This was an article in "Reuters" and can be found here.
A man from New York was recently arrested and accused of attempting to fly to Yemen to join the Al-Qaeda network in the Arabian Peninsula. The man has plead not-guilty to all charges.
I won't summarize the article anymore than that, because that is all that is really important, and if you want to know more you can click on the link above.
I have to admit my first thought was that this vaguely reeked of McCarthyism. As a nation we have become paranoid and are becoming more and more intense in our desire to prevent another 9/11. I agree with this sentiment, but disagree with all of the stigmas now associated with those from the middle-east and of the Muslim faith. That is beside the point, though, because this man wasn't from the middle-east, so it's not an issue of racism. Investigators found lots of pro Al-Qaeda material on his computer and retrieved a semi-automatic weapon that he had sent to a friend prior to his planned trip to Yemen. That seems pretty suspect to me.
The real ideological question to pose: should a person be allowed to associate with any group or party even if that group or party is Al-Qaeda? The Nazis? Communists? Some are easier to answer than others, because they pose real life tangible threats to our safety as a nation. It sure would be nice if we could operate idealistically without all of these threats to consider. The evidence compiled suggests that this man was going to participate in premeditated, malicious acts, so it is not just association we are talking about, but he hadn't committed any crimes. Yet. So was his arrest justified? I understand the apathy associated with parts of this question, as it isn't the most prevalent issue in our society, and I think for the most part the majority of this question could probably be answered in most of our minds and that the discrepancies are tangential. I appreciate any comments or questions below.
I think that the US is more paranoid than it was at 9/11. This strangely demonstrates how far we've come as a nation. As for this man, I think that whatever his intentions were, (and whatever the prosecution thinks,) that he crossed too many boundaries that put him on the fed's radar. I think that our nation has a right to be paranoid, and that we should be. We should be suspicious of people, especially people trying to do as this man supposedly did. I believe that while we have the liberty to say whatever we want, some of the things we may say may end up getting us in trouble, like saying certain words on a cell phone conversation, at school, or in a government building. The same is true of our actions.
ReplyDeleteThe question then arises: is there is specific law against joining al-Qaeda? If there is, then I suppose they were right to apprehend him. If however there isn't, then the government has no right whatsoever prosecuting this man for the organizations he joins, or attempts to join.
ReplyDeleteIt is legal to join the KKK or the neo-Nazis, and it should be legal to join al-Qaeda if one so inclines. It falls under the freedom to assemble. The strength of a free society can be measured by its (reluctant) tolerance of groups the society finds abhorrent. Our society only possesses less liberty if we prosecute those who adhere to an ideology we find atrocious. Disclaimer: I don't approve of any of the aforementioned organizations.
That said, if the person intends to commit a crime, as he likely does, then they could incarcerate him for that - though that does depend on what crime it is, and requires the intention isn't just intention. Essentially he shouldn't be prosecuted just for joining, or attempting to join, an organization unless it can be shown beyond a reasonable doubt that he had the intention of committing, or being an accessory to, a crime; provided the crime is of the nature that one can be legally prosecuted for attempting to commit such crime (such as attempting to commit murder), and that the intention isn't pure; that is he acted upon his intention. It has to be shown that the intention of committing the crime was concrete. He cannot be charged of simply contemplating to commit a crime - for simply cognitively intending something to happen.
In address to this particular instance, possession of pro-al-Qaeda material isn't criminal. If I wanted to - I don't - possess al-Qaeda propaganda I could, that much isn't a crime. It's free speech. One can think whatever they want. Our thoughts cannot be regulated, unless we start to institute some thought-police. By extension, what we read and write cannot be infringed upon. I can't break the law by simply reading something. Granted, there are circumstances in which I can break the law by saying something, such as shouting 'fire' in a movie theater. However, all circumstances in which speech is illegal are circumstances in which a direct threat is made. Possessing material can't ever be a direct threat.
Mailing a semi-automatic weapon may or may not be illegal. If it is, then he should be charged with that. However, that is all he should be charged with.
If he can in fact be charged with the pure intention to commit terrorist acts, then couldn't he also in defense claim that he wanted to become a double agent for the U.S.? If pure intention flies in one direction then it should fly in the other direction as well. There would be no way a proving that he didn't want to become a double agent for the U.S. Which is why one cannot be prosecuted ever for pure intention.
