Lisa Smith home.

Dante7

Boggles wrote: »

I haven't seen one serious poster suggest they wish she gets off. The opposite if anything.



The case is only strong if they have evidence, you don't know that and neither do I or anyone else here.

So the case could be strong or it may not me, it depends on what evidence they have.



They do, but a lot of the experienced ones are long gone.

I think it's 50/50 like I said earlier.

But she's a terrorist. We all know it. But some posters, seem to be more concerned with talking about the illusion that she did not technically break a law and trying to find a loophole for her.

She joined a terrorist organisation that beheaded people, drowned them in cages, burned them alive, kidnapped and raped them.

She has to be held to account. She'd probably be better of with the SCC, because any jury will convict her on circumstantial alone.

tuxy

Dante7 wrote: »

But she's a terrorist. We all know it. But some posters, seem to be more concerned with talking about the illusion that she did not technically break a law and trying to find a loophole for her.

She joined a terrorist organisation that beheaded people, drowned them in cages, burned them alive, kidnapped and raped them.

She has to be held to account. She'd probably be better of with the SCC, because any jury will convict her on circumstantial alone.

There is no loophole that I know of. Either she committed a crime with evidence to back up in a criminal trial or she is free to go.
Your previous post is giving me more hope that the Garda may have more on her than I originally thought.

splinter65

Dante7 wrote: »

Despite the apparent wishes of some people on this thread, I believe she will be charged and convicted of serious terrorist offences. There is a very strong case against her under the 2005 Terrorist Offences Act. This Act allows conviction for terrorist offences on foreign soil. There will be international intelligence information, statements from witnesses, and other circumstantial evidence which will be more than enough to secure a conviction.

She has reportedly stopped co-operating, so her rehearsed story has ran dry. The Gardai have a bit of experience in dealing with terrorists. They know what she is. I can see her getting ten years.


https://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/views/analysis/cormac-okeeffe/cormac-okeeffe-lisa-smith-arrest-suggests-possible-prosecution-for-terror-offences-968005.html

There’ll be a good bit of indignation from some of the posters on here if she is charged.
She ticks a lot of boxes for some of the more wooly hand wringers on this thread,
Female (check)
Non-conventional family circumstances (check)
Religion other than Christian (check)

tuxy

splinter65 wrote: »

There’ll be a good bit of indignation from some of the posters on here if she is charged.
She ticks a lot of boxes for some of the more wooly hand wringers on this thread,
Female (check)
Non-conventional family circumstances (check)
Religion other than Christian (check)

Not wanting to single anyone out but can you link to the posts that would support the idea that many want her to go free without charge?

Gods Gift

Limpy wrote: »

Her previous 4 Husband's all committed suicide in Syria. I see a pattern there.

Some people are just unlucky in love.

skooterblue2

Limpy wrote: »

Her previous 4 Husband's all committed suicide in Syria. I see a pattern there.

That is a bit harsh. If she made little changes like her brand of toothpaste, you would be surprised. She might even work her way up to not marrying mad B*stards in suicide vests and a hard on for catching mortar rounds between their teeth.

SEPT 23 1989

“Former Irish Defence Forces member” Lisa Smith is what RTE are describing her as

Not a whore of the ISIS murder machine

I can see where this is going

splinter65

splinter65 wrote: »

You never told us if you’d be happy enough to see LS settled into a paid caring role bubblypop. Would you?

I'm not sure why you are asking me this question?
Have you got me mixed up with someone else?

Dante7

tuxy wrote: »

There is no loophole that I know of. Either she committed a crime with evidence to back up in a criminal trial or she is free to go.
Your previous post is giving me more hope that the Garda may have more on her than I originally thought.

Being a member of ISIS not being a criminal offence is a pretty serious loophole IMO!

I'm very confident of a serious charge. I wouldn't read too much into the third day extension. That was always going to happen. On the one hand, they could never release her after 48 hours with no charge without exhausting all possibilities of getting as much information as possible. On the other hand, if they already have enough to charge her, let her wait. Charged in the morning.

tayto lover

Dante7 wrote: »

Being a member of ISIS not being a criminal offence is a pretty serious loophole IMO!

I'm very confident of a serious charge. I wouldn't read too much into the third day extension. That was always going to happen. On the one hand, they could never release her after 48 hours with no charge without exhausting all possibilities of getting as much information as possible. On the other hand, if they already have enough to charge her, let her wait. Charged in the morning.

What do you think they will charge her with?

tuxy

tayto lover wrote: »

What do you think they will charge her with?

Well since it's the offences against the state act she is being held under you would think that the charge will be based on that act.

Dante7

tayto lover wrote: »

What do you think they will charge her with?

Section 5 of the 2005 Terrorism Act.

skooterblue2

Dante7 wrote: »

She has to be held to account. She'd probably be better of with the SCC, because any jury will convict her on circumstantial alone.

I have no faith in men and women who werent smart enough to get off jury duty. I dont think they come to their own conclusions and just take directions from the Judge.

tuxy

irishstatutebook.ie is down so can't read the actual legislation

Sorry that this is for wikipedia and not very reliable but is it possible?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Offences_against_the_State_Acts_1939%E2%80%931998

Internment
This Act allows the Government to by order to bring internment without trial into force. The Minister for Justice may order the detention of persons deemed dangerous to state security. It also establishes an independent appeals commission to which prisoners can apply for release making the case that they are not a threat to public safety. This was used during the Second World War and during the IRA Border Campaign in 1952.

tayto lover

Dante7 wrote: »

Section 5 of the 2005 Terrorism Act.

Cheers. I must have a look at that.

tuxy

Dante7 wrote: »

Section 5 of the 2005 Terrorism Act.

