Fourth Circuit bitchslap
 

now we can conceive of it, and we know of some people who maybe are inclined to repeat it. we can't really charge them with a crime. wait and see?

Fourth Circuit bitchslap
 

How come you think that association of Al Qaeda is enough to prove that someone is up to bad shit but not enough to prove that someone is up to bad shit?

Fourth Circuit bitchslap
 

I know it when I see it.

what law is broken by being in al queda? our laws need to catch up. we are one movie theatre or school take over away from some serious change on this stuff. you should be happy it has been as limited as it has been.

Fourth Circuit bitchslap
 

How do we get e.g. Tim McVeigh or the kids who multi-murder in schools?

I still think you are in Stalinist Russia. Or Stalinist Soviet Union. Or are advocating a 21st century (fox) version of McCarthyism. That whole thing started with people who actually were hellbent on overthrowing the US government. But then look what it turned into.

Fourth Circuit bitchslap
 

How about 18 USC s. 2339B?

• Whoever knowingly provides material support or resources to a foreign terrorist organization, or attempts or conspires to do so, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 15 years, or both, and, if the death of any person results, shall be imprisoned for any term of years or for life.

I was too lazy to see what portion of the statute had been amended since 2001, but I'm pretty sure that there was something similar on the books in the 1970s when the Feds were investigating the Irish Northern Aid Society to see if funds being raised for it by the Hibernian lodges in the US were being funneled to the Provisional IRA. And that professor who was tried for being a supporter of Hamas was originally charged before 9/11.*

eta: His name was Sami Al-Arian, and according to wikipedia, he was investigated by the FBI (including wiretaps) before 9/11, but wasn't charged until afterwards. Not Bob regrets the error.

Fourth Circuit bitchslap
 

thank you for your honesty. this is the post Ty meant, but wouldn't make.

we arrest Atta if he lives through the rubble of the WTC.

And yes, arresting people for ties to al queda is the exact same thing as McCarthism..

Fourth Circuit bitchslap
 

You are doing your level best to confuse different issues. One is whether existing criminal laws provide a basis to charge a terrorist before the act. Not Bob has my proxy on that one.

Whether there are any checks on the executive branch's decision to put someone away is a different issue.

Fourth Circuit bitchslap
 

Do I get to count wins against both of you, because the statute he quotes doesn't help except against the people supplying the bomber/hijacker?

Fourth Circuit bitchslap
 

Uh, you missed a step. Helps against people who help/supply the people who help/supply the bomber/hijacker/dirty pinko bastard.

Fourth Circuit bitchslap
 

exactly. that is why people in Dearborn keep getting arrested for giving money. Take some time and draft the indictment against Atta that you could write the night before.

Fourth Circuit bitchslap
 

No.

Fourth Circuit bitchslap
 

Uh, not quite. Providing "material support" includes providing personnel to the terrorist group -- including yourself. In your post, you asked what Atta could have been arrested for. He provided himself to a terrorist organization.

From the statute that I partially quoted:

• a) Prohibited Activities.—
  (1) Unlawful conduct.— Whoever knowingly provides material support or resources to a foreign terrorist organization, or attempts or conspires to do so, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 15 years, or both, and, if the death of any person results, shall be imprisoned for any term of years or for life.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/ht...9---B000-.html

• 4) the term “material support or resources” has the same meaning given that term in section 2339A (including the definitions of “training” and “expert advice or assistance” in that section);

Which takes us here:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/ht...9---A000-.html

• (b) Definitions.— As used in this section—
  (1) the term “material support or resources” means any property, tangible or intangible, or service, including currency or monetary instruments or financial securities, financial services, lodging, training, expert advice or assistance, safehouses, false documentation or identification, communications equipment, facilities, weapons, lethal substances, explosives, personnel (1 or more individuals who may be or include oneself), and transportation, except medicine or religious materials

Please let me know why we can't arrest a member of a terrorist organization under this statute.

Fourth Circuit bitchslap
 

and your evidence is....................

i realize we can get them once we know what they did, like Z(whatever). but Atta (or the LAX bomber), all you know he has ties to al queda. are you assuming he'll tell you about the plan and the guys helping him? have the courage of your convictions. you believe the protection of rights requires we let him go. that isn't a terrible position, but don't pretend it isn't what you're saying.

Hell Jed Bartlett killed a guy who he knew was a terrorist. Are you going on record as disagreeing with him?

Fourth Circuit bitchslap
 

Ok, Hank, I am confused. You originally said that there was nothing that Atta could be arrested for on 9/10/01, even though he was a member of a terrorist group. Then when I posted the statute that makes it a crime, you argued that only people who help hijackers can be arrested under that statue. Now it seems that you are talking about how hard it would be to prepare an indictment against Atta.

What exactly is your point? That we need to allow federal agents to arrest anyone and hold them indefinitely without bringing any charges? If so, are you comfortable with President Hillary Clinton having that power? Frankly, I am not. At best, we have something like the UK during the 1970s.

Fourth Circuit bitchslap
 

holding an up to date al queda membership card does not come under the definition.

Fourth Circuit bitchslap
 

So you want to jail anyone who holds an up-to-date al Qaida membership -- how do you know, and what evidence do you have? I don't think aQ issues membership cards.

I think that statute on supporting a foreign terrorist organization can get you there, but it does indeed still require evidence.

Or, do you want to just jail everyone who prays facing East?

Fourth Circuit bitchslap
 

I am not taking any position. I am trying to temper Ty's gloating over some decision.

Sometines we knowsomeone is bad, and the types of bad guys we have floating around are a different breed of bad guys. If the government can't hold the people it knows (or strongly suspects) are of this breed, pretty much they will walk. and maybe that is cool becasue it is necessary to protect con. rights, but I will not let Ty and NB ignore that letting them walk is a certain result of rulings such as the one Ty hails.

now you're trying to trick me so i can't get better schwarma than all of you. i ain't falling for that.

