Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Fitzgerald MUST INDICT THEM FOR TERRORISM

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU
 
berni_mccoy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-25-05 10:46 AM
Original message
Fitzgerald MUST INDICT THEM FOR TERRORISM
For those who are indicted for Perjury, Obstruction or Conspiracy, the REAL CRIME they CAN BE INDICTED for is TERRORISM as defined by U.S. Code of Law TITLE 18, PART I, CHAPTER 113B, § 2331 ( http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00002331----000-.html )

(5) the term “domestic terrorism” means activities that—
(A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State;

This is the actual leak itself, protecting those involved in the leak or conspiring to leak. Leaking the name of an undercover agent is dangerous to human life and is illegal. In any murder/attempted murder case, those protecting the murderers can be charged with murder themselves.

(B) appear to be intended—
(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
(ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or
(iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and

Here, the acts were intended to silence opposition to the war and thus intimidate the civilian population, influence the behavior of the media and CIA and caused the US to wage a war we would not have supported that caused mass destruction in Iraq and has severely hurt our efforts in the War on Terror and in stopping the proliferation of WMD.

(C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States.

The act occurred in the U.S.

PLEASE Mr. Fitzgerald, tell me you've considered this.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Cessna Invesco Palin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-25-05 10:52 AM
Response to Original message
1. "PLEASE Mr. Fitzgerald, tell me you've considered this."
You are kidding, right?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
berni_mccoy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-25-05 11:01 AM
Response to Reply #1
2. That part yes, the rest I think is valid.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cessna Invesco Palin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-25-05 11:20 AM
Response to Reply #2
5. It just strikes me...
...that this charge is much more difficult to prove than anything under the espionage act, and it stands to reason that you indict on the charges that are easiest to prove.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Just Me Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-25-05 11:22 AM
Response to Reply #5
6. Nevertheless, it is a valid charge.
That is all.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bostonbabs Donating Member (465 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-25-05 11:02 AM
Response to Original message
3. read this post twice...excellent ...n/t.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NNN0LHI Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-25-05 11:06 AM
Response to Original message
4. Hoisted by their own petard n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Norquist Nemesis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-25-05 11:25 AM
Response to Original message
7. I'll be happy with treason.
Honestly, I'm so torn over this whole thing. On the one hand, I want to see these fuckers fired, impeached, imprisoned and banned from any involvement in politics or political affairs. They deserve everything they get for their crimes. What they've done to our country is utterly despicable.

On the other hand, what they have done to our country deeply saddens me and I take little joy in the knowledge that my government has shown itself to be one of the most corrupt institutions of the world.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
berni_mccoy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-25-05 11:44 AM
Response to Reply #7
9. Actually, TREASON is harder to prove than TERRORISM
And the terrorism charge could be used to escalate to treason.

Look at the history of successful TREASON prosecutions... the last two successful prosecutions were in the 1800's. There have been MANY people successfully prosecuted for TERRORISM.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
geekgrrl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-25-05 06:24 PM
Response to Reply #9
26. exactly- get them with their own widely defined "terrorism"!!! n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
onenote Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-25-05 11:43 AM
Response to Original message
8. need help with something
You've cited the definition of "domestic terrorism". But what I can't find is the provision in the law that expressly makes acts of domestic terrorism a crime.

It must be there somewhere, but I can't find it....

onenote
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
berni_mccoy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-25-05 11:57 AM
Response to Reply #8
10. The Definition is a Section of a larger Part
The Part is called CRIMES.

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sup_01_18_10_I.html

Title 18, Part I is the list of Crimes covered by Title 18. As such, Terrorism is Defined as a Crime. They can be punished with a life sentence:

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00002339---A000-.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
onenote Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-25-05 12:07 PM
Response to Reply #10
12. Thanks, but I still can't find a specific prohibition
on "terrorism". There are several provisions relating to specific acts (like providing material support or acts of terrorism transcending national boundaries or using weapons of mass destruction). Again, I'm assuming it must be in there somewhere, but can't find it.

onenote
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
berni_mccoy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-25-05 12:46 PM
Response to Reply #12
13. Here are the specific penalties
Under section (c) (the link has more details about it being a crime)
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00002332---b000-.html


(c) Penalties.—
(1) Penalties.— Whoever violates this section shall be punished—
(A) for a killing, or if death results to any person from any other conduct prohibited by this section, by death, or by imprisonment for any term of years or for life;
(B) for kidnapping, by imprisonment for any term of years or for life;
(C) for maiming, by imprisonment for not more than 35 years;
(D) for assault with a dangerous weapon or assault resulting in serious bodily injury, by imprisonment for not more than 30 years;
(E) for destroying or damaging any structure, conveyance, or other real or personal property, by imprisonment for not more than 25 years;
(F) for attempting or conspiring to commit an offense, for any term of years up to the maximum punishment that would have applied had the offense been completed; and
(G) for threatening to commit an offense under this section, by imprisonment for not more than 10 years.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
onenote Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-25-05 12:50 PM
Response to Reply #13
14. those are penalties. But where is the criminal act provision
This is driving me crazy. I see a definition. I see penalties. But I don't see anything that says "the commission of domestic terrorism is a crime." I see provisions that say its a crime to materially support terrorists, that its a crime to engage in acts of terrorism transcending national boundaries, terrorist acts against US nationals abroad, but nothing that directly addresses acts of domestic terrorism that don't fit one of these other provisions.

