of their tribes.

British broadcaster's decision to give Begum a platform to elicit support for ISIL constitutes a serious criminal offence. Against Section 12 of the Terrorism Act 2000.

As such it seems almost pointless to also look at the elements of the OFCOM Broadcasting Code regulations these broadcasters have also violated.

However the story has been presented to the public in a materially misleading way. In a number of areas.

For example it is being claimed that civilian law applies to Begum's case. Things like they Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) or the Human Rights Act of 1998. This is materially incorrect. Those captured on a battlefield in a UN designated theatre of war are subject only to the laws of war.

It is also being claimed that Begum is a child. She is currently aged 19 years. Clearly over the age of majority of 18 years under UK civilian law. Also the age of majority in the laws of war which apply in this case is 15 years. So Begum is considered an adult both now and when she originally left the UK in 2015.

It is being claimed that Begum is British. This too is false. All ISIL members are required to renounce their existing citzenships upon becoming members of the group. As such Begum has voluntarily renounced the right to be described as a British citizen. The fact this choice has made her voluntarily stateless is really something she should have considered at the time.

It is also being claimed that Britain cannot make Begum and other ISIL members stateless.

In terms of its legal relevance this point is about a useful as a debate over whether Britain has the power to turn Begum into an Elephant.

The decision to become stateless was one Begum took in 2015. It is not in Britain's power to reverse that decision.

Britain can only consider whether it wants to grant refugee status, and a possible path to citizenship to Begum. That too is a very short debate. The 1951 Convention on Refugees expressly forbids the granting of refugee status to members of illegal armed groups.

It is also wholly untrue to claim that nations cannot make its citizens stateless.

A rather famous example is this is Canada. In 1977 it changed the law regarding people with dual nationality. So that they had to formally reapply for the Canadian citizenship before reaching 28 years of age. However the Canadian government then completely forgot to tell anyone about this.

So, 28 years later, in 2005 the Canadian government discovered that it had made hundreds of its citizens stateless. Due to simple clerical error.

These people had never waged war against Canada. They never joined an illegal armed group. They certainly had not committed Crimes Against Humanity. However they had no legal recourse to regain their Canadian citizenship.

Across the Middle-East and Africa people being made stateless is widespread. So much so you can describe it as a common practice.

In response the UN High Commission for Refugees (UNHCR) launched its; "IBelong" campaign to combat statelessness. This though is primarily aimed at pressuring nations to grant refugees a path to citizenship.

Despite the UNHCR campaign there is absolutely no aspect of law that prevents nations from making its citizens stateless. In fact the opposite is true. The ability to make a citizen stateless is considered a nation's right.

British civil servants have simply been lying to British government ministers when they claim that Britain cannot make people stateless.

They're doing this because they are concerned that if Britain refuses accept ISIL members it will set a diplomatic precedent. One that nations will point to in order to prevent Britain deporting failed asylum seekers.

Here British civil servants fears reveal nothing but their own incompetence.

Much of the relations between nations is done on the basis of consensus and agreement. The repatriation of failed asylum seekers is no exception.

Therefore there is no law by which Britain can force nations to accept failed asylum seekers. So those who wish to refuse are going to refuse. They don't even have to give a reason why they're refusing.

Any diplomat worth their pay though will find it very easy to argue that these ISIL cases are not standard immigration cases.

For example the individuals have renounced all citizenships and are therefore already stateless. They are also members of an illegal armed group which has committed Crimes Against Humanity.

Mainly though they have been captured on a battlefield in a UN designated theatre of war. So civilian law, including immigration law, simply does not apply to them.

16:00 on 18/2/19 (UK date).