Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.
*
Does the US have to be in a declared war for Treason to apply?
Otherwise seems you could make the case they these people are giving aid and comfort to the enemy thus bypassing free speech issues.
Well, now, bless his heart, he just can’t help it.
Is there some major problem this law must address? Are Americans pouring money into the coffers of people who are trying to kill us? Is there some dreadful calamity bearing down on us, that we need this?
My answer would be “No”. This is just the sort of “big government” solution to a theoretical problem that we on the conservative wing of the extreme left oppose. If I want to give a dollar to help a child in a foreign hospital, am I really expected to demand that the child’s father be politically acceptable to whatever administration currently governs?
You confuse me, elucidator. Back in Iraq War debates you argued that war was unnecessary since sanctions worked just fine, but here you seem to throw up your hands at the notion of sanctions at all.
Personally, I’m in agreement with Bricker. An overzealous application of these laws isn’t smart, but likely permissible under Article II powers.
It’s possible to argue that sanctions work against sovereign states, but not against “terrorist” groups. Which puts Hamas in an odd position, because Gaza is hardly a sovereign state, but Hamas is also not your common and garden terrorist organization.
It’s also possible to state that sanctions work against some countries (South Africa for example) but are less effective against others (North Korea, say).
If he bites you, how do we know you won’t be treated in a clinic that also treats known terrorists? I think **Moto **should not take that chance, lets he be linked to terrorist activities.
As a former criminal defense guy, I don’t like it one little bit. If I represent clients accused of terrorist acts, or even of belonging to designated terrorist organizations, have I violated the act?
And, for the record, I’d like to jerk my knee swiftly and with vigor into the groins of everybody that voted for the Patriot Act. Even the name of the thing gives me the creeps.
Ditto number one. The way the thing is written is too broad. What if I donate to some charity, which then “sub delegates” money down and it gets into terrorist hands? Am I guilty of aiding and abetting? Maybe.
Ditto number two. The Patriot Act was and is a bad idea.
If this were in place and rigorously enforced thirty years ago, how many Americans of Irish extraction might be slammed up for supporting the IRA? They’d be calling Leavenworth County Clare West!
As generally noted, making a crime of a person’s associations is an irregular practice. It is outside the general shape of criminal law. The topic here is whether the court will accept a multiple of that irregularity. That is, can we accept that criminal conduct is found in a nebulous association with a group defined as ‘terrorist’ by an unreviewable administrative decision? This does not pass the smell test.
How irregular is “irregular”? Don’t police forces use it often to effectively criminalize association with known gang-bangers–e.g., congregating on the street with them?
Crimes are usually actions. Generally actions against persons or property. An ‘association’ does not fit either of these and absent something incriminating, is presumed to be innocent and an exercise of civil liberty.
Police may use ‘move-on’ powers or address loitering, but you will not see many actual prosecutions for simple ‘association’.
Edit:
Whereas if Hamas sought political advice on how to challenge or revoke ‘terrorist’ status, the Government contends it would a crime for a US citizen to provide that advice. Is that acceptable to you?
I was unaware of the “expert advice or assistance” (ie, counsel) aspect of material support. Weird. Is that what this SC case is going to interpret specifically, or rather how broad material support can go in general? I’ve followed some previous appellate cases, and they have been strictly construing how far material support can go and a specific intent to commit the crime (although Congress may have amended the law to reverse the rulings at this point, I really don’t know).
For the record here’s the FTO List. If the organization is not on the list, you can provide “material support” to a group unless you know they are involved in terrorist activity. Luckily my favorite terrorist organization, the Moro Islamic Liberation Front, is not on the list.
The FTO can challenge their designation in US court.
Ironically, the US Gov’t can provide support to anyone (say, Hamas, they do), and it is not illegal because the presumption is the Gov does not support terrorism. ha!