The Clipboard: Are we prosecuting people for terrorism or for thought crimes?

Al-Munaqabah said:

Total comments: 996

See also Court filings potray Oregon suspects as inept

Al-Munaqabah said:

Total comments: 996

"The law of conspiracy prohibits the planning of crimes, it cannot render organizations illegal simply because they appear to be crimes waiting to happen. The First Amendment protects Sanchez's right to join a gang and be a 'gang member', whatever that may mean. We cannot prosecute the gang's members until they begin plotting a specific crime - even if we know that criminal activity is, in many ways, the gang's raison d'etre" (source)

This comment was about gangs not terrorist groups but the same principles apply.

bergson said:

Total comments: 15

>rgnlly pstd by l-Mnqbh -

"Th lw f cnsprcy prhbts th plnnng f crms, t cnnt rndr rgnztns llgl smply bcs thy ppr t b crms wtng t hppn. Th Frst mndmnt prtcts Snchz's rght t jn gng nd b 'gng mmbr', whtvr tht my mn. W cnnt prsct th gng's mmbrs ntl thy bgn plttng spcfc crm - vn f w knw tht crmnl ctvty s, n mny wys, th gng's rsn d'tr" (src)

Ths cmmnt ws bt gngs nt trrrst grps bt th sm prncpls pply.

Ths s dstrbng cnvrstn. Mmbrshp f rcgnsd trrrst rgnstn s nt sttn bt "cvl rghts". Th rgnstn s tslf prblm, n th sm wy tht th kl klx kln sd t b. wndr f y wld fl th sm wy f strtd n nt-slm grp nd nsstd tht jst blngng t t ws prtctd ndr cvl lw.

sggst y thnk gn - bynd th smll ntllctl 'bx' n whch y lv.

Al-Munaqabah said:

Total comments: 996

Bergson, the quote mentioned in my comment is not my own. That's why I have a link that says "source" after it and why I put it in quotes. The quote is taken from an article by Barton Aronson, an assistant district attorney from Massachusetts. Perhaps you should try to read more carefully.

As to the KKK, it has the right to speak their views and to assemble for the purpose of doing so, as long as they do not incite imminent violence. That is the holding of the Supreme Court in Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969) (a case, incidentally, that was specifically about the KKK and their right to hold a rally). You want to form an anti-Muslim hate group, that's your right. As long as you don't incite imminent violence, you can do what you want.

A person also has the right to associate with whom they want as long as they do not engage in criminal conspiracy, that is, taking a concrete action as part of a plan to commit a crime. Mere membership, when no action is taken, is protected by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The Supreme Court said as much in, for example, United States v. Robel, 389 U.S. 258 (1967).

I suggest that you take the time to study law, and specifically constitutional law, before you make such sweeping statements.

bergson said:

Total comments: 15

>rgnlly pstd by l-Mnqbh -

Brgsn, th qt mntnd n my cmmnt s nt my wn. Tht's why hv lnk tht sys "src" ftr t nd why pt t n qts. Th qt s tkn frm n rtcl by Brtn rnsn, n ssstnt dstrct ttrny frm Msschstts. Prhps y shld try t rd mr crflly.

s t th KKK, t hs th rght t spk thr vws nd t ssmbl fr th prps f dng s, s lng s thy d nt nct mmnnt vlnc. Tht s th hldng f th Sprm Crt n Brndnbrg v. h, 395 .S. 444 (1969) ( cs, ncdntlly, tht ws spcfclly bt th KKK nd thr rght t hld rlly). Y wnt t frm n nt-Mslm ht grp, tht's yr rght. s lng s y dn't nct mmnnt vlnc, y cn d wht y wnt.

prsn ls hs th rght t ssct wth whm thy wnt s lng s thy d nt ngg n crmnl cnsprcy, tht s, tkng cncrt ctn s prt f pln t cmmt crm. Mr mmbrshp, whn n ctn s tkn, s prtctd by th Frst mndmnt t th .S. Cnstttn. Th Sprm Crt sd s mch n, fr xmpl, ntd Stts v. Rbl, 389 .S. 258 (1967).

