Guess who wants to come back?

[Stratego]

[exploited]

You seem to be conflating killing and murder, in an attempt to equivocate a private actor engaged in non-sanctioned political violence, with a soldier, who has been legally authorized by the proper, democratically-elected authorities to wage war in accordance with our laws.

A great many of our troops are guilty of murder, and should face punishment. The same can be said for our political leadership. But the fact that they often aren't punished doesn't prove that others shouldn't be either - it merely demonstrates the need for us to take these offenses more seriously, and the need to apply our laws uniformly, regardless of social status, wealth or position.

Many of the actions we have taken are murder. Those who perform them are themselves murderers. They need to be evaluated, given a fair trial for those crimes we suspect them of, and finally imprisoned, if guilt can be established.

In regards to these particular fighters, if we cannot prove guilt, and these people are otherwise entitled to be here (ie they have citizenship), then obviously they should be allowed to return. But they will have to face scrutiny first, and if they aren't citizens, be able to prove their own worth.

[The Dharma Bum]

no you are conflating the two, i'm making a distinction, these guys were in a war

[exploited]

No, they weren't. They were engaged in wanton criminality, political violence and murder. They don't abide by the rules of war, they don't even attempt to limit civilian casualties, they are not authorized by a legitimate government to wage war, etc. So obviously you are attempting to conflate a soldier with a terrorist, despite the simply massive differences between the two on average.

My position is that if they are citizens and guilt cannot be established, they ought to be allowed to return. But if they are not citizens, or guilt can in fact be established, they should either be denied entry or imprisoned.

[The Dharma Bum]

[Spider]

Actually, a great many are fighting against US sanctioned units. Some of the biggest battles FSA has fought have been not against Assad, but against the very sorts you're trying to arbitrarily give a blank slate to.

I mean...who else should be completely forgiven for their crimes? What sort of message would they be sending (don't forget, this isn't about us. This is between these morons and the British government) if they set the precedent that their young thugs can go overseas and have a ball destroying with some nutjob Islamist group, and then be forgiven and welcomed back with open arms? Its almost an implicit reward for such indefensible behavior.

[exploited]

Well now you've simply screwed your own argument. If they are prisoners of war, they can be held indefinitely, no questions asked. Of course they should be treated in accordance with established international law during that time.

On the other hand, if they are not prisoners of war, they can be tried as citizens. I suspect they are not POWs, because they don't belong to a government, and in any case spent most of their time killing other rebels, which clearly implies that they aren't part of a regular armed force. All of this also hinges on their abiding by the customs of war, which they do not.

[The Dharma Bum]

[Spider]

[The Dharma Bum]