4 ms·
This is technically correct (the worst kind of correct, in an ideologically-motivated thread people flock to seek emotionally-validating facts. As opposed to re
by perihelions 1y ago
This is technically correct (the worst kind of correct, in an ideologically-motivated thread people flock to seek emotionally-validating facts. As opposed to regular ones).
Reuters OP: "It was not clear what legal weight Trump's proclamation carried... legal experts said such a step lacked a basis in law"
See also:
https://www.voanews.com/a/usa_why-domestic-terrorism-not-specifically-designated-crime-us/6201836.html https://www.voanews.com/a/usa_why-domestic-terrorism-not-spe... ("Why Domestic Terrorism Is Not Specifically Designated a Crime in US")
> "While U.S. law makes it a crime to provide “material support” to a foreign terrorist organization, there is no comparable law that makes domestic terrorism a federal crime, even though individual acts committed by domestic terrorists may be illegal."
- _DeadFred_ 1y agoHuh? This is just plain correct correct. Which is the normal kind of correct. If you break laws and conduct terrorism then yeah, breaking the law is illegal. Because breaking the law is illegal. Does not change anything I wrote or make what I wrote 'technically correct'. The United States military now extrajudicially just executes people the President designates to die claiming they are 'drug terrorists'. There is no US mechanism for him to flag American organizations in this manner (currently). Probably again, the worst kind of correct thing for me to say.
- perihelions 1y agoI poorly expressed the sentiment that you very correctly described the law, as it exists; and that people did not want to hear it (as seen by your numerous downvotes).