Meet your new thread, same as the old thread.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
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.

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..

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
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..

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.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
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.

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?

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
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?

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

[Hank Chinaski]

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

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.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
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?

No.

[Not Bob]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
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?

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.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
No.

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?

[Not Bob]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
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.

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.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Not Bob
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.

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

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
holding an up to date al queda membership card does not come under the definition.

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?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
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 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.

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

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

[Not Bob]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
holding an up to date al queda membership card does not come under the definition.

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.)

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Not Bob
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.)

"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.

[Not Bob]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
"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).

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.

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
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.

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