DiscussWorldIssues - Socio-Economic Religion and Political Uncensored Debate - View Single Post - Bush and Obama administration transferred/released 160+ high-risk detainees

**Eagevawax** · 04-26-2011, 09:34 PM

AQ is an international movement, and one that both seeks and has roots in the US. It's just as much domestic as it is foreign in that regard. That it specifically is engaged in attacking the US and its citizens is self-evident. Unless AQ would actively cease all dealings within the US and restrain all its criminal activities and purposes to non-US theatres and citizens, the US has jurisdiction over any person affiliated with AQ under the theories and type of laws I suggested earlier (conspiracy, vicarious liability, etc). In short, a movement can't be 'a little bit pregnant' with criminally conducting itself against the US...in for a penny, in for a pound.

Though it may be foolish to disagree with a criminal defense attorney, I'm going to have to on this point. I will agree that the U.S. can (and does) exercise jurisdiction over foreign conspiracies to commit specific crimes within the United States. However, that cannot automatically be applied broadly to anyone in the world with an AQ membership card. The prosecutor must prove a specific conspiracy (i.e. a plot to bomb the WTC), that the accused was part of the specific conspiracy (not just carried an AQ membership card) and made an overt act in furtherance of that specific conspiracy. Picking up a random AQ guy in Afghanistan, Iraq or what-have-you with no knowledge or evidence of his intentions and steps to carry out an attack in the United States is a non-starter from a criminal perspective. If you can provide an example of a gentleman, picked up overseas, who was successfully prosecuted in the United States based solely on his status as a member of al Qaeda I will be happy to reconsider.

I submit that there's plenty evidence to convict me of that beyond a reasonable doubt at times. Often times, these are very good debates that can't justifiably be addressed with quick responses for anyone to get a proper benefit from it. Even the ones I offer that are lengthy are very often still very insufficient and generalised for a good understanding that's actually necessary. If anything, IMO, there's too much bumper sticker answering anymore in societal debate and discussion and it too often leads our citizenry to ill informed decision making. There's only so much we can do via a VBulletin format, though.

Oh, I agree with you, and I certainly appreciate all the work you put in. It's just that I've only got so much time.

04-26-2011, 09:34 PM	#40
Eagevawax Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 572 Senior Member	AQ is an international movement, and one that both seeks and has roots in the US. It's just as much domestic as it is foreign in that regard. That it specifically is engaged in attacking the US and its citizens is self-evident. Unless AQ would actively cease all dealings within the US and restrain all its criminal activities and purposes to non-US theatres and citizens, the US has jurisdiction over any person affiliated with AQ under the theories and type of laws I suggested earlier (conspiracy, vicarious liability, etc). In short, a movement can't be 'a little bit pregnant' with criminally conducting itself against the US...in for a penny, in for a pound. Though it may be foolish to disagree with a criminal defense attorney, I'm going to have to on this point. I will agree that the U.S. can (and does) exercise jurisdiction over foreign conspiracies to commit specific crimes within the United States. However, that cannot automatically be applied broadly to anyone in the world with an AQ membership card. The prosecutor must prove a specific conspiracy (i.e. a plot to bomb the WTC), that the accused was part of the specific conspiracy (not just carried an AQ membership card) and made an overt act in furtherance of that specific conspiracy. Picking up a random AQ guy in Afghanistan, Iraq or what-have-you with no knowledge or evidence of his intentions and steps to carry out an attack in the United States is a non-starter from a criminal perspective. If you can provide an example of a gentleman, picked up overseas, who was successfully prosecuted in the United States based solely on his status as a member of al Qaeda I will be happy to reconsider. I submit that there's plenty evidence to convict me of that beyond a reasonable doubt at times. Often times, these are very good debates that can't justifiably be addressed with quick responses for anyone to get a proper benefit from it. Even the ones I offer that are lengthy are very often still very insufficient and generalised for a good understanding that's actually necessary. If anything, IMO, there's too much bumper sticker answering anymore in societal debate and discussion and it too often leads our citizenry to ill informed decision making. There's only so much we can do via a VBulletin format, though. Oh, I agree with you, and I certainly appreciate all the work you put in. It's just that I've only got so much time.
	Quote