• e-mail

659

View
comments

Where should two former alleged terrorists who were once British citizens be put on trial for the most brutal and barbarous acts against innocent civilians, some of them British?

The right answer is surely the United Kingdom. Two young men brought up in this country, who are accused of unspeakable terrorist offences, should face justice in a British court.

And yet they won't. Alexanda Kotey and El Shafee Elsheikh are being packed off to the United States to stand trial for grievous crimes they are said to have committed while fighting on behalf of Islamic State (ISIS) in Syria. 

Their erstwhile collaborator 'Jihadi John' is thought to have beheaded at least two U.S. journalists.

Let me summarise their alleged crimes. Elsheikh, 30, who was born in Sudan but raised in London, is accused of supervising the torture and killing of Western hostages by ISIS. 

Kotey, 34, London born-and-bred, is charged with being part of the same ISIS cell which beheaded 27 hostages and, according to reliable testimonies, displayed horrendous cruelty and unbelievable sadism.

They are believed to have been part of a four-man killing machine known as 'The Beatles'. 

Seldom was a nickname so fatuously bestowed. If the 'fab four' who made up the pop group were fetching and creative, the ISIS killers are repulsive and deadly.

So why can't they be tried in their own country? The fact that they have been deprived of their British citizenship by the Government is beside the point. 

They are citizens of no other country. And their historical relationship is with Britain.

I can think of three possible reasons for our handing the problem over to the Americans. 

The first is that under existing legislation our courts are unable to apply the very lengthy sentences that can be handed down by American judges. 

These two presumed monsters could be walking free in 20 or 25 years if convicted here.

Moreover, as a result of the Human Rights Act our courts are swarming with lawyers who might well argue that because Kotey and Elsheikh were captured and held by rough-hewn Kurdish militia, they have not been treated as they should have been. Shock horror!

And then there is the reluctance of our intelligence services to allow their practices to be revealed in open court out of fear that would-be terrorists might learn things about spooks which they shouldn't.

For all these reasons, the Home Secretary, Sajid Javid, has gratefully washed his hands of the case.

There was no attempt to secure an undertaking that the death penalty wouldn't be applied in the United States, presumably because there was no prospect Washington would give such an assurance.

Now, of course, the Labour Party is up in arms, principally because it is so opposed to the death penalty.

Diane Abbott, the Shadow Home Secretary, hyperventilated that the Government's position was 'abhorrent and shameful'. 

Meanwhile, Labour's Hilary Benn piously (and idiotically) opined that 'we have to show we are better than Islamic State in our morals, and should therefore have nothing to do with capital punishment'.

In my humble opinion, the prospect that these two alleged killers might be sentenced to death if found guilty of horrendous crimes by an American court is by far the least troubling aspect of this affair.

No, what worries me is that our courts are considered too unreliable, and our legalisation too weak, for these seemingly wicked men to be tried in the country in which they were brought up, and which they have more right to call their own than any other.

Isn't the Government being particularly supine in asking dependable old Uncle Sam to deal with a problem that we are too querulous to address ourselves? I can see no other plausible interpretation.

Which is why a report by the Policy Exchange think-tank advocating a new treason law should be welcomed.

Believe it or not, the Treason Act of 1351 is still on the statute book, shorn of a few provisions over the years. It has not been used since 1945.

As the report argues, treason — the crime of aiding and abetting one's country's declared enemies — is extremely serious. 

A new law is needed which envisages very severe jail sentences for those convicted of treason.

If there were such a law, there is little doubt that, as former UK citizens, Kotey and Elsheikh would stand trial in a British court instead of being dispatched to the United States. 

For as well as being accused of carrying out mass murder in the most ferocious fashion, they also stand charged with working for an organisation, namely Islamic State, which was and remains an enemy of the United Kingdom and is effectively at war with it. That's treason.

And that brings me to another thought, which may rattle a few teacups. 

Why do we assume that the abolition of the death penalty as it applies to criminal law should also cover acts of treason committed in the circumstances of war?

After all, no one objects very much when a terrorist in the throes of some atrocity is shot dead by the police or Army.

I'm not clear why we are so certain that a person convicted of such an abominable crime shouldn't receive the ultimate punishment.

Interestingly, although the death penalty for murder was abolished in 1965, it remained on the statute book until 1998 in respect of high treason, though was never used.

It was deemed incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights, which was incorporated into the Human Rights Act by New Labour in the same year.

I'm not — quite — recommending the restoration of capital punishment for treason, and the Policy Exchange report certainly does not.

I have too much residual modern liberal sensibility to argue unequivocally in favour of that. But can't we have an intelligent discussion about the issue?

It is undeniable that Western democracies are threatened by merciless and ruthless combatants such as Kotey and Elsheikh appear to be.

I don't for a moment think people like them will succeed. There aren't enough of them, for one thing.

But it is feeble, as well as potentially dangerous, to treat the mortal enemies of our society and way of life as though they were commonplace murderers.

Whatever new measures are adopted — and the Policy Exchange's proposals for a new treason law would be an excellent start — it is obvious we need a legislative armoury strong enough either to deter home-grown traitors, or deliver fitting punishments to those who commit outrages.

If Kotey and Elsheikh were to be tried in this country, we might understand how it was that two young men who enjoyed the benefits of living in a free society should seemingly have done their utmost to destroy it.

And such a trial, if it had led to a conviction, would have given the British people the satisfaction of seeing justice meted out to two British traitors who appear to hate, and wanted to damage, their country.

As it is, though, I don't doubt they will receive a fair trial in the United States, it will inevitably be conducted in the margins of our attention.

Why can't we hold our own monsters to account? British justice for British terrorists is the best approach.