Very nice. It is irrelevant to the charges he faced and he faces.
Eh? Unless I missed it, the man in the article isn’t facing any charges.
In anycase, I’m not aware of any law that criminalizes simply declaring a desire to live in enemy territory. Certainly the man in question doesn’t seem too concerned having such wishes published by CNN.
I did not refer to the american TV, the charges he faced and can face in terms of his past conviction are about the support to the terrorist organization DAESH.
Sorry it was my error, he was just convicted a few weeks ago for the domestic violence charges for again the imprisonment.
I couldn’t find any US laws that forbid travel into ISIS control territory … just warnings against such travel … apparently there are strict rules about US government employees from this travel … However, there does seem to be rather strict laws in Syria and Iraq about traveling into ISIS controlled areas … so just up and moving to Mosul right now doesn’t seem to be legally possible …
The question didn’t involve US law.
It does appear to involve the abusive use of the ellipses.
In any case, I believe the person in question remains under the parole and I had the impression his recent violence conviction had a relationship to the violation of that parole.
Do relief organizations ever send volunteers to DAESH territory? I imagine there are innocent reasons for being there, in addition to the common one (people who lived there before DAESH moved in) but they’d be uncommon. I’m okay if there’s a refutable presumption that anyone choosing to travel there supports the terrorist organization.
Justice shouldn’t be irrelevant to the law. It’s a tautology to argue that something is illegal because there’s a law against it. The question of whether or not a law exists is trivial and can be resolved by looking it up. It’s the question of whether or not a law should exist that’s meaningful and worth discussing.
… but the question does involve Iraqi and Syrian law …
But the question does involve Iraqi and Syrian law.
Seriously, what’s with the ellipses?
(the non ellipses version) the question has not one thing to do either the Iraqi or the Syrian law.
Very nice the theoretical SDMB response.
That specific statement(I have a hard time accepting the justice of the principle that you can be committing a crime just be living under a regime, even if it’s done by choice.) has not one thing to do with any actual legal problem that the person faces, at all.
So very nice, SDMB masturbation can continue to discuss non real things.
Are you sure that “support” in this context includes making a statement of approval, and doesn’t require some tangible provision of aid?
The word “support” is ambiguous. The law is (hopefully) less so.
I’m not the OP but I feel you’ve misread the intent of the thread. I feel the OP was asking in a figurative not literal sense. I didn’t feel he was asking if the actions he described were a violation of a specific statute. Instead I felt he was asking the larger question of whether it should be a crime.
I base this on the way the question was phrased. “Is is a crime to wish to live under what it seems to be the worlds’ most perfect caliphate?” seems to be calling for a figurative answer. If somebody was looking for a literal answer, they’d have asked a question like “Is it against the law to live in ISIS-controlled territory?”
I have not misread one thing.
It is completely ridiculous to take an empty throw-away comment by the terrorist facing charges with no relation to this, making excuses pretending his problems are about a wish and make it a serious question.
I am quite aware of the OP history who asks questions like is the athiesm promoting the DAESH fraction, empty of sense.
If the SDMB wishes to masturbate theoretically over empty, amporphous things as the frequent habit, go on. The answer otherwise is clear.
Where did you get this notion? I have never asked such question.
From the Rules Sticky:
Please do not sexualize arguments in this fashion. If you feel you must, the BBQ is right around the corner.
[/moderating]
The OP is from Europe not the US. There are many laws in Europe, in this area, that would not pass a 1st amendment “sniff test” in the US.
I can’t speak for Belgium specifically, but in the UK there are"anti extemism" lawsthat clearly infringe on free speech.
In the US this would fall under “Providing Material Support for Terrorism” I’d like to hear a lawyer’s opinion on whether what’s described in the OP would cross the line on that (I would suspect not, but INAL)
I think Michael Delefortrie (or Younnes) shows just how abjectly manipulative people can get. While posing as a young man with a pure heart and a victim of the Western society, he interprets terrorism as a just war and depicts terrorists as heroes fighting for a noble cause. He claims ISIS is an attempt to establish a perfect Muslim society and defends its atrocities by equating its acts with those of its enemies. He rejects the label of ISIS members as barbaric or violent people, and insists they resort to murder when they have no other options and only do it with a heavy heart. In my opinion, Michael Delefortrie wants the public to sympathize with ISIS fighters and hopes to win some adepts in the process as well. His apparently innocent question in the OP is representative for his art of sophistry because he’s no naïve dreamer – on the contrary, he’s hungry for power and the form of militant Islam he has adhered to is for him an instrument to satisfy this hunger. When asked about his conversion from Catholicism to Islam, Michael Delefortrie describes it as an upgrade: just like a computer user may switch from Windows XP to Windows 10. Religion is thus a mere tool in his hands, his humbleness is a sham, and his intentions are evil.
In Spain, the exact wording is apología del terrorismo. There is nothing ambiguous about either the wording or the law: if you praise terrorists you are commiting a crime.