When the Gov’t says Afghanistan or Saudi Arabia ‘harbors’ (or is that ‘harbours’? Brit Dopers, does that ‘u’ creep in?) terrorists, what exactly does it mean? Does it imply that the government of that nation actively supports those groups? Does it imply that the government gives that group implicit permission to [base operations|recruit|exist] there? Does it imply that the government couldn’t stop that group if it tried? Or does it just mean that the group exists within the borders of that nation? If it’s the last, the USA (indeed, a lot of countries) harbors Nazis (in very small areas) by that definition. I don’t think the term is quite as broad as the last hypothetical, but I want to know just what it means.
Using nothing more than logic and common sense (in other words, don’t attribute to much meaning to this explanation), one would think that “harboring” a party to this attack would imply an expressed indifference to or support of the cause, since anything other than that could not really be justifiably considered criminal. I doubt that, wherever we find the responsible individual(s), we’ll just toss a bomb down because no one prevented them from existing there.
It would be kind of like harboring a runaway–you could only be held liable if, first of all, you were aware of their presence, and second, you didn’t take action against it if action were an option (including, obviously, actively or expressly supporting them). For example, if the runaway holds a gun to your head and says “if you don’t let me stay here I’ll kill you,” that’s no fault of yours.
Why was Dr. Mudd convicted of harboring John Wilkes Booth just because he set his broken leg? Did he know he was treating a fugitive? Can a doctor’s medical ethics allow him to refuse treatment to a patient even if the patient is a wanted man? I understand Dr. Mudd received a pardon after many years of imprisonment. So the U.S. admitted they were wrong to convict him. The excitement following Lincoln’s assassination made people overanxious to punish someone … anyone. Which is why nevermore’s wisecrack, about not attributing much meaning to logic and common sense, makes sense.
That’s not a reasonable inference. There are many reasons for granting a pardon - a desire to be merciful, for example. A pardon doesn’t necessarily mean that the original conviction was flawed, and in fact may be offered up ahead of any convictions. Ford pardoned Nixon, and Clinton pardoned Rich, without any convictions at all. Surely you’d agree those were not “admissions” it would be wrong to convict?
- Rick
The classic definition mean aiding and abeting.
For instance Anne Frank was being harboured.
Depending on the times indifference may or may not be considered. For example Hitler really didn’t kill 6 million Jews. They were killed because he and his cronies wanted them dead and others said “Well as long as they are going to die anyway…Let’s not object”
This varies from people who fear for thier lives. For instance Patty Hearst, who was apparently (and debatably) so frighten she helped and co-operated with her kidnappers.
So basically there is a definition and people’s interpetation of that definition. I’m sure to a lot of radical muslims (notice the use of the word RADICAL not ALL muslims) see the USA as aiding and abeting and harbouring Israelis.
So do you think Dr. Mudd should have been imprisoned for setting Booth’s broken bone, or was he a victim of prosecutorial hysteria?
As much as I love good old Honest Abe 
and despise Booth for the vermin he was, I see it as unjust for the state to prosecute a doctor for sticking to his Hippocratic Oath.
I don’t think anyone was arguing that Mudd should have been imprisoned, just whether the US admitted wrongdoing in imprisoning him.
Personally, I’d consider harboring a terrorist either:
a) Shielding a terrorist from justice
or
b) Knowingly providing a safe haven for a terrorist to operate out of.
IMHO, Afghanistan qualifies on both counts. The US would not qualify as harboring Timothy McVeigh on either count.
Someone on the boards made an analogy to the fight to end piracy on the high seas in the early 19th century. We went war with the Barbary States ("…to the shores of Tripoli") because they acted as a safe harbor for pirates to operate out of. Like the terrorists, the pirates themselves could not be defeated while they had the protection afforded by various nations.