The Democrat Thread

[southsider2k5]

I know I posted about the Indian Supreme Court ruling that you can't resist unlawful police conduct, but damned if I'll be able to find it.

 

Anyway, the Michigan Supreme Court has ruled the opposite. And apparently the Indiana legislature changed their laws.

 

http://www.pakalertpress.com/2012/04/12/in...olice-officers/

[StrangeSox]

I'm going to go with one of the commenters on my original link and say that, while it's good that legally you can defend yourself, it's probably generally a really dumb idea to do so against police. You can google up any number stories of police SWAT teams raiding the wrong house and citizens being killed by police because they were defending themselves from unknown intruders. Even in less dramatic cases it's probably safer to assume you're not going to get the benefit of the doubt and any claims of police brutality likely go out the window once you start resisting.

[farmteam]

The SCOTUS had an important free speech ruling:

 

 

 

Thoughtcrime now appears to be a reality. I don't mean this in some over-the-top hyperbolic way, but this ruling does mean that you can be convicted of a crime through speech alone.

 

edit: this is in the Democrat thread as a default catch-all. The Obama administration/Eric Holder advocated for criminalizing this sort of speech and deserve to be criticized for it.

 

Terrorism conspiracy statutes are notoriously broad, and for obvious reasons since most (all?) of them have been promulgated in the past ten years?

 

But this isn't new either -- you can be convicted for drug conspiracy through speech alone. As far as I know, conspiracy to distribute narcotics is the only crime that doesn't require any sort of overt act toward committing the crime. You just need an agreement to do so.

[Jenksismyhero]

Terrorism conspiracy statutes are notoriously broad, and for obvious reasons since most (all?) of them have been promulgated in the past ten years?

 

But this isn't new either -- you can be convicted for drug conspiracy through speech alone. As far as I know, conspiracy to distribute narcotics is the only crime that doesn't require any sort of overt act toward committing the crime. You just need an agreement to do so.

 

In some scenarios this makes sense - you want to be able to stop a guy from bombing a building before he goes through with it. But at the same time I agree that this is opening the door (at least hypothetically) to some thoughtcrime type stuff. I think this case can be distinguished though given the amount of facts that sort of build the picture of who this guy is/what he was doing.

Edited April 23, 2012 by Jenksismybitch

[southsider2k5]

Terrorism conspiracy statutes are notoriously broad, and for obvious reasons since most (all?) of them have been promulgated in the past ten years?

 

But this isn't new either -- you can be convicted for drug conspiracy through speech alone. As far as I know, conspiracy to distribute narcotics is the only crime that doesn't require any sort of overt act toward committing the crime. You just need an agreement to do so.

 

Prostitution is the same way.

[southsider2k5]

Terrorism conspiracy statutes are notoriously broad, and for obvious reasons since most (all?) of them have been promulgated in the past ten years?

 

But this isn't new either -- you can be convicted for drug conspiracy through speech alone. As far as I know, conspiracy to distribute narcotics is the only crime that doesn't require any sort of overt act toward committing the crime. You just need an agreement to do so.

 

Prostitution and drunk driving are the same way.

[StrangeSox]

I don't think conspiracy to distribute narcotics by agreeing to do so really is analogous to the political speech criminalized in this case.

 

He wasn't actively conspiraring in a plot to harm Americans. He posted vile pro-Jihadist stuff on the internet. For that he was convicted of material support of a terrorist organization. That seems in direct contradiction of Brandenburg v Ohio.

 

eta:

 

The Brandenburg test (AKA the imminent lawless action test)

The three distinct elements of this test (intent, imminence, and likelihood) have distinct precedential lineages.

 

Judge Learned Hand was possibly the first judge to advocate the intent standard, in Masses Publishing Co. v. Patten, 244 F. 535 (S.D.N.Y. 1917), reasoning that "f one stops short of urging upon others that it is their duty or their interest to resist the law, it seems to me one should not be held to have attempted to cause its violation." The Brandenburg intent standard is more speech-protective than Hand's formulation, which contained no temporal element.

 

The imminence element was a departure from earlier rulings. Brandenburg did not explicitly overrule the bad tendency test, but it appears that after "Brandenburg", the test is de facto overruled. The "Brandenburg" test effectively made the time element of the clear and present danger test more defined and more rigorous.

Edited April 23, 2012 by StrangeSox

[StrangeSox]

Prostitution and drunk driving are the same way.

 

But it's not like they lured him into a plot to blow something up like many of the recent FBI "busts." He was convicted of posting pro-Jihadist propaganda on the internet.

[southsider2k5]

But it's not like they lured him into a plot to blow something up like many of the recent FBI "busts." He was convicted of posting pro-Jihadist propaganda on the internet.

 

I'm actually on your side in this grand scheme here. I am a believer in the fact that people will die because of our freedoms. To me it is an acceptable price. Free speech is free speech, no matter what you think of what is being said. We have seen such a massive erosion of that.

