Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 04-23-2013, 04:58 PM
aceplace57 is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: CentralArkansas
Posts: 25,633

Would lawsuits weaken al Qaeda just like it did the Ku Klux Klan?


The Southern Poverty Law Center has been bleeding the Klan dry for a long time. Take away their money and the Klan is just a bunch of a-holes in white sheets.

Why not go after al Qaeda and their fanatical Imam supporters the same way?

Lets start with this online magazine that taught the Tsarnaev's how to build bombs. Is there any way that an International effort could be setup to sue the people responsible? Follow the Southern Poverty Law Center's example and file case after case. Bleed these fu*kers dry.

I much rather see the law used to fight these fanatics then bullets. Go after the Imam's that preach hate. Hold them and their organizations responsible for crimes that are committed by their followers.


http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013...urce-says?lite
Quote:
Dzhokhar Tsarnaev has also told investigators that he and his brother got instructions on building bombs from an online magazine published by al Qaeda, federal law enforcement officials told NBC News.

He told investigators that the brothers read the instructions in Inspire, an online, English-language magazine that terror monitoring groups say al Qaeda began publishing in 2010.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/11/12/klan.sued/
Quote:
The center is seeking to win a judgment that would allow it to seize up to $6 million in assets.

"We want to win justice for Jordan to compensate him for his injuries and put this group out of business," said center spokesman Booth Gunter. "We've won a number of these suits in the past."

In 2000, for example, the center won a $6.3 million jury verdict that forced Aryan Nations leader Richard Butler to give up the group's Idaho compound. In 1987, a $7 million verdict in Mobile, Alabama, targeted the United Klans of America.

