Bush administration arrests former human shields. - Page 3

Kuciwalker · September 21, 2003, 19:39

Quote:

You don't even have to shoot. Merely carrying a weapon for the enemy makes you an (unlawful) enemy combatant. That's in a totally different category than an unarmed protestor in terms of their legal status, their rights if captured, and for purposes of both civilian criminal law and military law.

My point was that they didn't have to be successful for what they did to be wrong.

Quote:

Congress never used the terms "war" nor did the President. Authorizing unspecified military action doesn't create a state of war. Were we at war with Sudan when we cruise missiled a target there? Were we at war continuously with Iraq when we enforced the No-fly zones ever since the end of the gulf war, under UN authority? A legal state of war for purposes of determining a party as an "enemy" for a treason prosecution is distinct from whether Bush's actions were authorized by Congress, and therefore legal.

I suggest you post a poll and see how many people would NOT call that little "unspecified military action" a war...

GePap · September 21, 2003, 19:48

Congress did NOT declare war on Iraq, only gave the president permision to use force, much like congress in 1964 did NOt declare war anywhere, but gave the President the athority to send forces to South Vietnam, and eventually the authority to bomb North Vietnam.

MichaeltheGreat · September 21, 2003, 19:51

Quote:

Originally posted by skywalker
My point was that they didn't have to be successful for what they did to be wrong.

Mine is that from a legal perspective (after all, we're talking about an arrest and pending prosecution), they're incomparable. If they'd been carrying a weapon, they could find themselves at Gitmo waiting for an eventual date with a gurney.

Quote:

I suggest you post a poll and see how many people would NOT call that little "unspecified military action" a war...

Popular perception is irrelevant to the legal definition for purposes of prosecuting treason. Treason prosecutions are very rare in US history, and very hard to prove, and the Framers of the US Constitution made it that way on purpose, given the "treason is anything the King says it is" approach of our former sovereigns.

Kuciwalker · September 21, 2003, 19:53

What do you think a court would decide?

chequita guevara · September 21, 2003, 22:14

Quote:

Originally posted by skywalker
I'm working on the assumption that there is something "wrong" with bombing a target that is protected by a willing human shield. Remove that assumption and I'm fine.

The point was not to put pressure on the military. While soldiers pointing guns might hesitate, bomber pilots 5,000 feet up aren't even going to know there's a human shield there. Anyway, the human shields weren't stationed at miltiary targets but civilian targets.

The point was to cause the politicians to hestiate. While Bush is basically a sociopath and wouldn't hesitate to order the deaths of fellow Americans, Congress might be a little more squeemish about killing the children of their constituants.

Americans also seem to value the lives of Americans more than anyone else, and so if the US military were killing American citizens abroad, maybe the American people would care a little more about the "collateral damage" going on. Course, none of those people were actually willing to put their lives on the line for others. Course, there's no point in dying if you don't think it's going to make a difference.

Joseph · September 21, 2003, 22:45

Hang them.

MrFun · September 21, 2003, 23:09

Quote:

Originally posted by Oerdin
In the run up to the last Gulf War there were several westerners who volunteered to go to Iraq and become human shields for the government of Saddam Hussan. Many of these people chained themselves to oil refineries, strategic highway bridges, hospitals, and even military facilities. These people claim they were simply excersizing their right to protest an "evil, unlawful, and unjust war of aggression" though the US government has decided to charge US citizens who went to Iraq as human shields with violating the Sanctions law Congress put in place at the beginning of the first gulf war. The sanctions law prohibites US citizens from visiting or spending money in Iraq except for a handful of carefully spelled out reasons. Violating the law carries a maximium penalty of 12 years in jail and a $1 million fine.

I'm thinking these people did the crime and now they need to do the time. They went to Iraq knowing they were breaking the law but they just felt the law didn't apply for them. What's your take on this?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3126220.stm

But sometimes people need to break laws to protest injustice.

Martin Luther King Jr. epitomized protesting against segregation laws in the 1950's and 60's, but at the same time, peacefully submitting to being arrested.

So were these anti-war protestors protesting against a real injustice?