Fourth Circuit bitchslap
 

Dude, it was your hypo. You said we couldn't arrest him even though he was a member of a terrorist organization. Now that I showed you the very statute that shows that mere membership in a terrorist organization is a crime, you are changing the hypo to talk about how difficult it is to prove the crime. Fine, but that is a different issue.

(I would note that if we have enough evidence to think that he is a member of AQ, then we have enough that we can arrest him for it. And check to see if he cheated on his taxes, overstayed his visa, or tore the tag off of his mattress.)

Fourth Circuit bitchslap
 

"membership" is an oversimplification. Of course, we would know he is associated with it somehow. I don't see membership or association as coming under the statute (and just so you know, I would never have posted on this at all if I hadn't read the statute first, so no one showed me anything).

Does it matter if the acts were all on foreign soil? A guy is here working at a store. We know he went to an Afghan training camp. can he be charged under the statute.

Fourth Circuit bitchslap
 

Well, the statute says that providing personnel, including oneself, to a terrorist group is a violation, so I think that you are wrong. How that is proved is a different issue.

That statute states that it has extraterritorial jurisdiction, so I assume that that means he can.

Fourth Circuit bitchslap
 

I've said it about five different times, and I'll say it again. You seem to think that there are times when you trust the CIA to decide that someone is conspiring to engage in terrorism, but that you don't trust a judge to conclude the same. If you're asking me what my evidence is, it's whatever evidence you've got.

Fourth Circuit bitchslap
 

So the government should be allowed to lock up people who it thinks are members of street gangs (or heavily armed religious cults) even though it lacks the evidence to bring criminal charges? Interesting.

I'm hoping this strain of conservative authoritarianism wanes when the next President is a Democrat. Y'all will suddenly remember the virtues of limited government.

Fourth Circuit bitchslap
 

okay. we agree. now just type this words "I believe we should let Atta walk under this hypo, just like the LAX bomber was allowed to walk."

If you just type it, I'll think better of you for your honesty.

Fourth Circuit bitchslap
 

do you have any idea what the government did to "bring down" the Mafia?

Fourth Circuit bitchslap
 

can you get one of your associates to find a case where that was enough? everything I find has very detailed actions.

Fourth Circuit bitchslap
 

Your constant suggestions that I lie in my posts here create a rebuttable presumption that you are an asshole.

Fourth Circuit bitchslap
 

only to yourself.

Fourth Circuit bitchslap
 

Ty, the position he's set up opposed to yours is so despicable that he won't even endorse it himself. Stop fighting the Hank strawman - the match has been lit, if you just walk away, it will burn.

Fourth Circuit bitchslap
 

so the governemnt is holding these people without any cogent reason? despicable?

people have been prosecuted under the statute, ask yourself why some others haven't been. maybe it's becasue they are close to my hypo, or the evidence could compromise other intelligence gathering. the downside of being wrong on these issues is huge.

Or maybe it is because the government is completely out of control and just grabbing people out of pure paranoia.

I think the difference in how Ty and I look at my last question frames why we feel differently about the decision.

Fourth Circuit bitchslap
 

When did conservatives become so trusting of Government?

Fourth Circuit bitchslap
 

Hank's just a big fan of Minority Report.

Unfortunately, in Hank's version, Wolfowitz and Feith are the precogs.

Fourth Circuit bitchslap
 

If you give a government unchecked power to lock people up, it will abuse that power, out of the best and worst of intentions. Quite possibly, the people who locked up this guy think they're protecting the public. On the other hand, he was in custody for sixteen months before they moved him to military custody, and they did not do this until the trial court set a hearing on his motion to suppress evidence. More here. You don't need to start tossing around words like "paranoia" to think that the government will get the balance wrong.

Fourth Circuit bitchslap
 

January 21, 2001.

Fourth Circuit bitchslap
 

If the best we can do is "may be inclined to repeat it" then yes, we wait and see. There are days when I'm sure you "may be inclined to throttle your daughter." Should they be able to lock you up?

Fourth Circuit bitchslap
 

Why are you fighting so hard to stay so wrong? Both of them: (i) conspired to aid/ engage in terrorism; (ii) entered or attempted to enter the United States under false pretenses in aid of the afroementioned conspiracy; (iii) provided personal services in aid of said conspiracy; and (iv) did so knowing and with intent that said conspiracy result in acts of terrorism and/or harm to persons or property within the United States.

All that aside, both of them were on temporary visas. We didn't actually need to arrest them. We could have simply revoked their visas and put them on a plane to somewhere the government would be very happy to see them.

Fourth Circuit bitchslap
 

I'd rather take my chances with a few terrorists than with a state that can seize anyone, anytime, anywhere, and hold them without right to counsel, due process, or even letting them know what they are accused of and what, if any evidence there is against them.

You, on the other hand, seem to be advocating one step beyond that. You are arguing that the state whould be able to hold people without any evidence against them.

I'd let OBL himself walk before I'd agree that that is anything but a declaration of war against the American people by their own government.

Fourth Circuit bitchslap
 

No. They're too busy trying to figure out whether a plaintiff who alleged that he slipped after a stocker dropped a jar of Fluffernutter, but who has no medicals, has satisfied the impact rule requirement on claims for mental distress.

X-post "Mental Defectives"
 

Keep the guns out of the hands of the "mental defectives" and criminals.

I bet he thinks we should sterilize all those people, too.

Fourth Circuit bitchslap
 

Slipped on the Fluffernutter? Clearly he's lying.

X-post "Mental Defectives"
 

I'm sorry for you, that really sucks. Have you seen the actual language? Will you be grandfathered in?