Last edited by aceplace57; 04-23-2013 at 05:00 PM.
  #2  
Old 04-23-2013, 05:01 PM
Bosda Di'Chi of Tricor's Avatar
Bosda Di'Chi of Tricor is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Dogpatch/Middle TN.
Posts: 31,032
I refuse to act as the process server.
__________________
"When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a communist."
~~~Dom Helder Camara
  #3  
Old 04-23-2013, 05:03 PM
silenus's Avatar
silenus is offline
Isaiah 1:15/Screw the NRA
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: SoCal
Posts: 51,127
Where are you going to try them, and how can you compel them to attend, much less pay up when they lose? The Klan is an internal enemy - they have street addresses and such. Just where do you serve papers to al Qaeda?
  #4  
Old 04-23-2013, 05:07 PM
TriPolar is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: rhode island
Posts: 40,362
If the lawsuits were to extend to the nations that support them it might make some slight, barely perceptible difference. And then only in the most ideal yet unlikely circumstances. Easier to just use the Iraq War strategy and sue someone else, gain nothing, then declare 'mission accomplished'.

Last edited by TriPolar; 04-23-2013 at 05:08 PM.
  #5  
Old 04-23-2013, 05:08 PM
aceplace57 is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: CentralArkansas
Posts: 25,633
I was thinking more of the Imam's in mosques that preach hate. They're in cities with addresses. Those mosques have assets that can be taken in suits.

The majority of mosques are responsible and good people attend them. The terror experts know the few that are preaching hate. Those are the ones that need to be targeted.

Just like the Klan has regional cells around the country. If violence from their followers can be identified then the local Klan group that's responsible gets sued.

Last edited by aceplace57; 04-23-2013 at 05:13 PM.
  #6  
Old 04-23-2013, 05:21 PM
Ravenman is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 25,921
Quote:
Originally Posted by aceplace57 View Post
I was thinking more of the Imam's in mosques that preach hate. They're in cities with addresses. Those mosques have assets that can be taken in suits.
You think those mosques in the US are run by Al Qaida?
  #7  
Old 04-23-2013, 05:24 PM
aceplace57 is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: CentralArkansas
Posts: 25,633
Internet sites that preach hate would be ripe targets for law suits. The Boston bombers for example left evidence on their computers that shows the sites and videos that saw.

Someone registered and maintained those sites. That's who you go after with suits. At a minimum the site comes down. Maybe you take some of their money too.

It's all about holding people responsible for preaching hate.
  #8  
Old 04-23-2013, 05:28 PM
aceplace57 is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: CentralArkansas
Posts: 25,633
No not run by Al Qaida. The fanatical Imam's preach the same hate message. But they aren't necessarily in contact with Al Qaida. I'm only talking about incidents where you can tie followers violent acts back to their Imams.

If a fanatical Imam's followers don't commit violence then you can't sue. They haven't done anything wrong.

It's the same with the Klan. People hate black people and organize to talk about it. They aren't in contact or controlled by a group 600 miles away.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post
You think those mosques in the US are run by Al Qaida?

Last edited by aceplace57; 04-23-2013 at 05:33 PM.
  #9  
Old 04-23-2013, 05:37 PM
Telemark's Avatar
Telemark is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Yet again, Titletown
Posts: 22,582
Quote:
Originally Posted by aceplace57 View Post
I'm only talking about incidents where you can tie followers violent acts back to their Imams.
Either the Imams are organizing and coordinating incidents, or they are practicing their free speech rights. Unless the Imams are breaking the law by inciting violence (and there are specific legal hurdles to demonstrate that) you won't get very far. And if they are doing that, you can go after them with criminal charges.
  #10  
Old 04-23-2013, 06:16 PM
appleciders is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Southern Oregon
Posts: 6,436
Quote:
Originally Posted by aceplace57 View Post
Internet sites that preach hate would be ripe targets for law suits. The Boston bombers for example left evidence on their computers that shows the sites and videos that saw.

Someone registered and maintained those sites. That's who you go after with suits. At a minimum the site comes down. Maybe you take some of their money too.

It's all about holding people responsible for preaching hate.
Would they be good targets? It's very, very difficult to prosecute someone for speech in America, and doubly so for religious speech. If a magazine did give explicit instructions for how to build bombs, and coupled that with instructions that Muslims should use those bombs against American targets, then yeah, maybe you can sue. But Imams who simply preach that America is arrogant and poised to fall, or who celebrate damage to American's worldwide? Or those who simply preach antisemitism and the idea that Jews ought to be thrown out of the Holy Land? Those last two are religious beliefs, sincerely held. Who's to say that their religious beliefs are invalid and they may not be expressed? I don't think most of this stuff is actionable and I do think that most of it is protected speech under the First Amendment, as freedom of speech, religion, and sometimes press. Hate speech is frequently protected, and you can't simply snip out those protections without endangering free speech as a whole.
  #11  
Old 04-23-2013, 09:14 PM
aceplace57 is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: CentralArkansas
Posts: 25,633
Interesting. I was curious to float the idea and see what others thought. I know The Southern Poverty Law Center has been successful going after the Klan and other Neo Nazi groups. Every dollar taken away is money they can't spend on their hate activities.

But the fanatical Imams and Mosques also have religious protection.

Doesn't hurt to throw a few ideas out there.

Last edited by aceplace57; 04-23-2013 at 09:14 PM.
  #12  
Old 04-23-2013, 09:20 PM
alphaboi867 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: the Keystone State
Posts: 14,349
Quote:
Originally Posted by aceplace57 View Post
...It's all about holding people responsible for preaching hate.