But it does appear that they are not willing to accep the punishment that will result from their actions.

MichaeltheGreat · September 21, 2003, 23:19

Quote:

Originally posted by skywalker
What do you think a court would decide?

A trial court will convict, no doubt. As the law is written, they're clearly guilty the moment they actually boarded any commercial transportation with the intent to go to Iraq.

What an appellate court will decide, and whether it will get to SCOTUS, are two different things, and either of those could go either way.

It's getting to be a rather interesting area of law - the US takes the position (when it wants) that US law applies outside the US, to citizens and non-citizens alike, but that the US Constitution doesn't apply outside the US.

If Iraq was already under US occupation or the war had already started, and they defied orders of occupation forces with responsibility for the area, then they'd be SOL. They arrived beforehand though, so it's a bit of an issue, since they were only trivially engaged in commerce.

Another interesting issue is where are they going to try them? This administration in general has pushed the limits of forum and venue to get favorable judges - prosecuting porn cases in western Pennsylvania where the defendants are in southern California, prosecuting Lindh in northern Virginia when neither he nor the crime had any connection with that Federal district.

Is Ashcroft going to make a determination to prosecute each one in the Federal District Court for the districts they live in? (the normal practice) Or is he going to order a particular US Attorney to attempt a consolidated prosecution in a government friendly judicial district? It'll be an "interesting" development, either way.

Berzerker · September 21, 2003, 23:25

Quote:

the war was legally declared

It was? I believe Congress merely authorised the President to use force if HE decided to use force. The Constitution doesn't give Congress the power to authorise other people to decide if and when a war will be declared. Not that the SCOTUS will care what the Constitution says.

Uncle Sparky · September 22, 2003, 04:46

Well, hopefully these anti-war Americans who acted as human shields can find their way to Canada and hopefully our government will have the guts to once again grant protection to Americans resisting their governments warmongering, just like we did with the draft dodgers in the Viet-nam era.

I hope Dubbya gets the boot and is replaced with someone with at least a tad of brains.

dannubis · September 22, 2003, 05:01

Yeah, they can follow people like Ghandi as the greatest criminals of history ... But of course, only time will tell.

laurentius · September 22, 2003, 05:37

I fail to see why US would like to bomb schools, water pumps, hospitals or powerplants. Because thats where they were chaining themselves, not to iraqi tanks or saddams palaces.

Q Classic · September 22, 2003, 08:17

let them get prosecuted. it's a waste of money, but hell, when has the government not wasted money?

Kuciwalker · September 22, 2003, 08:18

Quote:

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
A trial court will convict, no doubt. As the law is written, they're clearly guilty the moment they actually boarded any commercial transportation with the intent to go to Iraq.

What an appellate court will decide, and whether it will get to SCOTUS, are two different things, and either of those could go either way.

It's getting to be a rather interesting area of law - the US takes the position (when it wants) that US law applies outside the US, to citizens and non-citizens alike, but that the US Constitution doesn't apply outside the US.

If Iraq was already under US occupation or the war had already started, and they defied orders of occupation forces with responsibility for the area, then they'd be SOL. They arrived beforehand though, so it's a bit of an issue, since they were only trivially engaged in commerce.

Another interesting issue is where are they going to try them? This administration in general has pushed the limits of forum and venue to get favorable judges - prosecuting porn cases in western Pennsylvania where the defendants are in southern California, prosecuting Lindh in northern Virginia when neither he nor the crime had any connection with that Federal district.

Is Ashcroft going to make a determination to prosecute each one in the Federal District Court for the districts they live in? (the normal practice) Or is he going to order a particular US Attorney to attempt a consolidated prosecution in a government friendly judicial district? It'll be an "interesting" development, either way.

I meant, would a court consider it a state of war?

Kuciwalker · September 22, 2003, 08:20

Quote:

Originally posted by MrFun
But sometimes people need to break laws to protest injustice.

Martin Luther King Jr. epitomized protesting against segregation laws in the 1950's and 60's, but at the same time, peacefully submitting to being arrested.

So were these anti-war protestors protesting against a real injustice?