Y sd, bv, tht 'th sm pnt ppls' whtvr grp t cncrns. Whch s nt ccptbl, bcs mmbrshp f trrrst grp s tslf rsn fr cncrn. f y dn't lk t, jst bcs thy rd th sm bk s y, tht s yr prblm - nt th prblm f th scrty srvcs nd nncnt Wstrn ppl wh r thr ptntl trgt. Trrrst grps xst fr n rsn nly - t nflct trrr. Ths s nt sm-pltcl sttn, lk th KKK.

dn't rlly knw bt S lw nd thr s lttl pnt n qtng xmpls tc. thnk ts bvs tht f nyn s knwn t b mmbr f trrrst rgnstn, th scrty srvcs r nt gng t sy 'hy, lv hm ln. Tht's hs cnstttnl rght'. dn't thnk s. Sggstng tht 'th rght t ssct' tc s dfnc fr trrrst mmbrsp s nt ccptbl. Prhps y wld lk m t nfrm yr nvrsty tht ths s yr vw?

n th K, lws wr rcntly pssd mkng t llgl t nct rlgs htrd. Ths lws wr pssd mr t prtct mslms frm nt-mslm flng, bt th rny s thy r mr lkly t b ppld t slmc xtrmsts. n th crts t th mmnt, n f yr s clld schlrs s bng trd fr xctly tht rsn: kll th Jws, kll th Wstrnrs, ts tm fr jhd tc.

dn't knw th dtls f S lw bt m sr f ny mslms d tht vr thr thy wll ls fnd thmslvs srrndd by mn crryng hndcffs, nd thn tkn t crt.

dbt tht vn cms cls t dfndng mmbrshp f trrrst grps s mrlly nccptbl.

Al-Munaqabah said:

Total comments: 996

If you wish to report me to the authorities as a terrorist or terrorist sympathizer you may do so.

I simply believe that people should only be punished for their own actions and not those of others. If they have not committed any criminal act, then they should not be punished. When they commit a criminal act, they may be punished.

Zack Ajmal said:

Total comments: 112

This is not a semi-political situation, like the KKK.

KKK semi-political?? What are you talking about? KKK was a terrorist organization that terrorized and killed blacks.

bergson said:

Total comments: 15

>rgnlly pstd by l-Mnqbh -

f y wsh t rprt m t th thrts s trrrst r trrrst sympthzr y my d s.

smply blv tht ppl shld nly b pnshd fr thr wn ctns nd nt ths f thrs. f thy hv nt cmmttd ny crmnl ct, thn thy shld nt b pnshd. Whn thy cmmt crmnl ct, thy my b pnshd.

Ths s strctly lglstc rgmnt cncrnng 'pnshmnt'. Tkn t fc vl t wld sggst tht thr s nthng wrng wth mmbrshp f l Qd. Thr clrly s, nd t s fr ths knd f rsn tht nw trrrsm lws wr ntrdcd nt th K llwng th plc t rrst nd dtn sspctd trrrsts fr lng prds f tm, wtht trl. Tht s vry snsbl f thy hv nfrmtn tht th plc wnt, r f thy sspct thm f plnnng r spprtng trrrst ctvts: thy dn't nd t hv ctlly crrd thm t. gr wth ll th pwrs th plc fl thy nd t d thr jb.

Bt s 'v sd bfr n dffrnt cntxt, ths cnvrstns mk n dffrnc t wht s ctlly hppnng n th wrld. wld ls nt b srprsd f scrty prsnnl rtnly chck yr wb lg, r rn sftwr scnnng fr wrds lk 'jhd' r 'trrr'.

t s ths knd f gry r tht cntrbts t th mstrst ppl hv bt slm. Mslms sm t hv grt dffclty n ccptng tht sm f thr sppsd brthrs nd sstrs r psychpths - , dmttng tht slm s nt sm knd f wndrfl, flwlss nd nbl prctc. nd th mr rsstnc thr s, th mr th mstrst grws.

