So country A, maybe named Berzerkistan, or Iran, captures an American guy. They're going to say what? - that he's spying for the US, of course. Just like those "hikers" back in the summer. Anybody captured is a spy, by default. But if they don't really know for sure he's a spy, then some level of negotiation for his release could occur. If someone in authority, like the President, confirms that he's a spy then the terms of negotiations take a decidedly different and dangerous turn. Anybody that disclosed or confirmed that this guy was a stringer for the CIA has pretty much signed his death warrant, or at least his severely tortured warrant.
I don't think my scenario is the only one possible - I do think it is a realistic possibility. I don't know if the hikers actually were spies, but I do know it's a pretty lame story that they couldn't be bothered to make sure they weren't over the border of a country known to be hostile to the US and where border infringers have been severely criticized.
Yeah, well I hiked into the Smokies on the day the Republicans shut down the government and the rangers were chasing people out of the park. Fun, but no real risk. If they had caught us, they'd have said "go on back to your car" or, at some point, might have given us a $50 ticket. Hardly the risk of hiking near the Iranian border. If I'm going to hike close to the border of a country where they lop heads for sport, I'm either going for a reason important to me, or I'm incredibly naive, stupid, or careless.
All countries know that other countries have spies, right? But no country admits that it has spies. Occasionally somebody is accused of being a spy, and they deny it. A country is accused of sending the spy and they deny it. Sometimes somebody denying to be a spy is exchanged for something or somebody else who denies being a spy. Each country denies that their guy was ever a spy. It's a system of known and intentional hypocrisy and deceit. The country who has to officially admit they sent a spy is significantly weakened.
Your trust in elected officials to not disclose what they know and/or not use it for personal political gain or political weapon is admirable. And certainly no elected officials have ever denied knowing something they've been told.
Well, all I know is that when I was an electronic spook I was more trustworthy than the person in the White House at the time, one Richard M. Nixon. If I had been Chief Spook instead of grunt spook, I doubt I would have been less trustworthy.
Wrong spooks. That wasn't me. I did have some friends who worked at Langley, though. It wasn't them, either.
But on a slightly less frivolous line, I think oversight by high-ranking elected officials is a good thing. But there needs to be a balance between responsible oversight and trying to do the jobs you've hired the professionals for.
The court of appeals concluded that the four charges in question were fully supported by evidence relating to an incident that occurred before Mehanna’s Internet activities — namely, his travel to Yemen in 2004, where he unsuccessfully searched for a jihadist training camp at which he could learn how to fight against the U.S. in Iraq. The court concluded that the evidence entitled the jury to find that the Yemen trip constituted an effort by Mehanna to provide material support to a terrorist organization, and to provide such support, in particular, in the service of an effort to kill persons abroad.
There’s one catch, however: The government had offered the jury two theories in support of the four charges–the Yemen trip and and Mehanna’s subsequent Internet activities–and successfully urged the trial court to ask the the jury to return a “general” verdict, i.e., one in which a finding of guilt on the four charges would not and did not specify which of the two evidentiary predicates (or both) supported the jury’s verdict.
The court of appeals held that the general guilty verdict could be sustained, even assuming for the sake of argument that the evidence of coordination with al Qaeda on Mehanna’s Internet activities had been inadequate to support that verdict–that is to say, even if Mehanna’s translation and advocacy were constitutionally protected. The court reasoned as follows:
[W]e have no occasion to examine the factual sufficiency of [the translation/advocacy] activities as a basis for his terrorism-related convictions. Even if the government’s translation-as-material-support theory were factually insufficient, we would not reverse: the defendant’s convictions on the affected counts are independently supported by the mass of evidence surrounding the Yemen trip and, under Griffin [v. United States, 502 U.S. 46 (1991)], we need go no further.
By eliminating Mehanna’s Internet activities altogether from the issues on appeal, the court thereby ensured that Mehanna will not be the important First Amendment precedent that many had thought it might be.
Attempted murder is not the same as murder. But it's still a crime. Threatening to shoot somebody isn't the same as shooting them. But it's still a crime. A cursory reading of the case summary and the appeals decision shows that substantial evidence was presented that Mehanna did not go to Yemen to visit the Sandals Resort in Aden. That he was found academically ineligible for terrorist school didn't mean his application could be disregarded. The contention that "he didn't do anything" is is analogous to saying that because a guy's attempt to purchase an illegal weapon is foiled that he "didn't do anything."
