re:Jihadi Jack/His Parents-the latest

bill barilko

Senate Member
Mar 4, 2009
5,846
476
83
Vancouver-by-the-Sea
re:Jihadi Jack/His Parents-the latest

Well the parents have been found guilty sounds like it'll cost them a lot of money for lawyers but that's more or less it unless I misunderstand the sentencing

Isis suspect Jack Letts' parents found guilty of funding terrorism
John Letts and Sally Lane given suspended sentence for sending son money in Syria

An Oxford couple have been spared jail after being found guilty of sending money to their son while he was living under Islamic State in Syria that could have been used to fund terrorism.

John Letts, 58, an internationally renowned organic grain farmer, and Sally Lane, 57, a former Oxfam fundraiser, defied police warnings and sent £223 to Jack Letts, now 23, despite concerns he had joined Isis.

They knew they were breaking the law, the Old Bailey jury was told. In one message, Lane told her son: “I would go to prison for you if I thought it gave you a better chance of actually reaching your 25th birthday.”

The couple refused to believe that Jack, a Muslim convert, had become an extremist, and sent the money because they believed he was in mortal danger. The prosecution argued that the couple “did not want to hear the truth” and “turned a blind eye to the obvious”.

The judge Nicholas Hilliard QC sentenced the couple to 15 months’ imprisonment, suspended for 12 months. He said that in their love for their son they had lost “sight of realities” even though “the warning signs were there”.

The jury was not told that Jack was believed to be in the custody of Kurdish authorities, accused of being a member of Isis. In an ITV interview from prison in February, Jack, who has dual UK and Canadian citizenship, said he doubted officials from either country would help him because “no one really cares”.

In a statement outside court, the couple said: “We have been convicted for doing what any parents would do if their child was in danger.” There was no suggestion during the trial that the money they sent was used for terrorism, they said, adding that they felt badly let down by the police and the government.

They said they had pleaded with the government to help get Jack back to the UK. “Having escaped from Isis, he is in limbo,” they said. “The heavy price we paid today is an indicator of the love we have for our children. We are committed to help Jack return home.”

His parents initially sent him £223 in September 2015. They then attempted to send another £1,000 in December, claiming Jack, who has obsessive compulsive disorder, was trapped in Raqqa and needed the money to escape. Those transfers were blocked.

The jury deliberated for almost 20 hours before finding them guilty of the September charge but not guilty of the December charge. They could not reach a verdict on a third charge, which will remain on file.

Jack converted to Islam aged 16 and travelled to Syria in 2014, when he was 18. The couple paid for his return flight to Jordan in May 2014, believing he was on a “grand adventure” learning Arabic, despite one of Jack’s friends warning them about his growing extremism.

Jack then moved to Kuwait and married in Iraq, before he rang his mother to say he was in Syria in September 2014.

Wanting to help Jack was not a defence, the prosecutor Alison Morgan QC told the jury. “Once Jack Letts made the decision that he did to follow Islamic State to Syria and live in Islamic State territory, and to defend its ideals and goals, the normal parenting rules for what you can do to help your child change.”


'I feel terrified, betrayed': messages show strain on Jack Letts' parents

Jurors heard that Jack said “the most appalling things” on social media and in messages to his parents. In one Facebook comment, underneath a photograph posted by a former schoolfriend with young British army comrades, he wrote that he would like to “perform a martyrdom operation in this scene”. He said he wanted to behead the same schoolfriend, and warned British police who had raided his parents’ home to “die in your rage soon you’ll be the one being raided”.

His mother, in evidence, denied her son posed a danger, dismissing his comments as “playing to the gallery”. The couple claimed Jack was in immediate mortal danger because he wanted to leave and the money was to get him out of Syria. “That was the price we had to pay, and if that was the price we had to pay then we were going to do it,” Lane told the court.

His parents have made repeated attempts to get the UK and the Canadian governments to help get Jack out of Syria, including organising protests and staging hunger strikes to draw attention to their case.

DCS Kath Barnes said investigators had “huge empathy” with the couple but it was not for them to choose when it was “OK to break the law”.

Jenny Hopkins, of the Crown Prosecution Service, said it was natural for parents to care for their son, but the couple had been warned “multiple times”. “They chose to ignore that advice and at one point set up a fake identity to send him money,” she said.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The son himself sounds like he's done some thinking and knows his life is pretty much over.One error in the story-The Canadian gov't Is Not going to let him into Canada not in 10,000 years he has no connection here and it would be political poison to be seen to be sympathetic to his case.

Jack Letts, Islamic State recruit: 'I was enemy of UK'

ack Letts, who left the UK to join the Islamic State group as a teenager, has said he had been an "enemy of Britain".

