|
Post by wayneinfl on Jan 26, 2009 23:43:38 GMT -5
The MCA applies to alien enemy combatants. That's a far cry from terrorism charges for an American of middle eastern descent. No American outside the military is going to have a darned thing to do with a court martial.
Especially for as you said- even showing interest in making a bomb. It might make a difference if you had a history of training with al-qaeda or the Taliban, and shooting across the Pakistan border into India, etc. That shows a whole lot more intent than stockpiling weapons for a contingency. He's 65 years old and hasn't yet met once with the Taliban or al-qaeda.
As for the PATRIOT Act- you're right, it is a huge piece of legislation. What part do you feel would make Donald Struve a terrorist?
|
|
wheelspinner
Are We There Yet? Member
Nobody's perfect, I'm a nobody, so ...
Posts: 4,103
|
Post by wheelspinner on Jan 27, 2009 0:45:39 GMT -5
I'd almost agree with you except that the MCA has been applied without any demonstration of real intent at all. People have been banged up for years on nothing more than the uncorroborated say-so of paid informants. The "history" you refer to has not been demonstrated to the satisfaction of any properly-constituted court in any case of anybody unedr the MCA. The sole "guilty" plea was obtained under duress from David Hicks, who sided with the Taliban BEFORE THE USA WAS EVER AT WAR WITH THEM. The MCA is not applied to US citizens, which is enough to make my point. In the case of the PATRIOT Act, the following points are among many that were added to the definition of "international terrorism": - the arson and bombing of Government property risking or causing death
- the arson and bombing of property used in interstate commerce
- the killing or attempted killing during an attack on a Federal facility with a dangerous weapon
Strude's intent could have been to use his weapons cache for any of the above. Investigators should have established his intent before defaulting to a lesser charge. The PATRIOT Act added many conspiracy charges to existing criminal statutes to bring them under the auspices of terrorist legislation. It is arguable that the combination of the above points as well as the conspiracy provisions suggest that Strude could have been charged under the PATRIOT Act, depending on his intent. My cynical side suggests that other classes of person in the USA would not have received the benefit of the doubt. All of this depends on a detailed knowledge of the law that I openly profess that I do not have. I merely make the observation that the laws that do exist are applied inequitably. The MCA alone is sufficient proof of that.
|
|
|
Post by wayneinfl on Jan 27, 2009 20:38:18 GMT -5
Struve has been in the country for 65 years and hasn't acted on that intent yet. He's had the means and opportunity for a long time. I think you'd have an awful hard time proving intent.
"the arson and bombing of Government property risking or causing death the arson and bombing of property used in interstate commerce the killing or attempted killing during an attack on a Federal facility with a dangerous weapon"
He didn't do any of those things.
"The "history" you refer to has not been demonstrated to the satisfaction of any properly-constituted court in any case of anybody unedr the MCA. The sole "guilty" plea was obtained under duress from David Hicks, who sided with the Taliban BEFORE THE USA WAS EVER AT WAR WITH THEM."
So you claim the history hasn't been proven, yet you claim the history existed even before the war? So was there a history of working with the enemy or not?
|
|
wheelspinner
Are We There Yet? Member
Nobody's perfect, I'm a nobody, so ...
Posts: 4,103
|
Post by wheelspinner on Jan 27, 2009 21:12:25 GMT -5
How can you have a "history of working with the enemy" when the Taliban were not enemies of the US at the time? Hicks fought against the Northern Alliance, not US troops.
I never said that Strude did any of those things, only that he may have been conspiring to do any or all of them; that also would be an offence under the PATRIOT Act.
I'm afraid this is becoming too esoteric a legal discussion based on too little fact for me. (Not least because of my speculation).
|
|
Pax
Are We There Yet? Member
quod erat demonstrandum.
Posts: 5,103
|
Post by Pax on Jan 27, 2009 22:16:19 GMT -5
"At least Bush killed people in another country?"
I know what you mean by that, Wayne, but it's pretty thin.
My perspective is, I carry a card that says I'm an American citizen, and I live within these contiguous 48 states, but I feel I am, above all, a citizen of the world. My perspective is, I am as appalled by innocent deaths in Iraq as I am in the United States. Too much of humanity is concerned with -- nay, defined by -- arbitrary notions of us vs. them.
|
|