Specifically, Section 5 of the 2005 Act provides that a terrorist group that engages in, promotes, encourages or advocates the commission, in or outside the State, of a terrorist activity is an unlawful organisation within the meaning and for the purposes of the 1939-1998 Acts.

Is Islamic State an unlawful organisation in Irish law?

malinheader

Dante7 wrote: »

Section 5 of the 2005 Terrorism Act.

I hope your right. Myself I think this whole interviewing of her and the extension to her being held is just a show. I think she will be out Tomorrow free to go with a lack of any evidence . I hope I'm wrong.

Dante7

tuxy wrote: »

irishstatutebook.ie is down so can't read the actual legislation

Sorry that this is for wikipedia and not very reliable but is it possible?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Offences_against_the_State_Acts_1939%E2%80%931998

They won't go there. Better to get her under the 2005 Act. ISIS membership is obvious terrorism. She wasn't forced, she went to join. She took salary from ISIS. She was a member. And all the other evidence that the questioners have which has caused her to start refusing to answer.

tuxy

Dante7 wrote: »

They won't go there. Better to get her under the 2005 Act. ISIS membership is obvious terrorism. She wasn't forced, she went to join. She took salary from ISIS. She was a member. And all the other evidence that the questioners have which has caused her to start refusing to answer.

I just read a section that states that because of Section 5 of the 2005 Terrorism Act that a terrorist group that engages in, promotes, encourages or advocates the commission, in or outside the State, of a terrorist activity is an unlawful organisation within the meaning and for the purposes of the 1939-1998 Acts(Offences against the State)

So this could potentially allow prosecution under Offences against the State Acts 1939-1998 for activity in IS.
I just feel that they will try to charge her under the act they are currently holding her under.
Of course I haven't the slight idea what they are actually attempting, we will have to wait to find that out.

Dante7

Dante7 wrote: »

Section 5 of the 2005 Terrorism Act.

Actually the offence is under section 6, of the act.
But I doubt they have the evidence for a charge

tuxy

bubblypop wrote: »

Actually the offence is under section 6, of the act.
But I doubt they have the evidence for a charge

http://www.justice.ie/en/JELR/Pages/terrorism

While the Offences Against the State Act 1939 and its subsequent amendments was primarily introduced to deal with terrorism from a domestic perspective its provisions can be applied in an international context.

The Criminal Justice (Terrorist Offences) Act 2005 was introduced in order to further enhance the State’s response to international terrorism. This Act gives effect to a number of international instruments directed to terrorism and meets commitments which the State has undertaken as part of the European Union and the broader international community, including the United Nations.

The 2005 Act also amends Irish law and, in particular, the Offences against the State Acts, to address the problem of international terrorism in a domestic context.

Specifically, Section 5 of the 2005 Act provides that a terrorist group that engages in, promotes, encourages or advocates the commission, in or outside the State, of a terrorist activity is an unlawful organisation within the meaning and for the purposes of the 1939-1998 Acts. Accordingly, the Offences against the State Acts now apply with any necessary modifications and have effect in relation to such terrorist groups.

Yep, that is section 5.
The offence a person commits is under section 6 of the act.
But, like I say, I doubt they have the evidence

Dante7

bubblypop wrote: »

Actually the offence is under section 6, of the act.
But I doubt they have the evidence for a charge

There's a case to be made for doing her under Section 4,5 or 6. Why would you doubt they have enough evidence? There is evidence that she joined a terrorist organisation that carried out offences as outlined in that Act.

https://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/views/analysis/cormac-okeeffe-lisa-smith-arrest-suggests-possible-prosecution-for-terror-offences-968005.html

tuxy

bubblypop wrote: »

Yep, that is section 5.
The offence a person commits is under section 6 of the act.
But, like I say, I doubt they have the evidence

Yes but section 5 would seem to define an organisation like IS as unlawful.
Of course they will need evidence of her involvement we may know more about if such evidence exists in the morning.
If she is charged they have something.

wassie

Just finished watching "The Report" on Amazon Prime.....might be a couple of nuggets on there for the AGS Lads in Dundalk while they still have time.

Dante7

Dante7 wrote: »

There's a case to be made for doing her under Section 4,5 or 6. Why would you doubt they have enough evidence? There is evidence that she joined a terrorist organisation that carried out offences as outlined in that Act.

https://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/views/analysis/cormac-okeeffe-lisa-smith-arrest-suggests-possible-prosecution-for-terror-offences-968005.html

The offence is under section 6.
I don't know what she has claimed, maybe she just wanted to live in an Islamic state?
Very hard to prove she went to join a terrorist group.

Dante7

bubblypop wrote: »

The offence is under section 6.
I don't know what she has claimed, maybe she just wanted to live in an Islamic state?
Very hard to prove she went to join a terrorist group.

It's actually quite easily to prove. Just put her up on trial before a jury of her peers and present the evidence. I would call Rukmini Callimachi as a witness. She is the New York Times terrorist correspondent, and is the most highly regarded journalistic expert when it comes to ISIS.

https://twitter.com/rcallimachi/status/1201651472200540161?s=19

Terrorists are tried in the special criminal court, no jury.

tuxy

bubblypop wrote: »

The offence is under section 6.
I don't know what she has claimed, maybe she just wanted to live in an Islamic state?
Very hard to prove she went to join a terrorist group.

Well I believe that is what she claimed in her TV interviews while in Syria so you can be sure she sticks to that story especially with a solicitor giving her advise.
While difficult it's not impossible they have evidence on her.

Dante7

bubblypop wrote: »

The offence is under section 6.
I don't know what she has claimed, maybe she just wanted to live in an Islamic state?
Very hard to prove she went to join a terrorist group.

She joined ISIS in 2015, a year after it was reported that they were beheading innocent people.