Preaching hate being a perfectly legal activity in the US and any attemps to prohibit likely running afoul the the First Amendment.
__________________
No Gods, No Masters
  #13  
Old 04-23-2013, 09:25 PM
Ambivalid is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 13,706
Quote:
Originally Posted by aceplace57 View Post
Bleed these fu*kers dry.
I have nothing to add to the OP, I just wanted to say thank you for your discretion.
  #14  
Old 04-23-2013, 09:48 PM
aceplace57 is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: CentralArkansas
Posts: 25,633
Sure I can say hateful things under the First Amendment. Cops won't lift a finger.

But if people at my local bar hear me calling my neighbor a dirty, thieving, prick that needs a serious butt whopping. I better hope that my neighbor doesn't wind up in the hospital with his face smashed. I'll probably be paying his hospital bills. Trying to claim that I didn't mean for anyone to take me seriously probably won't help.

Quote:
Originally Posted by alphaboi867 View Post
Preaching hate being a perfectly legal activity in the US and any attemps to prohibit likely running afoul the the First Amendment.

Last edited by aceplace57; 04-23-2013 at 09:51 PM.
  #15  
Old 04-23-2013, 10:29 PM
Ruken is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: DC
Posts: 7,283
I'm not familiar with the KKK examples if you haves a cite you recommend.
  #16  
Old 04-23-2013, 10:44 PM
aceplace57 is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: CentralArkansas
Posts: 25,633
Their web site has a case docket. Listing cases and court decisions. There's a bunch of them. It's more manageable if you narrow the search to a specific agenda, They've been doing this work for quite awhile.
http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/case-docket

I don't know if their approach would work for the Boston bombing case or not. It's just an interesting idea that I floated here.

http://www.splcenter.org/what-we-do
Quote:
The Southern Poverty Law Center is dedicated to fighting hate and bigotry, and to seeking justice for the most vulnerable members of our society. Using litigation, education and other forms of advocacy, we work toward the day when the ideals of equal justice and equal opportunity will be a reality.

We employ a three-pronged strategy to battle racial and social injustice:

We track the activities of hate groups and domestic terrorists across America, and we launch innovative lawsuits that seek to destroy networks of radical extremists.

We use the courts and other forms of advocacy to win systemic reforms on behalf of victims of bigotry and discrimination.

We provide educators with free resources that teach school children to reject hate, embrace diversity and respect differences.

Last edited by aceplace57; 04-23-2013 at 10:46 PM.
  #17  
Old 04-23-2013, 11:04 PM
DataX is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 1,925
Seems like the Aryan Nations/Richard Butler case involved direct action by guards of the property...
http://www.splcenter.org/get-informe...s#.UXdWZIy9KSM

I would think you'd need something tying the Mosque/imam to a specific act of crime.

I'm not sure what you mean by every dollar taken from them is something they can't use in their hate activities. Are there actual problems with this in the US?

I'm familiar with cases like
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omar_Abdel-Rahman
But I would think post 9-11 these would be pretty rare. General the "US sucks" and "Israel should get out of Palestine" and Allah hates America isn't any worse than what counts as protected speech.

If outside the US - and actually directly related to serious conspiracy against the US - we do have a method of serving them (at least in Yemen, Afghanistan, and Pakistan) - but usually they aren't in any condition to show up in court afterwards.
  #18  
Old 04-23-2013, 11:48 PM
rowrrbazzle's Avatar
rowrrbazzle is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Chicago
Posts: 8,698
It'll never happen. If all other defenses against the SPLC failed, as a last resort they'd be accused of Islamophobia.
  #19  
Old 04-25-2013, 08:48 AM
puddleglum's Avatar
puddleglum is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: a van down by the river
Posts: 6,520
The SPLC is mainly a fund raising scam. It has 256 million dollars in assets and spent 1.6 million on litigation costs in 2011. They are rated a F by Charity Watch. Meanwhile the KKK has an estimated 2,000 members. What the SPLC does is sue some rascist group which has almost no assets to mount an effective defense, win a big settlement which is never collected, and then use the suit to fundraise from gullible liberals. Read Harper's magazine story called "The Church of Morris Dees", the prize winning expose by the Montgomery Advertiser, or the story "King of the Fearmongers" in the Weekly Standard.
  #20  
Old 04-25-2013, 09:03 AM
hogarth is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Toronto
Posts: 7,298
Al-Qaeda already has very severe financial (and criminal!) sanctions against it, in the form of the United Nations Suppression of Terror regulations.

Here's Canada's implementation of them, for instance:
http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/r.../P1TT3xt3.html
  #21  
Old 04-25-2013, 09:07 AM
Marley23 is offline
I Am the One Who Bans
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Brooklyn
Posts: 78,234
Quote:
Originally Posted by aceplace57 View Post
Sure I can say hateful things under the First Amendment. Cops won't lift a finger.
That's criminal law, not civil. The government can restrict your speech only in very, very limited circumstances (basically if it's likely to bring about imminent lawless action).
Quote:
But if people at my local bar hear me calling my neighbor a dirty, thieving, prick that needs a serious butt whopping. I better hope that my neighbor doesn't wind up in the hospital with his face smashed. I'll probably be paying his hospital bills. Trying to claim that I didn't mean for anyone to take me seriously probably won't help.
I can imagine you might get sued in that situation, yes. I have no idea if you would lose. But anyway you're talking about suing a magazine that isn't based in the U.S. and may not have any legal assets anyway, and the people behind it are already on terrorist watch lists. So they're not going to come to court and I don't think anybody can enforce a judgment. I don't see how this is supposed to work.
  #22  
Old 04-25-2013, 09:52 AM
Inigo Montoya's Avatar
Inigo Montoya is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: On the level, if inclined
