[Winstonm]

helene_t, on 2019-February-24, 19:12, said:

Treason would be to join an enemy army. ISIS is not an army as they don't represent a recognized country. It's just a criminal gang. And not even an enemy of the UK, as they were supported by U.K.'s Turkish and Saudi allies.

I don't think that is necessary.

Article III, Section 3

“Treason against the United States shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort".

[kenberg]

helene_t, on 2019-February-24, 19:12, said:

Treason would be to join an enemy army. ISIS is not an army as they don't represent a recognized country. It's just a criminal gang. And not even an enemy of the UK, as they were supported by U.K.'s Turkish and Saudi allies.

This thing about not being a state is an issue that needs serious thought. Thy are organized, they control, or did control, territory, they have or had an aggressive agenda to control more territory. A non-lawyer such as myself is apt to say if it quacks it's a duck. If we need to alter existing law to deal with state-like organizations that perhaps are not technically states then I would say let's get moving on that. Exactly what should be done? I am not the guy to ask. But I don't think we want to be saying "Well, if they had a recognized government we would do such and such but since they don't have one then we will just have to let it pass by." If there is a technical legal point here then we should fix that technical legal point.

Is ISIS our (the U.S.) enemy?The laws have not, I think, entirely caught up with changed reality. In 1941 the U.S. declared war on Japan, Germany declared war on the U.S., the U.S. declared war on Germany .Three nations, and of course many others, making declaration of war. That's quite a while back. That's not how it goes anymore. ISIS is/was a governing body with territory and policies and we have been engaged in a prolonged military struggle with them .Sounds like an enemy. The U.K. can say the same. We should not be paralyzed by their technical lack of nationhood. They aren't.

[Vampyr]

Cyberyeti, on 2019-February-24, 17:29, said:

I think in the UK she would get a maximum of 10 years for the offence she has committed, won't get the max and will serve half of it if she behaves, maybe 3 years.

This is not unlikely, and it is way too little.

I find it somewhat odd that in this country crimes have a “ maximum sentence”.

By the way, in the US I am pretty sure that treason does not carry a sentence of life imprisonment. Although technically I guess it does. Of course the life will be very short.

[blackshoe]

Cyberyeti, on 2019-February-20, 07:59, said:

I think it's actually if you give your support to an organization that fights against this country. The Jewish community is already nervous about the prospect of a Corbyn government. Stripping of rights has happened many times in the past for dual citizens. A load of Jamaican criminals were sent back there, some of whom hadn't been there since they were small children.

Seems to me that if they came to England as children, and later became criminals in England, they're not "Jamaican criminals", whatever their ancestry. They're English criminals. Of course, if they were in England illegally, that's another issue.

[Cyberyeti]

blackshoe, on 2019-February-26, 10:02, said:

Seems to me that if they came to England as children, and later became criminals in England, they're not "Jamaican criminals", whatever their ancestry. They're English criminals. Of course, if they were in England illegally, that's another issue.

It's a reasonable argument, I think most of them were never British citizens, simply had indefinite right to remain, and that gets revoked if you commit a serious crime. It's more complicated because it depends on the nature of the crime, some of them are organised by gangs of Jamaicans.