The US has been at war with various and sundry radical jihadi factions since September 11, 2001. I’m going to focus on the US. Britain and France have different bodies of law and I’m unfamiliar enough with their way of looking at things, so I’ll stick with what I know.
Jihadis in the US (so-called home-grown terrorists) are engaged in treasonous activity since we are at war with their masters.
18 U.S. Code § 2381 – Treason
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.
Breakdown of the offense:
- Owing allegiance (US Citizen)
- Levies war (blowing stuff up, killing the innocent or soldiers)
- Gives the enemy aid or comfort
- Within the US or elsewhere.
Every single matter involving a lone wolf or other coordinated attack involves active participants and supporters (passive participants). All can be held guilty. The radical mullahs in the mosques can be said to ‘adhere to the enemies of the US’. They can be held guilty under the statute as well. There is no cap on the fine and they must spend at least 5 years on prison – but they can also be executed.
Why aren’t we rounding up those who advocate making war against the citizens of the United States from among the ranks of the jihadis in the US, charing with them treason, locking them up and fining them or executing those actively plotting violence?
How difficult is this? The elements of the crime are not difficult to prove. We are at war and we are losing people to radical islam on foreign shores every day. How would we have handled NAZI spies in 1942? What’s the difference?
Nothing of what I suggest above involves interference with the free exercise of religion. Islam is a religion and it’s Constitutionally protected. Owing allegiance to the US and levying war, giving aid and comfort to those who do or advocating war against the US while we are at war with soldiers in the field is treason.
Odd, It never occurred to me that Treason had been codified.
I think this is the first time I've seen that.
I notice the recognition of plurality of the States
And you're absolutely correct.
If not treason, then sedition.
How would we have handled NAZI spies in 1942?
Why aren't we rounding them up?
Because we're pussies.
(not you and me specifically)
We've been at war for sixteen bloody years and have been inserting men and trillions in treasure into that meat grinder. It's a war. It's insipid to the people at home but it's hot at the kinetic point of impact, every day. Congress is weak and indecisive. That's not a secret. But dealing with jihadis the way that we dealt with NAZIs only makes sense. It's the only way.
Yes, round them up, line them up against a wall and execute them. Enemy combatants and their leaders/support system have no place in our judicial system. Let's declare war on these scumbags, and start doing what is necessary.
Using the statues against treason is the best place to start.
The elite, smug, corrupt, nasty, lying mainstream media has a warm place in their shriveled hearts for jihadis. If they give them aid or comfort, they can stand in front of the wall too.
Unlike the politicians of WWII, today's loosely termed servants are afraid of the MSM and demonstrations from lesser beings. I don't even think a trial is needed. Just a 9mm in the head (and one more for good measure) is what is needed. The gubment has confiscated enough ammo to get the job done without a dime spent in tax money. They could even get volunteers to do it for free… send me in coach.
Yes, there are any number of volunteers ready and willing to serve on firing squads to send jihadis to their 72 virgins, waiting for them, standing next to a river of milk and honey.
Unfortunately, the ruling elites including the fat to many pussy Republicans feel any law they disagree with they can just ignore and pretend it doesn't exist.
As such can't one make the argument that the judges, politicians and the media thugs are not in fact in violation of this code? And that assertion would probably go far beyond just the Muslim thing
Just because you are correct doesn't mean right will prevail. The aftermath of 911 was used as an excuse to increase control of the 310,000,000 million citizens who had nothing to do with it, and wouldn't become terrorists. Lawyers can parse our kinds of blogs into a form of treason when we questions our "betters".
Being an old fart with a good memory, I can remember a wholesale shift of attitudes on the part of government employees towards the public they served after the Oklahoma City bombing.
Not now, but later when President Trump has broken the Deep State (assuming he is successful), your idea may become doable, IMO.
Disjointed thoughts, I know, but the point is things happen when when the public will allows them to happen. As an example, President Trump's election.
We were nice to the Nazi's, because they looked like us. Treat them like we treated the Japanese people and Americans of Japanese descent but more judiciously.
Hiroshima on the Euphrates
and round up the Islamist jihadi bastards at home in the US and deport them rendering them persona non grata and people without country
OK Fredd is not a pussy either.
>What's the difference?
First, we are not the people we were in 1942. Second, and probably more importantly, the majority of jihadis who have gone kinetic are brown. Because of their brown-ness (and their religion), anything they do is by definition in reaction to the past and on-going aggressions and crimes of white, Christian males and therefore fully justifiable as it is merely self-defense. (Now if they were only a few shades darker then the Progs would deem them completely incapable of moral agency, but that's a different part of the problem with our society….)
Oh, your bullet point #2 above appears incomplete. It should probably be:
2. Levies war […] or adheres to their enemies
With that additional phrase (which admittedly does not have a strictly defined legal interpretation), one might reasonably conclude that a disturbing proportion of the news media, as well as academia, are "adherent to the enemy" (as well as meeting criteria for 1, 3 and 4) and thus guilty of treason. Or so says the academic who is neither white nor Christian (though I have to admit to being male /hangs head in shame).
