Two Sentenced for Trying to Join Taliban

[Witling]

Miguel, says,

"If you or anyone else are planning to commit a crime, you are guilty of conspiracy to commit a crime. Period. "


As they say in Russia, "Bullshitzki!" But I like the "Period." part. Miguel, think for a moment. Doesn't it take more than one person to commit a crime? Therefore, if I or anyone else was planning a crime by myself, no conspiracy. Res ipsa loquitor.

 

[miguel]

Originally posted by: Whitling
Miguel, says,

"If you or anyone else are planning to commit a crime, you are guilty of conspiracy to commit a crime. Period. "


As they say in Russia, "Bullshitzki!" But I like the "Period." part. Miguel, think for a moment. Doesn't it take more than one person to commit a crime? Therefore, if I or anyone else was planning a crime by myself, no conspiracy. Res ipsa loquitor.

Yes, you are right. My bad. But the general idea still stands. You can (and will) be arrested and punished for planning a crime. You don't have to wait until the trigger is pulled.

 

[Witling]

Stick around, Miguel. You're teachable. But avoid the bad neighborhood where CadGuy and HeartSurgeon live. It's bad for your perception of reality.

 

[miguel]

/me trout slaps the young trout.

 

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: miguel

Originally posted by: Whitling
Miguel, says,

"If you or anyone else are planning to commit a crime, you are guilty of conspiracy to commit a crime. Period. "


As they say in Russia, "Bullshitzki!" But I like the "Period." part. Miguel, think for a moment. Doesn't it take more than one person to commit a crime? Therefore, if I or anyone else was planning a crime by myself, no conspiracy. Res ipsa loquitor.

Yes, you are right. My bad. But the general idea still stands. You can (and will) be arrested and punished for planning a crime. You don't have to wait until the trigger is pulled.

I'm sorry, but no you won't. I'm not a lawyer, but between military duty, security & law enforcement work for 10 years, and a good portion of a criminal justice degree, along with extensive private study, I've had some exposure to these things. There may be technicalities associated with certain laws which would allow pursuing a charge against you in certain rare circumstances, but generally speaking you can think about crime all you want, even come up with ideas on how to commit them, and you ARE NOT GUILTY of a damn thing. You MUST have INTENT to actually commit the crime, and not just plan it. You must also be CAPABLE of commiting the crime, thus giving you ability to carry it out. Only with a plan (and that's actual evidence, not just verbal musings), intent, AND ability can they prosecute. And I guarantee except for federal witchhunts they won't get a conviction without the addition of motive and probably SUBSTANTIAL evidence suggesting you were going to attempt it and were capable of succeeding.

Is there a single crime writer who is guilty of conspiracy to commit the crimes he writes about? Hell no. Because it's merely ideas. A criminal in prison for life can plan to rob a jewellery store, but is he guilty of conspiracy (providing he's not drawing them up for someone else)? Hell no...because he's incarcerated he does not have the ABILITY to commit the crime. If I draw up super detailed plans for assassinating the president with a Klingon disrupter, post them on tons of public forums, and even buy tickets to the place I said I'd kill him, am I guilty? Hell no, because there is no such thing as a klingon disruptor and therefore I'm incapable of carrying out my plan.

You want people punished for thoughts, and that is not possible. Nor is it constitutionally legal. All the 'conspiracy' crimes (which except for one or two exceptions are felonies and federal felonies, never misdemeanors or gross misdemeanors) are on very very thin ice except during times of federal witch hunts (McCarthy, Ashcroft/Bush, etc). There is simply no crime there, nor should there be.

 

[alchemize]

Originally posted by: Whitling
Stick around, Miguel. You're teachable. But avoid the bad neighborhood where CadGuy and HeartSurgeon live. It's bad for your perception of reality.

Too bad you are trying to be the teacher...while technically you are correct about the "one person" thing, it changes nothing in this case. So while you try and deflect and distort, these guys were guilty of conspiracy to try and fight and kill US troops.

Conspiracy

A person may become a member of a conspiracy without knowing all of the details of the unlawful scheme, and without knowing who all of the other members are. So, if a person has an understanding of the unlawful nature of a plan and knowingly and willfully joins in that plan on one occasion, that is sufficient to convict him for conspiracy even though he did not participate before, and even though he played only a minor part.