Why s tht sch bg prblm? cn b hnst nd sy 'hy, gr, sm spcts f Wstrn cltr r vry sck'. Why cn't slm d th sm thng bt tslf? t s vry vsv, slppry nd CLSD cmmnty f ppl. Y sd slwhr ppl dn't lk n th rght plc t fnd th mslm vc n ths knd f thng. Wll, ppl lk t ntnl nd ntrntnl nwspprs nd TV. nd 'm sr th md wld b dlghtd t hst snr mslms wh hv tkn t pn thmslvs t ctgrclly dnnc ll trrrsm, ll rfrncs t jhd whr t cncrns cdmntn f nd thrt twrds th Wst, ll rfrncs t 'th nfdl' tc. tc.

Whr r ths ppl? Thy dn't xst.

bergson said:

Total comments: 15

>rgnlly pstd by Zck jml -

>Ths s nt sm-pltcl sttn, lk th KKK.

KKK sm-pltcl?? Wht r y tlkng bt? KKK ws trrrst rgnztn tht trrrzd nd klld blcks.

T my knwldg t ws nvr dscrbd s "trrrst". n th sm wy th trcts n S frc wr nvr clld "trrrst", nd th rcst grps n th K hv nvr bn clld "trrrst". Thy r, sdly, "pltcl" - nd r crrntly njyng nw pplrty n th vtng bllts. Th KKK hv smlr knd f stts. Th wrd "pltcll" s nt cmplmnt!

Al-Munaqabah said:

Total comments: 996

I think that this discussion has gotten a long ways away from the articles that I originally posted. Inshallah, I will post a new comment setting out exactly what the articles said and why I posted them, and then explain my view in light of that.

Oh, and Bergson, you said you hadn't bothered to read my blog. If you had, you would know that I have never hesitated to condemn terrorists and their twisted ideology. My most recent condemnation, in wake of the attacks in Saudi Arabia and Morocco, should still be on the front page of veiled4allah. I don't know how I can make it more accessible than that.

I am getting sick and tired of your constant derogatory remarks. Almost every time you post you manage to insult me. If you don't like me, then you don't need to come here. No one is forcing you to. You've done your duty, you've warned me how stupid and wrongheaded I am. Your responsibilty is done. If I choose not to listen to you and to continue in my stupidity and wrongheadedness, the fault is on me alone.

bergson said:

Total comments: 15

>h, nd Brgsn, y sd y hdn't bthrd t rd my blg. f y hd, y wld knw tht hv nvr hsttd t cndmn trrrsts nd thr twstd dlgy. My mst rcnt cndmntn, n wk f th ttcks n Sd rb nd Mrcc, shld stll b n th frnt pg f vld4llh. dn't knw hw cn mk t mr ccssbl thn tht.

m gttng sck nd trd f yr cnstnt drgtry rmrks. lmst vry tm y pst y mng t nslt m. f y dn't lk m, thn y dn't nd t cm hr. N n s frcng y t. Y'v dn yr dty, y'v wrnd m hw stpd nd wrnghdd m. Yr rspnsblty s dn. f chs nt t lstn t y nd t cntn n my stpdty nd wrnghddnss, th flt s n m ln.

Ys s why dn't yr snr 'lrnd schlrs' d wht y r dng? Tll th wrld? sggst ts bcs thy dn't xst, tht slm clss rnk - dd s fw hndrd yrs g prbbly - nd dsn't hv prpr dlg wth th rst f th wrld. 'm nt nsltng y - th d f "nslt" s pclrly mslm thng - th rspns whnvr nyn crtcss. ts wht hppnd t Slmn rshd - 'hw dr y nslt s' tc.tc.

dn't dslk y, bt hv rsd mny prtnnt, rlvnt nd xtrmly tpcl sss.

Al-Munaqabah said:

Total comments: 996

Here's a re-cap of the materials that I originally posted.