[farmteam]

Prostitution and drunk driving are the same way.

 

Not as sure about prostitution, but what do you mean about drunk driving? I mean, the name of the crime is the overt act (ie, driving while drunk).

 

 

EDIT: For prostitution, do you mean it's illegal to hire a prostitute, even if you don't use their services? That's still different, since hiring a prostitute is the criminalized overt act. It would only be analogous if agreeing with someone you were going to go buy hookers were the criminalized part (not as sure about telling a prostitute, "I'm going to purchase your services in one week." That would probably still be considered hiring the prostitute, even if it were for a future date.).

 

In some scenarios this makes sense - you want to be able to stop a guy from bombing a building before he goes through with it. But at the same time I agree that this is opening the door (at least hypothetically) to some thoughtcrime type stuff. I think this case can be distinguished though given the amount of facts that sort of build the picture of who this guy is/what he was doing.

 

I agree completely with this. I didn't mean to imply that this sounds like a 100% awesome opinion, I was just pointing out another situation where no overt act is required to be convicted for the crime.

 

 

I don't think conspiracy to distribute narcotics by agreeing to do so really is analogous to the political speech criminalized in this case.

 

 

I don't think so either, which is partly why I agreed with what Jenks said -- it can be distinguished on the facts.

Edited April 23, 2012 by farmteam

[southsider2k5]

Not as sure about prostitution, but what do you mean about drunk driving? I mean, the name of the crime is the overt act (ie, driving while drunk).

 

You don't actually have to drive to be charged with it. Intending to drive while drunk is enough to get you charged.

[StrangeSox]

In some scenarios this makes sense - you want to be able to stop a guy from bombing a building before he goes through with it. But at the same time I agree that this is opening the door (at least hypothetically) to some thoughtcrime type stuff. I think this case can be distinguished though given the amount of facts that sort of build the picture of who this guy is/what he was doing.

 

The FBI's ability to lure desperate loners into extremist plots is a different issue. This guy very explicitly did not fall for one of the FBI's fake bomb plots. The only thing he did was post videos and translate stuff to English on the internet.

 

Tarek Mehanna was never involved in any actual plots to harm anyone or anything. He advocated extreme views on the internet, and this now amounts to material non-violent support of a terrorist organization.

Edited April 23, 2012 by StrangeSox

[farmteam]

You don't actually have to drive to be charged with it. Intending to drive while drunk is enough to get you charged.

 

Oh, I see what you mean. Are you referring to you can be charged with a DUI even if all you're doing is sleeping in a car with the keys? While it's a gray area, I still think it's different -- by sleeping in the car with the keys, you ARE doing an overt act that's been criminalized. Thinking about something, or talking about something, isn't quite the same.

[southsider2k5]

Oh, I see what you mean. Are you referring to you can be charged with a DUI even if all you're doing is sleeping in a car with the keys? While it's a gray area, I still think it's different -- by sleeping in the car with the keys, you ARE doing an overt act that's been criminalized. Thinking about something, or talking about something, isn't quite the same.

 

Yeah, that's the idea.

[Jenksismyhero]

The FBI's ability to lure desperate loners into extremist plots is a different issue. This guy very explicitly did not fall for one of the FBI's fake bomb plots. The only thing he did was post videos and translate stuff to English on the internet.

 

Tarek Mehanna was never involved in any actual plots to harm anyone or anything. He advocated extreme views on the internet, and this now amounts to material non-violent support of a terrorist organization.

 

Coupled with his actual travel to Yemen with intent to join a group and fight insurgents in Iraq (the reason it didn't work out wasn't stated in the article, i'd imagine it was in the trial). Sort of a key piece of evidence there.

 

 

[farmteam]

The FBI's ability to lure desperate loners into extremist plots is a different issue. This guy very explicitly did not fall for one of the FBI's fake bomb plots. The only thing he did was post videos and translate stuff to English on the internet.

 

Tarek Mehanna was never involved in any actual plots to harm anyone or anything. He advocated extreme views on the internet, and this now amounts to material non-violent support of a terrorist organization.

 

I agree that that is dumb and bad, but like Jenks said, it's something that should be distinguished on the facts (and, like I said, in my opinion this wouldn't pass muster).

 

EDIT: Based on what I've seen in this thread. Didn't read the opinion yet.

Edited April 23, 2012 by farmteam

[StrangeSox]

Coupled with his actual travel to Yemen with intent to join a group and fight insurgents in Iraq (the reason it didn't work out wasn't stated in the article, i'd imagine it was in the trial). Sort of a key piece of evidence there.

 

But he failed in trying to get training. That wasn't in dispute.

 

The Brandenburg test requires that some sort of imminent threat must exist before speech is criminal. The government never argued that such a threat existed and never drew any links between the translations and actual violent acts.

 

They've essentially made stating Jihadist views a crime. Not plotting, not acting, but simply speaking.