The man was Muslim; so though the charges may not be racist, they may still be a different type of discrimination. It could be religious discrimination. It could also be discrimination against his particular ideology.
In address to Tobler, we cannot say certain things, at least without consequences, in conversations, schools, and government buildings because it is the policy of those institutions to not allow that particular language. Therefore, is it the nation's policy, its law, of not allowing its citizens to join a specific group? Is it also the within our country's laws to forbid certain ideologically-motivated speech?
This doesn't vaguely reek of McCarthyism, this is McCarthyism. Correlating the violence we associate with al-Qaeda to the participation of this man in his right to express his ideology is a tyranny characteristic of a lesser government.
I think while it is legal to join neo-Nazis, KKK etc, we have a measure of control of them. They are in our country and we are able to watch them and their activities, able to suppress them if they did anything out of control. In addition, these groups value their lives, whilst al-Qaeda does not. While the previous groups believe they are supreme and may commit crimes here and there, al-Qaeda goes to the extreme and believes that killing us earns them glory in heaven. (Not saying this about the Muslim faith, just the extremists) Therefore, if we have pro al-Qaeda material on his computer, (which I agree is not a crime) and also he ships a weapon to Yemen prior to his trip there, it does raise suspicions, which in these times I do believe we have justification for taking him in.
ReplyDeleteI don't think we should restrict them from joining those groups, especially if they are leaving the country to join them. Who should we be to tell someone else they can't join a certain group. This country was founded on the idea that man should be free to choose whatever religion, ideological group, club, etc. Also, this man was not committing an act of terrorism. He was doing nothing against the law. All he was doing was leaving the country to join an organization and we shouldn't restrict that.
ReplyDeleteThat's stupid that that happened. We have a Communist Party, Socialist Party, Nazi Party, we have lots and lots of parties. None of those people should be arrested unless they do something against the law. He should be able to join Al-Queada if he wants and if he does something to hurt Americans or plans to hurt Americans then he should be arrested. Just joining a group is not against the law.
ReplyDeleteI don't know about this one. Al-Qaeda is an ideological group that uses violence to achieve its goals. I don't know much other of their activities other than those that are violent in nature. To many in the U.S, the Al-Qaeda organization is still a potential threat. But in simpler terms, should you arrest a man for trying to join a violent organization? I'm not entirely sure. For me it would depend on the severity and threat of that organization. What happens if 5 years later that same man bombs an airport and kills hundreds? What will we think then? I would understand the paranoia generated from that (though nothing radical has happened like that since 9/11).
ReplyDeleteA person should have a right to join what group they want too, but limitations on that right are also understandable, like if a person tries to join a group who's sole purpose is too hurt people, then obviously they are going to commit a crime and must be apprehended. In this case, we really have no idea of the potential threat (at least neither you or I do) that this man fleeing to Yemen would have, or what activities he will take apart within the Al-Qaeda organization. I don't think he was justly arrested. Even if there was some minor law infraction he was committing to get himself arrested justly by law.
Just noticed this post was from last term... aha
ReplyDeleteI personally am fine with this arrest, and do not believe that we should allow people to join whatever party they feel like. Now, you can join any party or group you admire, but you can't choose your consequence for it though. But, with say for example, media rules and regulations, I compare that with this article, as I say that if it "incites someone to commit an illicit act" than it should be frowned upon. Joining Al-Qaeda could easily incite this man to commit illicit acts. I think they are overly justified in arresting him for attempted joining of an awful group. Plus, he probably doesn't have many friends because of that either!
ReplyDeleteThe biggest problem with this in my mind is harboring a McCarthyist (is that a term?) sentiment. The scariest thing about this is the tone it sets for future arrests which will start to encroach on less ambiguous cases. I don't want to oppress the minority in any way.
ReplyDeleteI do recognize our country's desire to prevent Al-Qaeda's (or anyone for that matter) attacks on our country. Just remember McMurray's quote above her white board. I feel like that statement is a pretty good standard to hold ourselves to.
So the conundrum is how do we balance safety and liberty?
I think that arresting the man is justified if there is significant reasonable evidence to suggest that he might join or aid Al Qaeda. Al Qaeda has proven to be a serious threat to the United States and so the US has the right to arrest those who are part of or may soon become part of Al Qaeda.
ReplyDelete