The blog entry itself concerns the article Conspiracy law leaves lots of leeway in terrorism cases. This article quotes Robert Precht, a law professor at the University of Michigan. Precht is discussing conspiracy law. Let's say that two people are conspiring to commit a murder. If they commit the murder, then they're charged with murder and that subsumes all lesser offenses. But if they don't commit the murder for some reason, they can still be charged with criminal conspiracy if they took some action towards carrying out the murder - even if the action itself is legal. For instance, let's say that one of the conspirators purchased a car to use as a getaway vehicle. Buying a car is legal. And we don't say that only some people can buy cars. We don't ask car dealers to investigate all potential purchasers before selling to them. Some people who purchase cars may be intending to do bad things with them. But they can't usually be arrested for what they intend to do, only for what they have done.

The exception to this is if the car buyer is later charged with criminal conspiracy. In this case, even though the buyer never actually did anything illegal (however much he may have intended to), the act of buying the car is taken as an "overt act toward planning the crime or carrying it out" and he can be found guilty of criminal conspiracy and punished. Precht says that conspiracy law in effect punishes people for what they're thinking of doing and for whom they associate with not for actual criminal acts or even for attempted criminal acts. Hang out with the wrong people and you could get busted for buying a car.

If you'll read my earlier comments, I accepted this standard. I said, A person also has the right to associate with whom they want as long as they do not engage in criminal conspiracy, that is, taking a concrete action as part of a plan to commit a crime.

Thus I said it was OK to punish all group members who commit actual criminal acts (this was never in dispute) and also all members who take concrete actions towards committing a crime. When I am talking about mere membership, I am talking about people who have not done anything criminial and have not joined in any plans to do anything criminal.

Now, the article that I've cited (and linked above) goes on to discuss how the government has charged some suspects in Oregon and New York with criminal conspiracy. This means that the government is alleging that they had a plan to commit a criminal act and that they did some action towards planning or carrying out that criminal act.

The criminal act that these suspects are accused of is the act of being a member of al-Qa'ida. Remember again that they have not been charged with actually being members of al-Qa'ida. What they have been charged with is planning to become members of al-Qa'ida (i.e., criminal conspiracy).

For this reason, I went on to link to and cite a second article in the body of the blog entry. This second article is called Prosecuting Al-Qaeda: When Is A Member A Conspirator?. This article is by Joanne Mariner, a human rights attorney in New York. I quoted two passages from this article. The first one is what I set out above: the government holds that belonging to al-Qa'ida is a criminal act in itself and therefore people can be charged with criminal conspiracy for planning to join it, even if they don't actually succeed in doing so (if they did succeed, they could be charged directly with being members, not with criminal conspiracy to become members). The second passage that I quoted from Mariner's article is when she says The danger of criminalizing "mere membership" in a disfavored group is that it is essentially allows guilt by association, a concept anathema to American principles of justice. Not only does this approach offend due process, which requires individual guilt, it infringes upon freedom of association, a constitutionally-protected right.

I was therefore following Mariner's lead when I mentioned the issue of freedom of association.

In the body of the blog entry, I linked to a third article, Prosecuting Suspected Supporters of Terrorist Groups. This article is also by Joanne Mariner. The article is looking at a different issue than the main one. That's why I only linked to it as suggested further reading and did not quote from it. In the article, Mariner examines the process by which the government designates certain groups as terrorist groups and she notes that if a group has been designated as a terrorist group, there is no way to appeal this designation.

So that's the main body of the blog entry. In the first comment on the blog entry, I added another link. This was about the Oregon suspects and provided further information about them. Again, a resource for further reading.

In the second comment I quoted a passage from yet another article, and this is what Bergson chose to respond to. The article here is actualy a book review of a book about gangs. I drew a similarity between terrorists and gangs because both are groups whose very purpose is criminal. That is, they are groups that have formed apparently for the explicit act of planning and carrying out criminal acts.

The author of the book review is Bart Aronson, a prosecutor and a former assistant district attorney from Massachusetts. Aronson is writing the review in order to discuss legal issues related to gangs. In particular, he discusses the use of criminal conspiracy law as a tool to fight gangs. This is the same criminal conspiracy law that I mentioned above. I quoted a passage from Aronson's article that I will reproduce here: The law of conspiracy prohibits the planning of crimes, it cannot render organizations illegal simply because they appear to be crimes waiting to happen. The First Amendment protects Sanchez's right to join a gang and be a 'gang member', whatever that may mean. We cannot prosecute the gang's members until they begin plotting a specific crime - even if we know that criminal activity is, in many ways, the gang's raison d'etre.