Vrede wrote:
Plus, there is little doubt that his supposedly protected speech played a significant role in his prosecution and conviction. The material support of terrorism statutes have serious problems in theory and application beyond the details of this case.
'Zactly - which is why it was stated several times in the original case and appeal that it was a very fact-specific finding and decision. But apparently the jury found it reasonable to look at his "translating and posting" of al Qaeda text in the context of other actions, which included the ill-fated trip to Yemen. The evidence presented (apparently) showed that he wasn't just "objecting" to US policy and the wars. He apparently had an intent to become a terrorist through training and would have joined up with some jihad group if they had let him in. I'd agree that using this case to try to broaden the definition of "material support" would not be a good idea.
BTW, how does the "material support" provisions differ from "aid and abet" "conspiracy to..." "accessory to ..." "accessory after the fact..." You know, of course, that if you're in the car waiting for your buddy to come back out after robbing the place and he shoots somebody, that you're up on a murder charge yourself. You know that failure to report a crime can make you an accomplice. Not that I necessarily think any of those are reasonable, but in comparison, I don't find "material support" to be all that outrageous.
Article 3, section 3, clause 1 of the U.S. Constitution specifies that the giving of aid and comfort to the enemy is an element in the crime of Treason. Aid and comfort may consist of substantial assistance or the mere attempt to provide some support; actual help or the success of the enterprise is not relevant.
I disagree that the definition of aid and comfort has been widened, although it may have become more detailed. But without regard as to whether the guy at the origin of this part of the discussion was treated fairly or not, or whether the decision was in keeping with the law or not, or whether you like the law or not, is it really unreasonable to make it a crime to assist a person or group that would reasonably be considered an "enemy" or one whose avowed goal is destruction of the country?
Just saw a story on yahoo news that says US District Court judge Richard Leon has ruled the NSA bulk collection of phone records unconstitutional. This grants a preliminary injunction sought by plaintiffs Larry Klayman and Charles Strange. The judge ruled the plaintiffs right to privacy trumps the governments collection efforts. The judge has also stayed his ruling due to an almost certain appeal by the government. We'll wait.
Here's a well-researched discussion of "aid and abet". I don't see the material difference in it and "material support" except for the activities of those being charged. Aid and abet is old, and is used a lot in drug and robbery cases, while "material support" was written for terrorists. Looks pretty much like the same legal standard, though.
Regarding "Material support of terrorism statutes have been used to investigate and prosecute people who gave money for humanitarian aid that was in fact used for humanitarian aid to groups labeled "terrorist" because some part of their work at some time included what could be called terrorism, like the ANC was until 2008." ... So do I get from that or those incidents that if somebody sends a check to some group on the official terrorist list, but specifies that it is only to be used to feed hungry kids, and somehow we find that they really did use that particular money to buy food for the kids, that the contribution should be OK, and without investigation?
Vrede wrote:I disagree with your opinion that those who supported the ANC should have been charged with material support of terrorism.
Funny. Those responsible for leaving them on the list until 2008 have been sacked. But the ANC did apparently earn their own way onto the list back in the early 60's.
"In 1961, nearly fifty years after its formation, ANC initiated terrorist attacks against government facilities. The ANC formed a military wing, Umkhonto we Sizwe (aka MK or Spear of the Nation), to lead its terrorist attacks. ANC and Umkhonto directed their terrorist attacks against facilities and did not directly target people. Police raids and arrests eradicated Umkhonto by 1964. Resistance to apartheid continued throughout the 1960s, '70s and '80s. The ANC was implicated in several terrorist incidents in the 1980s that targeted international corporations with facilities in South Africa." - National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism, University of Maryland
But nevermind ANC. Look at the list and tell me which ones you would send money to.
neoplacebo wrote:The judge has also stayed his ruling due to an almost certain appeal by the government. We'll wait.
Ya think? And one that I'll go out on a limb to say will be successful.
I will also go on the limb and say you're probably right; however....a caveat. My limb says this will go to the Supremes, and the limb also rates this round at 50-50. We'll wait....
:!: How does that possibly advance the interests of Robert Levinson, the CIA, the White House or America?
