Treatment of Foreign Fighters in Selected Jurisdictions from the Library of Congress.
Summary:
This report contains information on provisions in place or under consideration by the United Nations (UN), the European Union, and 73 countries on the treatment of individuals who join and fight for terrorist organizations in foreign countries. A number of countries are currently considering action following the September 2014 adoption of a UN Security Council resolution expressing concern about the threat of foreign terrorist fighters. Many nations, as illustrated below, already have punishments applicable to such fighters, including imprisonment and/or loss of citizenship. In a number of jurisdictions, penalties for joining terrorist organizations increase when the individual recruits others or undergoes military training with those organizations. A unique approach is being taken in one city in Denmark, where instead of facing punishment, returning fighters are being given study or employment opportunities. In addition to the report on these jurisdictions, two maps have been included to illustrate the findings.
The city government of Aarhus, Denmark, has chosen to not criminalize disagreement with its national government. Some of its citizens disagree with the characterization of the IS as a terrorist organization and have fought on its side in Syria and returned to Aarhus. Where they have not been jailed but offered dialogue and treated as members of the community.
“Terrorist organization” is a label of convenience for any group disliked by a national government, which are themselves amoral organizations. The prison sentences and other punishments detailed in this document are governmental thought and action control. The ringing of freedom stops when you disagree with a national government.
The report summarizes the efforts in Aarhus (footnotes included) as follows:
…
Among twenty-five countries that have given official estimates, Denmark reportedly has one of the largest numbers of inhabitants fighting in Syria measured as a percentage of the total Muslim population, 98 but the suggested treatment of and measures against returning IS fighters have Danes divided. The Danish government has promised a review of the current terror laws to determine whether they are consistent with human rights. 99 The opposition party Danske Folkepartiet has made clear that they would prefer to see that IS fighters, regardless of their citizenship status, never set foot on Danish soil. 100 Following problems with several jihadists, reportedly twenty-three in number, being sent to Syria from a mosque in Aarhus (Denmark’s second largest city), the political right has asked that the mosque be closed. 101 The Danish government has opposed such measures. 102 Instead Aarhus has chosen to welcome home IS warriors with a soft approach tailored at finding them jobs and providing university studies, according to news reports. 103
…[Footnotes]
98> See, e.g., Bharati Naik, Atika Shubert & Nick Thompson, Denmark Offers Some Foreign Fighters Rehab Without Jail Time – But Will It Work?, CNN.COM (Oct. 28, 2014), http://www.cnn.com/2014/10/28/world/europe/denmark-syria-deradicalization-program/.
99 Denmark to Reconsider Its Terror Laws, THE LOCAL (Aug. 12, 2014), http://www.thelocal.dk/20140812/denmark-to-reconsider-its-terror-laws.
100 Martin Henriksen, Op-ed., Sharia politi? Aldrig i Danmark, BERLINGSKE (Sept. 11, 2014), http://www.b.dk/kommentarer/sharia-politi-aldrig-i-danmark.
101 Michael Ørtz Christiansen, Borgerlige partier kræver Aarhus-moské lukket, BERLINGSKE (Sept. 3, 2014), http://www.politiko.dk/nyheder/borgerlige-partier-kraever-aarhus-moske-lukket.
102 Id.
103 Denmark Tries a Soft Handed Approach to Returned Islamist Fighters, WASHINGTON POST (Oct. 19, 2014), http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/denmark-tries-a-soft-handed-approach-to-returned-islamist-fighters/2014/10/19/3516e8f3-515e-4adc-a2cb-c0261dd7dd4a_story.html; CNN.COM, supra note 98.
Anti-terrorism laws are blatant efforts by national governments to suppress support by their own citizens for groups with which the government disagrees. Suppression of the moral right of their citizens to choose who is or is not worthy of their support. Suppression of the moral right of their citizens to act on their beliefs.
Reform of “terrorist” laws in Denmark should conclude that citizens should not be penalized for moral choices that disagree with self-serving amoral choices made by governments.
By the same token, opposition to some groups by the United States, driven by funding bases of political parties and bizarre religious ideology, should not prohibit me from making different choices. Or else let’s amend the last line from the United States National Anthem:
O’er the land of the unfree and the home of the graves?
If a citizen cannot make moral choices different from their government and act on those beliefs, in way sense are they free? In what sense are they brave if draconian punishments deter them from acting their moral choices?