Thus Aronson is saying that even though a gang has formed for the express purpose of committing crimes and that all of its activities consist of crimes or plans to commit crimes, if a person joins the group but does not commit any crimes, nor take any actions towards planning any crimes, he cannot be punished for being a member of the gang. Aronson also states the reason for this: the First Amendment's guarantee of freedom of association.

As I noted in my comment, terrorist groups are similar to gangs. Their entire reason for being seems to be the commission of illegal acts. Although the First Amendment is intended to protect the right to belong to political organizations, Aronson and Mariner say that it also protects the right to belong to any organization, even a criminal one like a gang (or terrorist group) as long as you do not do anything to help commit a crime. As a prosecutor, Aronson dislikes it. He feels it gets in the way of his ability to prosecute gangs. But he agrees that this is the law. As a human rights attorney, Mariner likes it. She thinks that people should not be punished for what they think or who they keep company with as long as they don't do anything illegal or plot to do anything illegal.

Mariner believes that in fighting terrorism, the government has gotten around the limitation that frustrated Aronson so much when he was attempting to prosecute gangs. She opposes that on First Amendment grounds. I posted all of these articles and links because I agree with her.

As I said in a more recent comment, I simply believe that people should only be punished for their own actions and not those of others. If they have not committed any criminal act, then they should not be punished. When they commit a criminal act, they may be punished.

I do not oppose prosecuting people for committing terrorist acts. I do not oppose prosecuting people for plotting in a criminal conspiracy to commit terrorist acts. The only thing that I oppose is prosecuting people who have not committed terrorist acts nor plotted to do so because of "mere membership". I oppose this because I believe that it is contrary to the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. People have the right to associate with whom they choose as long as they do not try to break the law.

I hope that this clears up what I was trying to say in the blog entry and in my subsequent comments.

Al-Munaqabah said:

Total comments: 996

Bergson, you appear to be saying that because some Muslims do not speak up against terrorism, it is OK for you to come here and call me stupid (which you have repeatedly done and I think most people would agree with me that that is an insult) because I'm a Muslim even though I have repeatedly spoken up to condemn terrorism. It doesn't seem to matter to you what I've actually said; as long as I belong to a group that has bad members, I must be bad myself. Even if I have not done anything wrong, I can be punished for the wrongdoing of other members of the group that I belong to.

If that is indeed what you believe, then I can see why you're so upset at this blog entry which is all about whether we should only blame and punish people for what they themselves have done, or if we can blame and punish them for what others have done.

I do not have control over any person but myself. I cannot control what they choose to say or what they choose to do. I can only speak up about what I believe and hope that people will listen to me.

I would like people to judge me for myself, and for what I have said and done. I think that everybody would like that. It's a matter of simple fairness. I have asked you repeatedly to look at my own words in my blog and I have explained repeatedly to you what my own views are.

But even when my own words and my own views clearly contradict what you are imputing to me, you continue to blame me, apparently because there are Muslims elsewhere who don't share my views.

As far as I can tell the only way that you would stop your attitude is if I stopped being a Muslim. That is not something I am willing to do. I believe in an Islam that promotes justice and condemns wrong-doing. I do my best to promote justice and condemn wrongdoing in my own writings and actions. Why should you be able to tell me not to do that because some other people somewhere else screwed up?

bergson said:

Total comments: 15

>rgnlly pstd by l-Mnqbh -

Hr's r-cp f th mtrls tht rgnlly pstd.

d nt pps prsctng ppl fr cmmttng trrrst cts. d nt pps prsctng ppl fr plttng n crmnl cnsprcy t cmmt trrrst cts. Th nly thng tht pps s prsctng ppl wh hv nt cmmttd trrrst cts nr plttd t d s bcs f "mr mmbrshp". pps ths bcs blv tht t s cntrry t th Frst mndmnt f th ntd Stts Cnstttn. Ppl hv th rght t ssct wth whm thy chs s lng s thy d nt try t brk th lw.