>The aftermath of 911 was used as an excuse to increase control of the 310,000,000 million citizens who had nothing to do with it […] Lawyers can parse our kinds of blogs into a form of treason […]
"We need to work with allied democratic governments to reach international agreements to regulate cyberspace to prevent the spread of extremist and terrorism planning." -Theresa May, PM, UK
Sure. Right. No matter what the ostensible justification is, increased governmental (and unaccountable international bureaucracy) power is never unused, much less un-abused, and hardly ever rolled back when no longer justifiable. The honorable PM is either a fool, or as much an enemy of Liberty as Jihadi Jamal.
From a progressive point of view, the fact that you are male invalidates any position that you may hold. Because you are not elite, your wealth also works against you. (but it could be redistributed, so you have some value to the cause)
adheres to their enemies is defined by case law and would be further defined by the Supreme Court.
The comments above, not just yours, point out that any situation such as this is cause for an increase of government power. That's absolutely true. When the Patriot Act was written, I opposed it. The government could have obtained everything it needed through actual investigation. The Patriot Act increased government power out of stated NEED only because people were incompetent or lazy. At the same time, we-the-people lost something.
Prosecution for treason is simply using the law on the books and applying it in time of war as it was originally intended – going all the way back to the American Revolution. No additional statutes or acts are necessary. We are at war and these bozos are engaging in an extension of that war on American soil. I am not advocating extrajudicial behavior, nor am I proposing ANYTHING new. It's simply the right way forward to deal with the jihad situation in the States.
I'm not advocating that we storm the Bastille and break out a guillotine to drain the jihadi swamp. Just use the law as it was intended.
"Why aren't we rounding up those who advocate making war against citizens ,charing with them treason, locking them up and fining them or executing those actively plotting violence?
I'm baffled. Like you say, how difficult is this?
It's not difficult. It's also not politically correct because it's racist — even though Islam is a religion (not as cool as a Clown Church), political correctness also deems Islam to be a race.
AND I'm not suggesting that all Mohammedans be locked up. Only those who commit treason by acts of violence or giving aid and comfort to those who do.
The first thing that people need to do is put the whole "racist" thing into their back pocket and act on behalf of ALL CITIZENS to keep them safe. Can they do that in the UK? Unlikely.
>simply using the law on the books
I wonder if "disproportionate impact" has anything to do with it ["it" being failure to use laws already on the books] in the current situation. If actually investigating, prosecuting, and punishing (or not based on the legal outcome) bad actors leads to disproportionate impact, then political correctness and moral cowardice is yet another driver of "infringe on everyone's rights" apart from laziness and the eternal Will to Governmental Overreach.
As a very homey example of what I'm talking about, the work cafeteria had a microwave oven for people to heat up food they brought from home. A sign was posted: Please do NOT microwave fish (because of the smell). But a (Chinese) woman repeatedly ignored this sign, and stank up not only the microwave, but the entire lunch area. Management's solution? They took away the microwave, rather than tell the known perpetrator to follow the posted rules. Collective punishment in lieu of enforcing norms of behavior on, in this case a person with double victimhood points.
>adheres to their enemies is defined by case law
Hmm. I hadn't delved into that aspect. Good point.
Management is often populated by cowards who won't go to the root problem. I worked in government, which is worse than ANY hospital in terms of making arbitrary rules because one person abused a situation.
Which is why it's so nice these days, being self employed, charging what I'm worth rather than the drone rate where all government employees of the same rank are paid equally irrespective of effectiveness.
Fredd is sarcastic and he's a cynic, but he's not a pussy.
Treason. Lock them up and while we're at it, let's not forget Hillary…
In addition to the statute cited above, and the relevant case law, there is also Article III, Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution, which provides in relevant part:
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
So the Constitution contains some additional requirements to prove treason, which of course must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
But there is no need to prove a crime beyond a reasonable doubt in order to make an arrest. All you need for an arrest is probable cause, which means a crime was probably committed, and the suspect is probably the one that committed it.
So I've been asking why the government of Britain, for instance, feels impotent in the face of citizens who they know are consorting with ISIS. If there is probable cause to charge them with treason, then go pick their asses up. Start with the ones who have traveled to Syria and Libya to train with ISIS — that strikes me as pretty compelling evidence.
British Common Law operates (as with most nations) with the presumption of guilt. Only in a very few places such as the US is there a legal presumption of innocence with the burden on the government to establish proof beyond reasonable doubt that a crime was committed and that a person committed that crime.
The constitutional standard of treason is the same one in 18 USC 2381. It requires that a case be brought before a court and that it be heard by a jury which determines guilt.
It's very simple. We're at war and the jihadis are treasonous. No war and treason goes away.
I haven't forgotten her…
Nope, but I live among millions of bona fide pussies who all go to the pussy picnics and bring three bean salads to pass, and unfortunately they all vote. And they vote for the wrong people.
Does Aunt Sally have a three bean salad recipe?
….um…. and if you shared that recipe with the Democrats in Illinois?
I'm not suggesting that you do something dastardly that would cause mass diarrhea on voting day, but….
How do you like your Kale?
Comments are closed.