What to do with jihadist?

Re: Canada gets a taste of its own medicine, Chris Selley, Aug. 20

Great article by Chris Selley who pointed out the pros and cons of admitting Jack Letts back into Canada. There are two sides to this story and we Canadians will lose out either way we treat this jihadist. He betrayed our country to join the fight with abject terrorists who murdered countless innocent people. Now he wants to return to the fold as though he has done no wrong. The Liberal government struck down Conservative legislation which would have cancelled his Canadian citizenship. This was enacted to keep us all safe. With our present Liberal government we could end up paying millions of dollars in a potential case, as happened with our “Canadian” Omar Khadr.

Madeleine Wannop Ross Salter, Stoney Creek, Ont.

To my mind, the hand-wringing over Canada’s obligation to repatriate “Jihadi” Jack Letts makes no sense. I believe that Canada would not be able to prosecute him because under international law he would have had to have left from here in order to be charged for any overseas acts of terror.

Despite Letts’ disingenuous claim that he overwhelmingly feels Canadian ( although he spent most of his life in Britain), his citizenship is not the conundrum that politicians and the media are making of it.

My understanding is that once Letts arrived in the Isil-controlled area of Syria, he immediately took a vow to become a citizen of the Islamic State and by doing so, he unilaterally renounced all other citizenship. Ergo, Letts is not stateless, despite ISIL not being a recognized member of the United Nations.

I think Letts is simply a citizen of the Islamic State being held for his crimes in a foreign jail... and that no Canadian intervention is warranted.

Joel L. Goldman, Toronto

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has said that “Someone who has engaged and turned away from a hateful ideology can be an extraordinary powerful voice for preventing radicalization in future generations and younger people within the community.”

If we apply this theory to anyone who has committed a crime in Canada, then anyone who commits a crime in the country and sincerely repents should be freed so they can spread the word.

Somehow I don’t think this would help our criminal justice system or protect our citizens. It would however give our international partners some amusement.

Jonathan Usher, North York, Ont.

Let me state clearly that I do not want Jack Letts in Canada.

The federal government would have no authority to charge him with terrorism conducted in another country.

The attempts by the federal Liberal government to return Letts to Canada appal me. I believe he cannot be reformed.

Revocation of secondary Canadian citizenship for terrorists should be restored as Canadian law.

Leave Letts in the Middle East, where he can be tried by those he violated and be punished accordingly. Otherwise there would be no disincentive for others and no security from terror for those around him.

Charles Hooker, East Garafraxa, Ont.