hp tht ths clrs p wht ws tryng t sy n th blg ntry nd n my sbsqnt cmmnts.

m lss ntrstd n css nd dtld lgl rgmnttn (lwyrs wh rn hg sms f mny nd smtms rprsnt ppl wh r glty), thn n wdr hmntrn sss. Lk mny thr ppl, thnk 9/11 chngd th wrld - nd ths s crtnly wht yr prsdnt thnks. s y wll knw, h cndmns nd my vn trgt ntns tht "spprt" trrrsm - thy dn't ncssrly hv t b ctvly prsng t. gr - tht's nt th knd f wrld wnt t lv n, whr psychpths crt fstrng lttl grps f htrd. f, fr xmpl, smn prvds fnncl spprt thy d nt cmmt ny ctl ct bt mrlly thy r jst s clpbl. Th qstn s, wht knd f prsn lgns thmslvs wth l Q'd tc., whn thy knw thy hv mrdrd nd r cpbl r mrdrng gn? Th qstn s, cn spprt fr tht knd f htrd b tlrtd? ftr 9/11 n, dn't thnk t cn. f ny f ths vl psychpths jn ht grp, t s rght nd crrct tht thy cn xpct t wll hv rprcssns. Th sm ppls t th ndvdl lvl. nd n fct, th ss f 'pnshmnt' s nt th rl cncrn. Th scrty srvcs knw bt ppl wh r ssctd wth trrr, bt thy d nt rrst thm nd sk t 'pnsh'. Wht thy d s mntr, wtch, nd cndct ntllgnc nd srvllnc prtns. ccrdng t yr lgc, tht wld b n nvsn f prvcy r "dscrmntn". t sn't.

bergson said:

Total comments: 15

> d nt hv cntrl vr ny prsn bt myslf. cnnt cntrl wht thy chs t sy r wht thy chs t d. cn nly spk p bt wht blv nd hp tht ppl wll lstn t m.

> wld lk ppl t jdg m fr myslf, nd fr wht hv sd nd dn. thnk tht vrybdy wld lk tht. t's mttr f smpl frnss. hv skd y rptdly t lk t my wn wrds n my blg nd hv xplnd rptdly t y wht my wn vws r.

thnk t nds t b splt t mr clrly by dnncng spcfc ppl nd spcfc ds - lk th Wst s th nmy, th nfdl, th htd n. Wht prcv s thr s lvl f cmrdshp btwn mslm ppl tht vds, gnrs nd ths mplcty spprts ths thngs. Why ds ths hppn? Bcs t sms t qstn sm f th ds tht l t th hrt f slm - s n n wnts t d t.

bergson said:

Total comments: 15

s lng s mslms cntn t cht mngst thmslvs nd nt ngg prprly wth th rst f th wrld, rfr t dsty ld txts ll th tm rthr thn cntmprry cncrns, nd vd th prblms wth slm - thn th sss hv rfrrd t wll cntn. slm s nt hnst, bcs t pnts ts fngr f blm t th Wst, whl th slmc wrld s mss. My frstrtn drvs frm th fct tht thr s lmst n n wh s prprd t b hnst - mslms hddl tgthr nd trn blnd y t th mny prblms n thr wn cltr. Dn't blv m, bcs 'm mr nfdl? rcmmnd y rd th wrtngs f Ysmn lbh-Brwn - th nly hnst, pn spkr tht knw.

Mslm ntlrnc

Mslm dbl stndrds

Scrts nd ls

Dnncng fntcs

Crtcsng yr s clld clrcs

Whr r th wmn?

Th trth bt slm nd wmn:

slm fls t spk t gnst th Tlbn

Mslms fl t cndmn nt-Chrstn trrr

nd thr's mr. YB s nt wld fntc bt n rtclt cdmcc nd nwsppr clmnst, wh s ls Mslm.
Why rn't thr Mslms hnst lk sh s?

All comments are copyright their authors

RSS feed of comments on this entry

Finished reading and posting comments? Return to The Clipboard