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).