To establish the offense of 'conspiracy' the Government must prove:

(1) That two or more persons in some way or manner, came to a mutual understanding to try to accomplish a common and unlawful plan, as charged in the indictment; (2) That the person willfully became a member of such conspiracy; (3) That one of the conspirators during the existence of the conspiracy knowingly committed at least one of the methods (or 'overt acts') described in the indictment; and (4) That such 'overt act' was knowingly committed at or about the time alleged in an effort to effect or accomplish some object or purpose of the conspiracy.

Sounds cut and dried to me. The overt act was hopping on the plane to join up.

 

[miguel]

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

You want people punished for thoughts, and that is not possible. Nor is it constitutionally legal. All the 'conspiracy' crimes (which except for one or two exceptions are felonies and federal felonies, never misdemeanors or gross misdemeanors) are on very very thin ice except during times of federal witch hunts (McCarthy, Ashcroft/Bush, etc). There is simply no crime there, nor should there be.

I don't want people punished for thoughts. And I think you are being facetious because you are mincing words being trying to be technical when you know what we mean by planning a crime. I personally don't want this forum to turn into a nit-picking forum where people say things like: "well, you didn't place a period, so you are wrong."

You KNOW when I say planning I mean seriously planning, which includes ability and intent. Give me break. If you claim that you didn't, then you, my friend have won your own stupidity award.

 

[Witling]

All joking aside, there is a tremendous intellectual rift here. I, and many others, think that ideas should not be punished or punishable without overt acts to further those ideas. I don't know the facts of this case -- and apparently no one else on the board does either -- but, in my opinion, mere travel toward the destination should not be sufficient. Purchase a gun and head out -- hmmm -- that might be another thing.

Just to refresh our memories, we're a little short on the facts supporting this case.

 

[miguel]

Yes, Whit, you are absolutely correct. But here's what I go on from the AP article:

Patrice Lumumba Ford, 32, and Jeffrey Leon Battle, 33, had pleaded guilty in October to conspiracy to levy war against the United States.

 

[alchemize]

Originally posted by: Whitling
All joking aside, there is a tremendous intellectual rift here. I, and many others, think that ideas should not be punished or punishable without overt acts to further those ideas. I don't know the facts of this case -- and apparently no one else on the board does either -- but, in my opinion, mere travel toward the destination should not be sufficient. Purchase a gun and head out -- hmmm -- that might be another thing.

Just to refresh our memories, we're a little short on the facts supporting this case.

So you think that we should have waited until we faced them in the mountains of afghanistan? It makes perfect sense to me to apprehend them before they get out of "reach".

It doesn't make sense to you, because you place more importance on "defending the rights of the accused" than you do "defending the potential victim(s)". Of course, that's eased by your moral equivalence of every topic that potentially involves the lives of our soldiers.

But you do support our troops, of course.

 

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: miguel

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

You want people punished for thoughts, and that is not possible. Nor is it constitutionally legal. All the 'conspiracy' crimes (which except for one or two exceptions are felonies and federal felonies, never misdemeanors or gross misdemeanors) are on very very thin ice except during times of federal witch hunts (McCarthy, Ashcroft/Bush, etc). There is simply no crime there, nor should there be.

I don't want people punished for thoughts. And I think you are being facetious because you are mincing words being trying to be technical when you know what we mean by planning a crime. I personally don't want this forum to turn into a nit-picking forum where people say things like: "well, you didn't place a period, so you are wrong."

You KNOW when I say planning I mean seriously planning, which includes ability and intent. Give me break. If you claim that you didn't, then you, my friend have won your own stupidity award.

I think it's probably just a difference of opinion thing. I wasn't trying to nitpick, I REALLY don't believe the act of joining any organization is a crime. I just don't. Maybe the US has come to a point where they regard such things as crimes, but I find that horrid to consider. Their 'plan' was to join a group. That is NOT illegal. IF they collaborated in any way to commit any crimes on behalf of that group, ok, then I see crime. But intent to join is NOT, not to me. I can intend to join the Taliban, because I want to try and teach them from inside...to tend their wounded and ease suffering, to provide spiritual guidance. If I joined them and they THEN planned an illegal activity for which I was in any way a part, THEN I'd believe I was guilty of something.

