3 ms·

Not in your book? Why? What are you concerned about? Anyone who is part of ISIS, and assists them in any meaningful way, is guilty of conspiracy to commit murde

by x0054 11y ago

Not in your book? Why? What are you concerned about? Anyone who is part of ISIS, and assists them in any meaningful way, is guilty of conspiracy to commit murder, even if they do not participate in any direct fighting them selves. Penalties for conspiracy to commit a crime are usually identical to penalties for actually committing the crime. So anyone materially assisting ISIS can be convicted and sentenced to death (or what ever is the punishment for capital crime in a given jurisdiction) without inventing new laws. Same result, but we don't get a bunch of new laws on the book, laws that can and will be abused in the future. The US government is already doing it. Take the in this idiotic case of a Pennsylvania woman accused of terrorism and chemical-weapons violations. [1] [1] http://www.cnn.com/2014/06/02/justice/supreme-court-poisoned-paramour/ http://www.cnn.com/2014/06/02/justice/supreme-court-poisoned...

Pyxl101 11y ago
> Anyone who is part of ISIS, and assists them in any meaningful way, is guilty of conspiracy to commit murder [...] so anyone materially assisting ISIS can be convicted and sentenced to death (or what ever is the punishment for capital crime in a given jurisdiction) without inventing new laws The article argues explicitly against that reasoning, for the record: > After all, in a government or other large social community there exists among the top officials, civilian and military, together with their financial and industrial collaborators, a kind of over-all working arrangement which may always be looked upon, if its invidious connotation be disregarded, as a "conspiracy." That is, government implies "breathing together." And is everyone who, knowing the purposes of the party in power, participates in government or joins with officials to be held for every act of the government? > To take a case which is perhaps not so obvious, is everyone who joins a political party, even one with some illegal purposes, to be held liable to the world for the action that every member takes, even if that action is not declared in the party platform and was not known to or consented to by the person charged as a wrongdoer? To put upon any individual such responsibility for action of the group seems literally to step back in history to a point before the prophet Ezekiel and to reject the more recent religious and democratic teachings that guilt is personal.
- x0054 11y ago
  This is why I specified "meaningful way." I guess I should be more clear, but the standard for conspiracy in most jurisdictions is an overt act. So, for instance, contributing money to "Bomb X" campaign, traveling to Syria to join the fighting, or sending guns and equipment to ISIS would be all overt acts. Posting the ISIS logo on your FB wall would not qualify. I just feel that there are plenty of existing criminal laws to deal with most terrorists.

by x0054 11y ago

Pyxl101 11y ago

> Anyone who is part of ISIS, and assists them in any meaningful way, is guilty of conspiracy to commit murder [...] so anyone materially assisting ISIS can be convicted and sentenced to death (or what ever is the punishment for capital crime in a given jurisdiction) without inventing new laws The article argues explicitly against that reasoning, for the record: > After all, in a government or other large social community there exists among the top officials, civilian and military, together with their financial and industrial collaborators, a kind of over-all working arrangement which may always be looked upon, if its invidious connotation be disregarded, as a "conspiracy." That is, government implies "breathing together." And is everyone who, knowing the purposes of the party in power, participates in government or joins with officials to be held for every act of the government? > To take a case which is perhaps not so obvious, is everyone who joins a political party, even one with some illegal purposes, to be held liable to the world for the action that every member takes, even if that action is not declared in the party platform and was not known to or consented to by the person charged as a wrongdoer? To put upon any individual such responsibility for action of the group seems literally to step back in history to a point before the prophet Ezekiel and to reject the more recent religious and democratic teachings that guilt is personal.

x0054 11y ago
This is why I specified "meaningful way." I guess I should be more clear, but the standard for conspiracy in most jurisdictions is an overt act. So, for instance, contributing money to "Bomb X" campaign, traveling to Syria to join the fighting, or sending guns and equipment to ISIS would be all overt acts. Posting the ISIS logo on your FB wall would not qualify. I just feel that there are plenty of existing criminal laws to deal with most terrorists.