But it does appear that they are not willing to accep the punishment that will result from their actions.

As you said, he submitted to being arrested. So should they.

However, in a DEMOCRATIC SOCIETY (where they can vote), they should not break the law (they can protest, but not break), because the law is decided by the will of the majority.

laurentius · September 22, 2003, 08:28

Quote:

Originally posted by skywalker

As you said, he submitted to being arrested. So should they.

However, in a DEMOCRATIC SOCIETY (where they can vote), they should not break the law (they can protest, but not break), because the law is decided by the will of the majority.

You know thats exactly what Lenin said

Exactly the same, just replace the democratic with socialist. One of the main principles of soviet communism, was the legalised tyranny of the majority.

Kuciwalker · September 22, 2003, 08:29

Yes, but Lenin's communist state wasn't democratic.

laurentius · September 22, 2003, 08:30

Skywalker, Demokratia MEANS tyranny of the majority.

Kuciwalker · September 22, 2003, 08:34

By "democratic", I mean that it protects freedom of expression and all citizens have a right to vote.

laurentius · September 22, 2003, 08:38

Well, you don't vote about the laws do you?

Kuciwalker · September 22, 2003, 08:40

Huh?

People vote for laws indirectly, by electing representatives.

laurentius · September 22, 2003, 08:47

Exactly. But sometimes the representatives base their decisions on political bargains, voting rules of discipline etc, instead of the best intrest of the people. This is why we have to have right to bend the laws. Not by killing anyone, but by reasonable resistance. Like reclaiming the streets for example.

Kuciwalker · September 22, 2003, 08:50

You still shouldn't break the law. Protest peacefully, don't vote for those polititions, but don't break the law.

There is not comparison with the Soviet Union, because there you couldn't protest the government at all, peacefully or otherwise.

laurentius · September 22, 2003, 08:53

You are right, we can't compare SU with US. Still protesting peacefully usually breaks some law anyway. These human shields I reckon are pretty peaceful people

dannubis · September 22, 2003, 09:14

peaceful "unpatriotic" people mind you ...

Edan · September 22, 2003, 09:14

Quote:

Originally posted by Dissident

people aren't allowed to peacefully protest anymore?

In Iraq?

Funny, I didn't think Iraqis were allowed to peacefully protest Saddam...

Or when you said people, did you just mean westerners?

(And simply because US citizens are allowed to peacefully protest doesn't mean they can do it whereever they want to. You canot, for example, protest within some number of feet from an abortion clinic, for example)

Edan · September 22, 2003, 09:16

Quote:

Originally posted by skywalker

As you said, he submitted to being arrested. So should they.

However, in a DEMOCRATIC SOCIETY (where they can vote), they should not break the law (they can protest, but not break), because the law is decided by the will of the majority.

Funny. I thought MLK was in a democratic society.

MrFun · September 22, 2003, 09:28

Quote:

Originally posted by skywalker

As you said, he submitted to being arrested. So should they.

However, in a DEMOCRATIC SOCIETY (where they can vote), they should not break the law (they can protest, but not break), because the law is decided by the will of the majority.

Are you trying to hairsplit an imaginary difference in protesting a law without breaking it, from breaking the law?

Because if you protest against a law, you ARE breaking it -- which is what MLK Jr. and other civil rights leaders did, by violating segregation and disfranchisement laws.

General Ludd · September 22, 2003, 09:31

Quote:

Originally posted by skywalker
You still shouldn't break the law. Protest peacefully, don't vote for those polititions, but don't break the law.

There is not comparison with the Soviet Union, because there you couldn't protest the government at all, peacefully or otherwise.

You realize that alot of the peaceful anti-war marchs in the USA where illegal, right? They forbid them from protesting and tear gased the people who showed up anyways.

Edan · September 22, 2003, 09:31

Quote:

Originally posted by MrFun

Are you trying to hairsplit an imaginary difference in protesting a law without breaking it, from breaking the law?

I think it's a lot bigger than an imaginary difference. Or do you think all the pro-life protesters are breaking a law? They aren't all abortion clinic bombers, you know.