Posts: 15,714
Since we're just throwing stuff out there.

AQ is not interested in a jihad against the west, not even the twisted definition of jihad that they preach. They are interested in terrorism. Terrorism is an attitude-management technique designed to incite a people to discard or overhaul its government. The idea is to demonstrate to the target audience, "See how ineffective your leadership is at protecting you? Now that we have your attention, this is how you can keep yourself safe...[demands]"

So, how do you fight such an organization? Well first it would make sense to silence its spokespeople--either by killing them or refusing to publicly acknowledge them. Meanwhile, you quietly hunt down the leadership and dismantle the organization. Money is not the heart and soul of AQ, so it's not what you need to go after.

Rant:
SPOILER:
In the wake of 9/11 we did neither and, instead, walked right into the terrorism trap. Our government demonstrated its own corruption (Gulf War II) and incompetence (the Afghanistan campaign), and the already tenuous unity of the American people was essentially obliterated. A dozen years later we still don't trust each other enough for one party to give due credit to the other, and there doesn't appear to be a leader coming forward who can convince us to set aside our differences in order to pursue some loftier future. As for domestic air travel and international relations...AQ kicked our asses. Yes, lots of Muslims have perished at our hands compared to the lives lost in North America, but overall we are much weaker. Stressed to begin with, but 9/11 was the cunt punt we needed to almost take us out of the game as a world power. And the Arab states? Still bickering amongst themselves and engaging in infighting, but they've overthrown our lapdog dictators and it doesn't look like they're leaning toward anything that looks like Western Democracy as a replacement. Something has inspired the Arab people to at least try to manage their own destiny, and I have to wonder if our ham-handed meddling in Iraq & Afghanistan/Pakistan played a significant role in that.

Last edited by Inigo Montoya; 04-25-2013 at 09:54 AM.
  #23  
Old 04-25-2013, 10:01 AM
Marley23 is offline
I Am the One Who Bans
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Brooklyn
Posts: 78,234
Speaking in general, The Great Sun Jester, whenever people disapprove of any anti-terrorism tactic they say "that's what the terrorists want you to do!" It's been said so often by so many people with such totally disparate views that it's lost all meaning.
  #24  
Old 04-25-2013, 11:44 AM
Inigo Montoya's Avatar
Inigo Montoya is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: On the level, if inclined
Posts: 15,714
"that's what the terrorists want you to do!" would apply to, "Decline public acknowlegment of their organization while quietly tearing it down"? I don't think that's what AQ wanted us to do at all (and it's also what we didn't do--except for the tearing it down part which was done quite messily).

Or does, "Get the sleeping giant to step on its own dick in response to our actions." seem an implausible goal of AQ? Because that's what we did in grand style.

Be patient with me. I don't claim to be any sort of genius but the above seem like pretty reasonable conclusions to me
  #25  
Old 04-25-2013, 12:06 PM
Marley23 is offline
I Am the One Who Bans
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Brooklyn
Posts: 78,234
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Great Sun Jester View Post
"that's what the terrorists want you to do!" would apply to, "Decline public acknowlegment of their organization while quietly tearing it down"?
No, it would apply to the stuff you're saying shouldn't happen:
Quote:
Or does, "Get the sleeping giant to step on its own dick in response to our actions." seem an implausible goal of AQ? Because that's what we did in grand style.
The Iraq war (among many other reactions to September 11th) was incredibly stupid, but that doesn't mean it was what Al Qaeda wanted. Like I said, if you follow along over the years, whenever people were opposed to a particular idea, they'd say 'you can't do that, that's what the terrorists want.' That was applied to everything. The stupidest expression of the concept was "if we don't do [X], the terrorists win," but sometimes it was more subtle. So I'm always skeptical when people say "Al Qaeda wanted us to do that!!!" And to be fair I think Al Qaeda said they were attacking for different reasons at different times. At one point they did claim they were trying to bankrupt the U.S., but I don't think they said that until after people started complaining about the costs of the wars. They're propagandists and you have to be careful about taking their comments at face value. I don't think they were trying to provoke the U.S. into invading Afghanistan. They had a pretty good thing going there and some of them never wanted to attack Western countries in the first place because they realized what would probably happen if they did: they became public enemy number one, lost their big safe haven, and it got a lot of them killed. They did their best to make hay out of the Iraq war but that didn't go very well for them either, all things considered.

Anyway, the 'refuse to acknowledge them' thing is not possible. In an open society with a free press, you can't just hush up terrorism. It's not going to work, and if you think about it, it shouldn't happen.
  #26  
Old 04-25-2013, 12:23 PM
Really Not All That Bright is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Florida
Posts: 68,115
Quote:
Originally Posted by puddleglum View Post
The SPLC is mainly a fund raising scam. It has 256 million dollars in assets and spent 1.6 million on litigation costs in 2011. They are rated a F by Charity Watch. Meanwhile the KKK has an estimated 2,000 members. What the SPLC does is sue some rascist group which has almost no assets to mount an effective defense, win a big settlement which is never collected, and then use the suit to fundraise from gullible liberals. Read Harper's magazine story called "The Church of Morris Dees", the prize winning expose by the Montgomery Advertiser, or the story "King of the Fearmongers" in the Weekly Standard.
Charity Watch doesn't publish its ratings. Charity Navigator does, and gives the SPLC 3/4. The Montgomery Advertiser story didn't win anything (it was nominated for a Pulitzer), and Ken Silverstein is a crank.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:03 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017