Of course, the other side of this whole argument is right vs wrong. By any of our definitions, the American colonists were participating in illegal activities during the entire revolution. But we excuse those crimes because we agree with their goals. Well our subjective perception of their morality doesn't alter the criminal content of their actions. Likewise, it might be possible to say these guys are guilty of a crime, but it's no where near as easy to decide who's right and wrong in their activities. Without that moral guidance, we lack the right to sentence others for crimes we already committed, and yet remain untried for.

*shrug* it's really not important I suppose, but it's irks me morally when people come so close to thought police, and are so obviously egocentric. I'm just more global and open than that I guess, not saying better, just different perspectives of things. Sorry if it came across nitpicking, that really wasn't my intent.

 

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: miguel
Yes, Whit, you are absolutely correct. But here's what I go on from the AP article:

Patrice Lumumba Ford, 32, and Jeffrey Leon Battle, 33, had pleaded guilty in October to conspiracy to levy war against the United States.

There are two possibilities there, both of which change everything.

1. They plea bargained, in which case they aren't worth my spit because you don't surrender beliefs to get lenient sentencing.

2. They openly admitted their intent and accepted their punishment. I respect that deeply, but then it doesn't matter if it really was conspiracy or not because they admitted it was.

Either way, case closed, fry em.

 

[Witling]

"But you do support our troops, of course."

That's a quote from Alchemize. He must have brushed his teeth with gunpowder this morning. This is the second thread in which he's directed that sarcasm at me.

Al, I've got a DD 214, which is the form that summarizes your service record. I have the right to wear several Viet Nam service medals (as does everyone who spent more than six months there). It does not lie in your mouth to question my motives. I don't know what your background is, but I have never seen a veteran -- on either side of the political aisle -- make a statement like the one that starts this post.

I don't think there's anyone on this board who does not support the troops. They're just ordinary people who got put in harm's way by the powers that be. After coming back from Viet Nam, I formed my opinion that American troops should be used only for the defense of this country. That does not describe Iraq, in my opinion.

The troops are in Iraq because some bright policy maker thought that this would be a walk over. They will continue to die as long as they are there. I want them back. Which one of us supports the troops?

Did I say that I found your message irritating?

 

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: Whitling
All joking aside, there is a tremendous intellectual rift here. I, and many others, think that ideas should not be punished or punishable without overt acts to further those ideas. I don't know the facts of this case -- and apparently no one else on the board does either -- but, in my opinion, mere travel toward the destination should not be sufficient. Purchase a gun and head out -- hmmm -- that might be another thing.

Just to refresh our memories, we're a little short on the facts supporting this case.

So you think that we should have waited until we faced them in the mountains of afghanistan? It makes perfect sense to me to apprehend them before they get out of "reach".

It doesn't make sense to you, because you place more importance on "defending the rights of the accused" than you do "defending the potential victim(s)". Of course, that's eased by your moral equivalence of every topic that potentially involves the lives of our soldiers.

But you do support our troops, of course.

Would we have faced them in the mountains of Afghanistan? You can't say for sure. Any number of things could have happened. Plane might have gone down, they might have changed their minds, taliban might have killed them as possible spys...i could go on for days. Fact is, they were not necessarily GOING TO COMMIT A CRIME. Until they have all the factors, intent, ability, etc, there is NO CHANCE of it being a true conspiracy. Moreover, they really have to in some way participate in a crime before I'll believe they deserve a punishment.

Actually I place the greatest importance on protecting victims/innocents. But there are no victims until a crime is at least attempted. Hell, why not just go arrest all the awesome people, after all they MIGHT someday commit a crime. BTW, why aren't KKK all under arrest, they are a group dedicated to commiting crimes. We don't arrest them, why? Because it ISN'T a crime. Only when they do something is it criminal. Peoples lives are jeapordized by kkk, neo-nazi's, skinheads, drug addicts, mentally unstable, alcoholics...all of these groups with open membership are legal to not only intend to join, but to join, participate in, rally for, etc. Why just taliban? Because it's the current buzz, fueled by fear and government misinformation. It's a government witch hunt, so they bend the rules, just like they always have.

Truth is truth, embrace it.

 

[miguel]

Prince: it's cool - I'm still looking for coffee this morning anyway. No harm and no foul.

