Recent Terror Funding Trial (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid



Message

OrionTheWolf -> Recent Terror Funding Trial (11/24/2008 5:31:44 PM)

I am going to post the link to two different stories on the trial, so you can see the different angles in reporting it. One is the NY Times and the other Al Jazeera. I hate to say it but in my opinion it seems like Al Jazeera is holding to a more objective view in it's reporting.

Also, the two charities mentioned in the story are still sending funds to some of the same charities, and it has be shown that these charities have in the past funneled money to HAMAS projects. I believe the same standard should be applied whether it is a Muslim charity or a large well known charity.

NY Times

Al Jazeera



Termyn8or -> RE: Recent Terror Funding Trial (11/24/2008 8:47:43 PM)

First of all this is not my country anymore. When they can tell you who you can give your own money to, it is wrong. The law is wrong and the jury should have acquitted on those grounds. What that law means is if I buy some Arab a hamburger and he later goes out and blows up a building, I am somehow responsible. This is patently ridiculous.

But there is a bright side, if charged in tax court for not paying taxes, one could use this as a defense, because we know who the biggest terrorists in the world are. Remember the words "Shock and awe". What do you think that means ? That IS the exact definition of terrorism, and I would like to shove their own words right down their throat.

If we were not proactive in attacking other countries, bombing schools and hospitals, killing Women and children I might not be as adamantly against this, even though it is absolutely unconstitutional. I would still be against it, but in light of the fact that we go around bombing countries that are no threat to us whatsoever is too much, and I really can't go on much longer about it because I might get in trouble.

I am tired of the triple standard they pass off, one standard for Israel, one for the US and Europe, and one for everybody else. Oh, except those who might be able to fight back. They get a fourth standard.

There used to be a tenet in law that there was no crime without intent. Whatever happened to that ? What evidence does the government have pertaining to that ? Do they have a copy of a cancelled check that says "Pay to the order of Hamas" ?

I won't go on, I think I am well hated enough.

T



Vendaval -> RE: Recent Terror Funding Trial (11/24/2008 11:54:53 PM)

Thank you for presenting two views on the trial, Orion.
I have many doubt about the accuracy and reliability of the evidence.  Most likely this verdict will be appealed and go to a higher court.



hizgeorgiapeach -> RE: Recent Terror Funding Trial (11/25/2008 5:41:21 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Termyn8or
There used to be a tenet in law that there was no crime without intent. Whatever happened to that ?


The phrase you're looking for here is "Mens Rea" - which is latin for "guilty mind."  It is from the shortening of the latin phrase "actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea," which translates as "the act does not make a person guilty unless the mind is also guilty".   It is applied during Common/Criminal law, to help determine liability, as opposed to the Strict Liability used in Civil suit.  This is the short explanation - it gets much deeper than this.
 
Now - how does Mens Rea relate to charging folks with funding terrorism in a case like this?  Part of the concept of mens rea relies on what society (or frequently the court) feels that a Reasonable Person could Reasonably Expect as a potential outcome of a given action.  The person acts, having forseen the outcome as one of the possibilities of acting, rather than refraining from an action that they're aware - or Should Be Aware - will have that specific outcome.  If a business/charity/etc has already been shown at some point to funnel funds towards terrorist activities, and someone then gives that organization money after it's been shown - they should be able to reasonably conclude that there's a likelihood of the organization doing so again.  History of the organization doing so has already been established.  Thus  mens rea is established (when applying traditional definitions of that term) to compound the actus rea (guilty act.)



OrionTheWolf -> RE: Recent Terror Funding Trial (11/25/2008 6:15:36 AM)

You are welcome. I was thinking the same thing. It no longer surprises me the spin our media ( I refuse to call them news sources) puts on things. This is why I often do not watch the news in TV, and when reading a story I am interested in, I look for multiple sources concerning it.

What also bugged me is that the comment about the Red Cross is correct, but I do not see the US going after them for funding terror.


quote:

ORIGINAL: Vendaval

Thank you for presenting two views on the trial, Orion.
I have many doubt about the accuracy and reliability of the evidence.  Most likely this verdict will be appealed and go to a higher court.



meatcleaver -> RE: Recent Terror Funding Trial (11/25/2008 8:04:27 AM)

A quote from Al Jazeera
 
While prosecutors said the foundation raised money for Hamas they did not accuse the charity of directly financing or being involved in "terrorist" activity.
 
Prosecutors said the charity was spreading Hamas's ideology by funding schools, hospitals and social welfare programmes controlled by the group in the Palestinian territories, and permitting it to divert funds to the activities of fighters.
 
So the prosecutors aren't saying the charity funded terrorism, they funded a party that was democratically elected in elections the US wanted but the wrong party won so the US decided they were a terrorist organisation.

In the past American charities have actually funded terrorists and not been prosecuted so is this just a case of racism?



gumshoe -> RE: Recent Terror Funding Trial (11/25/2008 8:31:11 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Termyn8or

First of all this is not my country anymore. When they can tell you who you can give your own money to, it is wrong. The law is wrong and the jury should have acquitted on those grounds. What that law means is if I buy some Arab a hamburger and he later goes out and blows up a building, I am somehow responsible. This is patently ridiculous.


Only if someone gives money to a person knowing that those funds were likely to be used for terrorist purpoes, could that someone be said to be aiding and abetting terrorism.





Termyn8or -> RE: Recent Terror Funding Trial (11/25/2008 8:43:07 AM)

I don't think you can quite call it racism, but I can't think of a word right now.

A few years ago there was a high official elected in Austria who was not to the liking of the neocons. They said it was a "slap in the face" for democracy.

A slap in the face for democracy ? That should tell alot about these people's attitude. It needs alot of adjusting to say the least. What's more, just by issuing such a statement they put their hubris right out there for all to see. At the very least it proves that they are in no way for fair elections. They want dog and pony shows like in the US and for the choices to be limited to those candidates deemed acceptable.

I guess to them free elections means there is no poll tax. Knowing them, there are probably reconsidering that.

So now it's not only can I be jailed for buying an Arab a hamburger, now I can be jailed for buying his kid a school lunch ?

Look, I fully agree that knowingly funding an organisation who will attack American Citizens, personel or interests should be punishable, that is intent. But this is ridiculous.

T



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.03125