The Muslim convert, who is in custody in a Kurdish jail, admitted he was once ready to carry out a suicide attack.

The BBC interviewed the 23-year-old in October but it can only be reported now after his parents were convicted of funding terrorism by sending him cash.

The Home Office did not comment but has previously said it would try to block IS recruits hoping to return to the UK.

The interview is the fullest account yet of the Briton's time with IS in Syria, and Jack Letts said he was not speaking under duress.

Dubbed "Jihadi Jack" by the media, he converted to Islam aged 16.

Two years later, in 2014, he dropped out of studying for his A-levels at a school in Oxford, moved to Syria and joined IS - the jihadist terror group which became known worldwide for its brutal mass killings and beheadings.

He married a woman whose family were influential in the group in Fallujah, Iraq. He had a child, who he has never seen.

n 2017 he left IS, but was captured and is in a Kurdish-run jail in northern Syria.

The Briton, who has not been stripped of his UK citizenship and is a dual Canadian national, agreed to speak to the BBC, saying he wanted to come clean about his role in IS.

'I did what I did'
Reporter Quentin Sommerville, who interviewed the IS recruit while Kurdish security forces were present, said there were gaps in his story.

Challenged on whether he was a traitor, the IS fighter replied: "I know I was definitely an enemy of Britain.

"I did what I did," he added. "I made a big mistake, and that's what happened."

Pressed on why he abandoned the UK to join the jihadist group - which has carried out terror attacks across the world - he said: "I thought I was leaving something behind and going to something better."

He said his home life had been comfortable, adding: "I had a very good relationship with my mum, especially, and my dad as well, actually.

"I used to work with my dad. He was a farmer... I used to love actually working with him. I had a very good relationship."

He said he thinks the decision to travel to Syria was a "weird combination of thoughts" and "weird sort of confusion".

"I thought it was some sort of morality actually at the time," he said. "Why do I have this nice life, and others don't? And then, on top of that, the idea of it being an Islamic state and it's actually your duty to do this.

"I think it was probably just a very emotionally-driven period of my life. I'm just glad that I didn't die."

'I wouldn't give me a second chance'
The former IS member said the group used to "encourage you in a sort of indirect way" to put on a suicide vest. He said he made it obvious to militants that "if there was a battle, I'm ready".

"I used to want to at one point, believe it or not" he added. "Not a vest. I wanted to do it in a car. I said if there's a chance, I will do it."

He said he now believes suicide attacks are "haram"- meaning forbidden in Islamic law.

He said at the start he loved living in Raqqa. He fought on the frontlines and was badly injured in Iraq.

One of the main reasons he left IS, he said, was because they started to kill people who he knew were Muslims.

"I didn't have a full plan. I thought I'd just get to Turkey and ring my mum, and just be like, 'I want to meet you somehow'."

'Poster boy'
His parents, John Letts, 58, and Sally Lane, 57, faced trial, accused of sending or trying to send their son money after he had joined IS.

On Friday, they were found guilty of one charge of funding terrorism by sending £223 in 2015. They were cleared of sending him a further £1,000 and the jury could not reach a verdict on a third charge related to an attempt to send £500.

When told that there was very little appetite in the UK to give him a second chance, Mr Letts said: "It's not like I'm appealing to the British public to give me a second chance.

"If I was a member of the British public, I wouldn't give me a second chance probably."

Challenged that his recruitment to IS - as a Westerner who travelled from Britain - was a rallying cry for the terror group, he said he realised it "had more meaning" than for a Syrian recruit, and added that IS used him as a sort of "poster boy".

"The fact that I came from England, et cetera, I understand that it made a big difference."

Although admitting he fought for IS, he said he did not believe he killed anyone.

As a dual national, he has been in touch with Canadian authorities and they are believed to be considering allowing him to leave Syria for Canada.

The Home Office did not comment on the case, but believes that anyone who travels to Syria is putting themselves in danger and could pose a national security risk to the UK.

Home Secretary Sajid Javid has previously said he would "not hesitate" to prevent the return of people who travelled to support IS.

In an interview with the Times, Mr Javid said that a range of measures were available to "stop people who pose a serious threat from returning to the UK, including depriving them of their British citizenship or excluding them from the country".
 

Ron in Regina

"Voice of the West" Party
Apr 9, 2008
22,837
7,782
113
Regina, Saskatchewan
The former British-Canadian dual citizen, who was born and raised in Oxford, U.K., had his British citizenship revoked three years ago, leaving the Canadian government as his only viable means of escaping.
1674315810590.jpeg
1674315958279.jpeg
Former CSIS analyst Phil Gurski told CBC News Network on Thursday that he doubts any of the adults returning would face justice for any crimes they may have committed.