[StrangeSox]

Georgetown law professor David Cole has an article on this case here:

 

http://www.nybooks.com/blogs/nyrblog/2012/...it-free-speech/

 

The Humanitarian Law Project decision is troubling enough, as I have previously explained. But Mehanna’s case goes still further. The government provided no evidence that Mehanna ever met or communicated with anyone from al-Qaeda. Nor did it demonstrate that the translation was sent to al-Qaeda. (It was posted by an online publisher, Al-Tibyan Publications, that has not been designated as a part of or a front for al-Qaeda.) It did not even claim that the “39 Ways” was written by al-Qaeda. The prosecution offered plenty of evidence that in Internet chat rooms Mehanna expressed admiration for the group’s ideology, and for Osama bin Laden in particular. But can one provide “material support” to a group with which one has never communicated?

[Jenksismyhero]

But he failed in trying to get training. That wasn't in dispute.

 

The Brandenburg test requires that some sort of imminent threat must exist before speech is criminal. The government never argued that such a threat existed and never drew any links between the translations and actual violent acts.

 

They've essentially made stating Jihadist views a crime. Not plotting, not acting, but simply speaking.

 

I see what you're saying and I agree it's a weak case. But I also think taking the evidence together he's not some random internet browser making comments.

 

Either way, I think the appellate court overturns this.

[StrangeSox]

Here's Brandenburg v Ohio, a case of a KKK member advocating for acts of terrorism against minorities.

 

The holding:

 

Held: Since the statute, by its words and as applied, purports to punish mere advocacy and to forbid, on pain of criminal punishment, assembly with others merely to advocate the described type of action, it falls within the condemnation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments. Freedoms of speech and press do not permit a State to forbid advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action. Whitney v. California, 274 U.S. 357, overruled.

[StrangeSox]

Contrast that with numerous politicians who actively support the MEK and get paid to advocate on their behalf, a group officially listed as a terrorist organization by the US government.

 

Why is this not considered material support of a terrorist organization if posting video and translating documents widely available online is?

 

ok have to add this from a Greenwald article:

 

The last time I wrote about these individuals’ material support for MEK, I highlighted just a few of those cases:

 

A Staten Island satellite TV salesman in 2009 was sentenced to five years in federal prison merely for including a Hezbollah TV channel as part of the satellite package he sold to customers;

 

a Massachusetts resident, Tarek Mehanna, is being prosecuted now ”for posting pro-jihadist material on the internet”;

 

a 24-year-old Pakistani legal resident living in Virginia, Jubair Ahmad, was indicted last September for uploading a 5-minute video to YouTube that was highly critical of U.S. actions in the Muslim world, an allegedly criminal act simply because prosecutors claim he discussed the video in advance with the son of a leader of a designated Terrorist organization (Lashkar-e-Tayyiba);

 

a Saudi Arabian graduate student, Sami Omar al-Hussayen, was prosecuted simply for maintaining a website with links “to groups that praised suicide bombings in Chechnya and in Israel” and “jihadist” sites that solicited donations for extremist groups (he was ultimately acquitted); and,

 

last July, a 22-year-old former Penn State student and son of an instructor at the school, Emerson Winfield Begolly, was indicted for — in the FBI’s words — “repeatedly using the Internet to promote violent jihad against Americans” by posting comments on a “jihadist” Internet forum including “a comment online that praised the shootings” at a Marine Corps base, action which former Obama lawyer Marty Lederman said ”does not at first glance appear to be different from the sort of advocacy of unlawful conduct that is entitled to substantial First Amendment protection.”

Edited April 23, 2012 by StrangeSox

[StrangeSox]

The Michigan Hutaree militia that was arrested a couple of years back on conspiracy to commit murder charges and weapons charges were all acquitted of the seditious conspiracy charges. These people discussed plans to kill local law enforcement to draw in federal agents.

 

These people were charged with a different crime and not under a terrorism statute. Still, the bulk of the government's evidence was speech by the militia members regarding their plans to kill both local and federal LEO's. The other evidence was militia-style training exercises that some members attended. These actions are not illegal, but unsuccessfully traveling to Yemen for training and then posting some translated documents and videos is.

 

[StrangeSox]

Is the end of the USPS near?

[StrangeSox]

Ezra Klein, upon hearing that Obama was being attacked for eating dog as a child:

 

After I learned the story, I felt a little worse about myself for being in any way involved in the tornado of idiocy that is American politics.

[StrangeSox]

Walker's Wisconsin lost more jobs than any other state in the past 12 months.

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Elections/Gov...hts-for-his-job

 

The majority of the losses in Wisconsin, 17,800, were in the public sector. However, the state lost more private-sector jobs, 6,100, than any other state. The only other states to report private-sector job losses in the same time period (instead of private-sector gains) were Mississippi and Rhode Island.

 

 

 

There's an astounding amount of evidence both domestically and abroad that austerity measures in the face of a widespread recession are a really, really bad idea.

Edited April 26, 2012 by StrangeSox