 

[miguel]

NAMBLA is an organization that should be shut down, IMO. Greenpeace, KKK, Black Panthers, etc are not.

 

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: Whitling
"But you do support our troops, of course."


The troops are in Iraq because some bright policy maker thought that this would be a walk over. They will continue to die as long as they are there. I want them back. Which one of us supports the troops?

Did I say that I found your message irritating?

Well said. You have this vets complete agreement.

 

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: miguel
NAMBLA is an organization that should be shut down, IMO. Greenpeace, KKK, Black Panthers, etc are not.

I'm still in awe that NAMBLA actually exists. I can almost rationalize the existance of kkk, taliban, etc...but NAMBLA??? *shiver* Even so, as long as all they do is talk, I simply couldn't in good faith sit in judgement of them. Any actions on their parts will be met with the business end of one of my 'little friends' however. Maybe more than one, just for effect.

 

[miguel]

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

Originally posted by: miguel
NAMBLA is an organization that should be shut down, IMO. Greenpeace, KKK, Black Panthers, etc are not.

I'm still in awe that NAMBLA actually exists. I can almost rationalize the existance of kkk, taliban, etc...but NAMBLA??? *shiver* Even so, as long as all they do is talk, I simply couldn't in good faith sit in judgement of them. Any actions on their parts will be met with the business end of one of my 'little friends' however. Maybe more than one, just for effect.

Hehe! Good man! And I thought you were some kind of "touchy-feely" kinda global guy. My deepest apologies!

 

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: miguel

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

Originally posted by: miguel
NAMBLA is an organization that should be shut down, IMO. Greenpeace, KKK, Black Panthers, etc are not.

I'm still in awe that NAMBLA actually exists. I can almost rationalize the existance of kkk, taliban, etc...but NAMBLA??? *shiver* Even so, as long as all they do is talk, I simply couldn't in good faith sit in judgement of them. Any actions on their parts will be met with the business end of one of my 'little friends' however. Maybe more than one, just for effect.

Hehe! Good man! And I thought you were some kind of "touchy-feely" kinda global guy. My deepest apologies!

That's very funny to me, since the complaint I hear most often is that I'm a terrible cold-blooded animal without compassion or humanity. The current administration has me ultra nervous however, so maybe I come off a bit pansy on government related issues lately.

 

[chess9]

The point of the long sentence is deterrance. But, to what extent is an 18 year sentence going to inflame passions more than it restrains others from similar attempts? With over one billion Muslims world wide, I'd say the likelihood that the sentence will do more harm than good is probably high. On the other hand, two bad guys are in the pokey for a long time.

-Robert

 

[Witling]

Prince said,

"The complaint I hear most often is that I'm a terrible cold-blooded animal without compassion or humanity."

I'm sure that statement applies to many of on this board.

 

[alchemize]

Originally posted by: Whitling
"But you do support our troops, of course."

That's a quote from Alchemize. He must have brushed his teeth with gunpowder this morning. This is the second thread in which he's directed that sarcasm at me.

Al, I've got a DD 214, which is the form that summarizes your service record. I have the right to wear several Viet Nam service medals (as does everyone who spent more than six months there). It does not lie in your mouth to question my motives. I don't know what your background is, but I have never seen a veteran -- on either side of the political aisle -- make a statement like the one that starts this post.

I don't think there's anyone on this board who does not support the troops. They're just ordinary people who got put in harm's way by the powers that be. After coming back from Viet Nam, I formed my opinion that American troops should be used only for the defense of this country. That does not describe Iraq, in my opinion.

The troops are in Iraq because some bright policy maker thought that this would be a walk over. They will continue to die as long as they are there. I want them back. Which one of us supports the troops?

Did I say that I found your message irritating?

Of course you find it irritating. Because your liberal views are being exposed as to how they cannot coincide with supporting our troops. Either you support the decision to take these guys down *before* they kill or injure troops, or you support these wanna-be terrorists and have troops injured or killed.

I want our troops back also, alive. But I won't support any legal or moral decision that puts the lives of "others" (i.e. non US civilians or military), or any US Civlians who would do them harm, over the lives of our troops. You apparently will.

You can't separate the politics from the support of the troops. I can. I support them unconditionally. Your support is conditional, based on whatever direction your liberal gas is passed.