"The witnesses aren't here, the evidence isn't here," he told host Natasha Fatah. "As a Canadian citizen, I'm outraged that people are going to get away with it."
This isn’t anything new either. These stories below are all from 2019:
1674318814875.jpeg
Jack Letts was born in Britain in 1995, and beyond some trips to Canada to visit relatives, has never lived here. He was raised in the U.K., educated in the U.K., converted to Islam as a teen in the U.K., and went to Syria in 2014 at the age of 19 because he rejected life in Britain.

He is able to claim Canadian citizenship because his father is a Canadian who moved to Britain decades ago. His connections to this country, beyond asking for consular assistance, are negligible at best, but since the British government stripped him of his citizenship there in 2019, Letts may only be recognized as a Canadian now.

Harper set things in play so that Canada wouldn’t have to take Jihadi Jack, but Trudeau scrapped that, & here we are.
 

spaminator

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 26, 2009
35,667
3,004
113
Trudeau must appeal the Jihadi Jack court case
Author of the article:Brian Lilley
Published Jan 25, 2023 • 3 minute read
A court ruled last week that Canada needs to bring "home" Canadian of convenience "Jihadi Jack" but it's time for Trudeau to appeal.

The question now: After a court ordered four ISIS Jihadis to be repatriated to Canada, how long will it be before Justin Trudeau makes them millionaires?


Given what happened with Omar Khadr, that’s not an idle question. There is no doubt that activists will sue, it’s just whether Trudeau, or a future PM, will fight.


Late last Friday, a federal court judge decided that four men detained in Syria for fighting with ISIS needed to be repatriated to Canada. That’s really not the shocking part; the fact that one of the four men is Canadian-of-convenience Jack Letts, aka Jihadi Jack, is outrageous.

Justice Henry Brown, a Harper government appointee to the court, made the decision relying heavily on the 2010 case that eventually resulted in Omar Khadr being repatriated from Guantanamo Bay to Canada.

Brown noted that the four men requested that their Section 6(1) Charter rights “to enter, remain in and leave Canada” be granted based on the precedence of the 2010 Khadr case. That’s odd considering that the 2010 case referenced by Brown sought to have Khadr repatriated, something the Supreme Court said was the “responsibility of the executive” considering their constitutional responsibility over foreign affairs.


That should lead anyone to wonder why a lower court judge would say that these four men must be repatriated despite the reluctance of the executive — meaning Trudeau’s cabinet — to do so.

In the case of these men, the Kurdish forces that have been housing them for several years are looking to get rid of them. The Kurds, our allies in some ways but not in others, are trying to empty their jails of foreign fighters who decided that the ISIS was the answer to all of their perverted prayers.

Under both the Harper, and for the last seven plus years, the Trudeau governments, Canada has been unwilling to assist ISIS fighters despite Trudeau’s pledge that “a Canadian, is a Canadian, is a Canadian.” It’s in no party’s political interests to stand up for ISIS fighters, even those headed up by men who gave Omar Khadr $10 million.


Asked earlier this week about the court ruling, Trudeau didn’t rule out the government appealing the ruling, something he didn’t do in the Khadr case.

“We’re looking at it carefully. Obviously, making sure we’re defending Canadians’ safety and security is always going to be a priority for us,” Trudeau said on Monday when asked about the ruling.

In the case of the three men who have what are likely legitimate claims to Canadian citizenship, there is likely little Canada can do. The Kurds want rid of them and the main impediment is that the Canadian government refuses to issue them travel documents — some of Justice Henry’s decision can be put down to pure bunk, but this fact is hard to ignore.

Like it or not, if that is the main impediment to these sick men coming back to Canada, we will likely need to issue them passports.


The case of Jihadi Jack is another matter all together. There is no world, in my view, in which Canada should be responsible for Letts.

Letts was born in Britain to a British mother and Canadian father. He’s never lived in this country and has only visited a few times to see family members. But in 2019, the United Kingdom stripped Letts of his citizenship for taking up arms against the U.K. while fighting for ISIS.

Having Canada be responsible for Letts is like asking the U.K. to bail me out.

I was born in this country to parents from the U.K. and could claim citizenship there, but would never think it is Britain’s job to bail me out of a bad situation. That is what Letts and his family are asking us to do in this case.

Take care of a man who has no real connection to Canada, who took up arms with ISIS against us and our allies and feel good for doing so. It’s not what we should be doing, and Trudeau should definitely appeal this horrible court ruling.