No one has been prosecuted for treason that I'm aware of,
I'm not a lawyer but my best guess is that if that is so, it's probably mostly for formal reasons: In order to prosecute someone for treason, you need to be in a declared state of war, and formally declaring war on ISIS smells of recognising them as a state-like actor which Britain and other countries are avoiding for good reason. You can still prosecute them for crimes against humanity, membership in a criminal organisation, or plain old murder in front of a civilian court, and that
has been done.
and you may not necessarily have evidence for any particular person's behaviour in a war zone. (As distinct from having the evidence that they joined the group.)
If you don't have evidence of crimes, you can't convict. If all you know is that a person took a flight to Eastern Turkey and then went off radar for a year and a half, and posted some offensive shit on twitter before they left that can be construed as supporting ISIS, you can try a hate speech trial over those posts, but that's about it. As it should be. It's called "burden of proof", you can google it. If you want to live in a country that punishes people on the mere suspicion that they committed a crime, there's unfortunately plenty of places on this planet you can choose from!
If however you want to convert Europe into such a place, I'll put up a fight. I'm not ready to surrender Europe to those who want to turn it into a shithole.
But that's completely different of course. If you are hanging people for treason, it makes only symbolic difference whether you also strip them of citizenship. And liberals will not let you hang people either, so that's not going to help!
How is that
completely different? The main instigator was hanged, as was the costumary in those days. But the brigade he created, though not the success he had hoped, had several dozen members over the years. Some of them died in battle, some of them came home without being tried due to insufficient evidence, some of them received much lighter sentences than he did.
The situation is
exactly the same, of course: A citizen fighting on the enemy side is tried and punished
as a citizen, with the severity of the punishment depending on the level of evidence and the severity of his crimes and the applicable legal code.
If you don't either kill them or remove citizenship, then an enemy in war can just come back inside your country.
If there's evidence of criminal activity, you can put him in jail. If there is none but you still have reason to suspect he might become a danger, you keep him under observation.
As with any other crime, you don't get to incarcerate people, least of all your own citizens because they might become a danger in the future. There were
571 homicides in England and Wales in the year ending March 2016 (many more than terrorist victims). Could some of them have been prevented by preemptively incarcerating (or expelling) anyone showing aggressive tendencies? Almost certainly, probably many. But in a free society, that's considered a price too high to pay (and a higher price it is than in the case of a rather miniscule terrorism risk!).
A natural-born citizen is a natural-born citizen with the same set of rights and responsibilities, whether his ancestors immigrated from Pakistan or the Caribbean in the 1950s, from Ireland in the 1840s, from France in the 1690s, from Portugal in the 1510s or from Frisian lands in the 660s, whether they were Muslims, Catholics, Huguenots, Jews or pagans. This is a very basic principle of modern societies. If you want to change that
Actually nothing I said requires treating people differently based on their ancestors. Surely we could also strip white ethnic europeans of their citizenship in such cases. It's not even a hypothetical. I'm pretty sure there are real cases of them going out to fight.
you're questioning the very basis of our civil arrangement - exactly what you're accusing Islamists of! You of course have the right to do so, but do it explicitly. If you make special rules for some but not other citizens, effectively creating two grades of citizenship one of which is preserved for Whites, you're emulating apartheid era South Africa, so go ahead and give credit where credit is due!
But that's not needed at all for stripping citizenship.
Also, making even quite big changes to society, (let's get rid of the monarachy say), is not the same as someone with immigrant ethnic heritage wanting to do a complete replacement job of your system using their outside culture. That would just be an obvious attack of culture from the outside and quite different to normal political development from the inside.
It is exactly the same. Care to explicate one relevant way in which they're different?
It may be difficult to say *exactly* what the rules should be in such cases; but that doesn't mean it's difficult to see clear cases of immigrants being traitors. See for example:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=61KsT5YixF0
I'm fairly sure you will say we just have to accept people like that. It's their "free speech", "freedom of religion".
If there's good reason to do so in a specific case, go ahead. If you do it as an excuse to harass Muslims and Muslims only, ignoring actual data that shows that most terrorists are in fact not integrated in any mosque community, that specifically ISIS volunteers tend to have no history of strong religious commitment but are rather recruited directly to the cause, mostly through the internet, then doing so isn't going to help.
Something I found interesting on this:
"A loose oversight over mosques is what contributes to the rise of Islamist terrorism in Europe, an UAE minister warned. He then called on Germany and its neighbors to introduce stricter regulation over Muslim prayer halls to prevent radicalization.
“You can’t just leave a mosque open and allow anyone to go there and to preach. You need to have licences,” Sheikh Nahyan bin Mubarak Al-Nahyan, the minister for tolerance of the United Arab Emirates (UAE), told Germany’s DPA news agency as he commented on the security situation in Europe. He added that the governmental noninvolvement into the activities of religious communities is what has led to the rapid rise of extremism.
Muslims in Germany as well as in the neighboring France, Belgium and the UK had been radicalized exactly due to the fact that authorities in these countries did not pay enough attention to what happened in the mosques on their territory, the minister argued. “Germany and other European states must eventually exert stricter control over such meeting places of Islamists,” he said."
https://www.rt.com/news/409880-germany-mosques-surveillance-uae/
I see your rt and raise you
nytimes:
"ISIS and the Lonely Young American
Alex, a 23-year-old Sunday school teacher and babysitter, was trembling with excitement the day she told her Twitter followers that she had converted to Islam.
For months, she had been growing closer to a new group of friends online — the most attentive she had ever had — who were teaching her what it meant to be a Muslim. Increasingly, they were telling her about the Islamic State and how the group was building a homeland in Syria and Iraq where the holy could live according to God’s law.
One in particular, Faisal, had become her nearly constant companion, spending hours each day with her on Twitter, Skype and email, painstakingly guiding her through the fundamentals of the faith.
But when she excitedly told him that she had found a mosque just five miles from the home she shared with her grandparents in rural Washington State, he suddenly became cold.
The only Muslims she knew were those she had met online, and he encouraged her to keep it that way, arguing that Muslims are persecuted in the United States. She could be labeled a terrorist, he warned, and for now it was best for her to keep her conversion secret, even from her family." (emphasis added)
Recruiters for ISIS targetting Westerners (and that includes Westerners with an ethnic background)
don't want their targets to exchange themselves with their local mosques. They know that would likely move them away from their interpretation of Islam, and carry the risk of them being reported to the authorities if they defend it explicitly. The details differ when the target is not a Christian but someone who already identified as a Muslim prior to contact, but the rough outlines are the same: They'll do what they can to isolate him from his community and family and paint those as apostates.
John_Amery, most notable for his attempts to form a British volunteer corpse fighting on the German side in WWII, was hanged for treason but kept his citizenship. 
