That may have been the case in the early 20th century, but nationstates today neither command nor deserve the same amount of respect.
Joining a foreign military is a direct violation of this "patriotic duty", even if the military is friendly. This makes sense, especially if you had, for example, a state-sponsored education. Simple work abroad is one thing (many corporations are multinational anyway), but in case of a military, you're clearly affiliating yourself with another state.
Work abroad is more damaging to the economy of a state, and thus to its vital interests, than military service ever will be.
Yes, but remember the way governments think about those things changes slowly. You asked about legal theory, here it is. I don't agree with it. It's been the case in early 20th century, but today, we live in a different world. Governments are somewhat stuck to "old-timey" patriotism, but it's only a hindrance now. I mentioned the "point of having a country" and national loyalty, national interest. In the modern 1st world, those concepts are all a bit outdated. Indeed, I think that the whole idea of rigidly defined countries is also outdated. Corporations care little about borders, as the EU shows, many borders serve little purpose these days. We're not quite ready to get rid of them yet, but the entire concept of a country is becoming less and less relevant in the west.
Deported to where? Remember, the people you're talking about are, in most cases, citizens of the country they're causing trouble in. Islamic State does not threaten (at least, not yet) any European country directly, it's not a gang or a "normal" criminal organization. They're terrorists, different rules need to be applied to them.
Short answer? No. No, different rules should very much not apply. The fact that jurisdictions all around the world have applied different standards to terrorists is a large part of why the past 13 years have been as insane as they were. This, in my opinion, is wrong. Terrorists are criminals, nothing less and nothing more. Legitimizing them by treating them as more dangerous or more worthy of official attention is, imho, NOT the right thing to do.
Terrorists should be categorized with pirates. Hostis humani generi. They cannot be fought with normal means, if you apply normal rules to them, you'll find yourself overwhelmed. I'm not arguing legitimizing them, quite the contrary. It's just that your usual criminals are generally confined to a single jurisdiction and incapable of fielding such manpower as terrorist groups. There are other organizations (such as drug cartels) that also need special, often military, response. This is what I mean. We do need different rules for dealing with such large scale, well equipped organizations. The problem was that jurisdictions around the world didn't apply the
right special rules. IS is too big to just arrest and persecute it's members for murder. It's too strong and fanatical to use nonlethal tactics against them. Criminals also still have rights, some of which we can't afford to give to IS members.
ISIS is an internationally recognized terrorist organization. They are trying to carve out a chunk of land for themselves, but they're nothing more than mass-murdering thugs. I think it is a crime (in pretty much every country) to be a member of a terrorist organization, and it's proper to remove one's citizenship, execute or put someone in jail for that.
No. If I were to declare myself as a member of IS, and if I were to act publically as an advocate of IS, I would not be guilty of anything. If I was arrested because of it, I would be well within my rights to demand restitution from the state for infringing on my freedoms.
And no. Membership in a terrorist organization does not invalidate your citizenship.
Remember, by actually joining them, you're agreeing with them. You should check what it actually entails to be a member of their organization.
Supporting them, or cheering to them is protected speech. But actually joining them is to declare yourself willing to participate in their atrocities. They not only advocate ethnic and religious cleansing, but they actually do that. Declaration of membership, one that is actually recognized by ISIS, goes way beyond speech. They can compel you to act and you'd have to obey or die. You know it before you join. It's pretty unambiguous for me. "Just following orders" is not an excuse.
Do not think about ISIS as if it was a legitimate entity of any sort. They're thugs with a claim to land, no one recognizes them internationally and hopefully, nobody will. Neither should we. People fighting for ISIS are allying themselves with terrorists, and for that, they should be persecuted. With extreme prejudice. They are only making the world worse and need to be removed completely.
That is not how democracy works. That is not how criminal justice works. That, dear Dragon, is how witch hunts and inquisitions work.
Yes. Maybe, just maybe, we need an inquisition this time. Did you see what democracies did in the Middle East? Iraq? Corrupt, unstable and, once it stopped being propped up by the US, spiraled right back to pre-war state. Palestine? Elected actual, known terrorists. Israel? It's an European country in all but location. Iran? Bigoted, warmongering and dangerous. I've been watching this region for quite some time, and it appears that the only countries that have any sort of stability are monarchical or dictatorial. Only the former have anything resembling freedom, though they're all very lacking in that regard. Coincidence? Or perhaps an indication that Middle East isn't ready for democracy. We've been playing "by the rules" for 13 or so years. We've been trying to convince them "our way" of doing things is morally superior. It's not like we're not morally superior, but it doesn't work. People still keep killing each other in there. If we want to
win this, we either play by their "rules", or leave them to rot in their bigotry and death. Anything else will only lead to pointless deaths. US military interventions in the Middle East hardly helped anyone, hardly made things better. They didn't eliminate corruption, religious extremism and bigotry. I'm not sure if it's even possible for middle east to become civilized anytime soon. Attempts to be civilized have, so far, all failed.
I'm becoming more and more disillusioned by the situation in there. Perhaps it can't be helped at all. There are places like Libya where civilization seems to be working out, slowly, but even there, the democracy is young and somewhat flimsy. Perhaps the whole region should be just left alone.
