Burden of proof in British law.

You're missing the point.

The actions and motivations of IS don't matter, in the context of this discussion.

The assumption that anyone returning from that part of the world is a threat to the nation, and should be subject to internment by default, is the issue here.

But, the UK has a long and inglorious history of internment, so it's nothing new. I mean, we did invent the concentration camp after all.

Better to do it publicly than help the U.S. with their illegal kidnappings like we were before, I suppose.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_concentration_and_internment_camps#United_Kingdom

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_concentration_and_internment_camps#Ireland

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_concentration_and_internment_camps#British-India

 

Guilty until proven innocent!

Actually you would be describing France and many of it's past colonies that follow the Napoleonic code type of justice:

''Napolean I introduced a system of justice in France in 1800AD that has spread throughout continental Europe and beyond. It is described as an inquisitorial or investigative system rather than an adversarial system, though prosecutors, defendants and victims are all entitled to representation.
http://www.unjustjustice.org.au/the-solu...

The "Napoleonic Code," which continues in France and other countries conquered by France, hold that the accused is guilty until proven innocent (thus, the point of Victor Hugo's Les Miserables). This was a re-working of previous monarchical attitudes toward law enforcement (and as Napoleon was emperor, one isn't surprised.)

Suspects in the American judicial system have a presumption of innocence, or being innocent until proven guilty. Other countries, such as France, maintain protections of a suspect and ensure a fair trail but use a presumption of guilt until proven innocent.
http://www.ehow.com/info_8472464_moral-e...''

Are you suggesting that the socialist President Allonde is a closet dictator?

;' )

LFD

 

It wasn't although you could argue that since the Ottomans where the final line of Caliphates to the Islamic empire that began in the middle 7th Century and finally ended when the Ottoman empire was split up after WW1, that it had been, but not when it was identified as the Ottoman empire in name.

 

I'm starting to wonder if we were perhaps a bit too quick to condemn Assad. Given the way that IS have been trying to wipe out the Yazidis and the Christians, it's understandable that he would do whatever it takes to protect his own people (the Alawites) from a similar fate.

 

Both sides of the civil war in Syria are terrible, but it's definitely starting to look like Assad might have been the lesser of two evils.

 

Because by and large, it's the islamic ones that go abroad to train and fight and spread the extermism. Laws and tasks are not usually started on a purely theoretical basis, but in response to specific issues here and now.

Duck laws:

If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck and causes a lot of problems, then we will try to do something about duck-like troublemakers. While noone denies that chickens can cause problems too, they're not doing so atm so we just ignore them in order to deal with the actual birds who just happen to be ducks 99% of the time.

Rest assured that if extremist zen budhhists ever start blowing up buildings and beheading people to enlighten them, we'll take a long hard look at anyone wearing orange robes and traveling to tibet.

 

Why would you look at people in orange robes going to Tibet if zen Buddhists were blowing up buildings?

That's the problem with 'duck laws', the morons of the world don't know what a duck is and start looking for anything with wings.