Help....

onenote
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
berni_mccoy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-25-05 12:58 PM
Response to Reply #14
15. Same link, section (a)

(a) Prohibited Acts.—
(1) Offenses.— Whoever, involving conduct transcending national boundaries and in a circumstance described in subsection (b)—
(A) kills, kidnaps, maims, commits an assault resulting in serious bodily injury, or assaults with a dangerous weapon any person within the United States; or
(B) creates a substantial risk of serious bodily injury to any other person by destroying or damaging any structure, conveyance, or other real or personal property within the United States or by attempting or conspiring to destroy or damage any structure, conveyance, or other real or personal property within the United States;
in violation of the laws of any State, or the United States, shall be punished as prescribed in subsection (c).
(2) Treatment of threats, attempts and conspiracies.— Whoever threatens to commit an offense under paragraph (1), or attempts or conspires to do so, shall be punished under subsection (c).

1 A and B are basically same thing as definition... not sure why the spelled it out twice instead of saying "Terrorism."

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
onenote Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-25-05 01:20 PM
Response to Reply #15
16. Doesn't really cover the same thing
The definition, as you pointed out, is very broad. But the "prohibited acts" section is much much narrower. It only covers conduct transcending national boundaries (whatever that means) that either kills, maims, etc. someone in the US (or a conspiracy to kill, maim, etc.) or an attack on a conveyance or other property that creates a substantial risk of harm to someone (or a conspiracy to engage in such an attack). You'd have to claim that the leak of Plame's name was part of a conspiracy that transcended national boundaries that was intended to kill, maim, etc. someone. That seems like a hard case to make (compared to the language in the definition).

I'm beginning to think that law regarding "domestic terrorism" may not be all that its cracked up to be.

onenote
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
berni_mccoy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-25-05 01:23 PM
Response to Reply #16
17. Read the entire LINK
Two key points:

the crime covers putting U.S. citizens (nationals) at RISK and it covers any domestic acts (transcending national boundaries just allows it to cover things that occur outside as well as inside the U.S.).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
onenote Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-25-05 01:30 PM
Response to Reply #17
19. only a very specific risk not appliable to Plamegate
"creates a substantial risk of serious bodily injury to any other person by destroying or damaging any structure, conveyance, or other real or personal property within the United States or by attempting or conspiring to destroy or damage any structure, conveyance, or other real or personal property within the United States;"

Its the "by destroying or damaging any structure, conveyance, etc. language" that makes this inapplicable.

onenote
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
berni_mccoy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-25-05 03:50 PM
Response to Reply #19
20. Will you please stop....?!?!? :-)
Let me have my FANTASY!

:peace:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
onenote Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-25-05 04:43 PM
Response to Reply #20
22. wasn't trying to rain on your parade
really. I really was hoping that I was missing something.

Sorry.

onenote
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mmonk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-25-05 11:59 AM
Response to Original message
11. If this administration is indicted for terrorism
that would be the ultimate kicker.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KittyWampus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-25-05 01:27 PM
Response to Original message
18. Outstanding Observation. Would love to hear from any DU Lawyers
thanks, recommended
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
yodermon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-25-05 04:22 PM
Response to Original message
21. They violated the USA PATRIOT Act.
So said Sam Dash in Newsday in 2003:
http://www.utne.com/web_special/web_specials_2003-10/articles/10961-1.html

There's a terrorist in the White House -- at least according to the language of the PATRIOT Act. Whomever leaked the identity of Joseph Wilson's wife as an undercover CIA operative is clearly in violation of section 802, which defines domestic terrorism as "acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or any state" which "appear to be intended to coerce a civilian population."

Newsday political analyst Samuel Dash, a Georgetown University professor and chief counsel of the Senate Watergate Committee, recently observed that White House officials are in violation of their own policy by intimidating former Ambassador Wilson and "sending a message to all critics of the administration to beware that they too can be destroyed if they persist."

Will the Bush Administration be subjected to roving wiretaps and secret searches of their computers, offices and homes? Will they be arrested and detained "incommunicado, without access to counsel?" Will White House aides be detained as material witnesses?

If the White House is outraged by such suggestions, as well they should, Dash wonders how thousands of wrongfully detained Muslims must feel.


(Original link to Newsday article no longer active.)

Joe Wilson also asserted this in his book.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
the_spectator Donating Member (932 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-25-05 04:44 PM
Response to Original message
23. As the French might say -
"Dans vos reves, mon ami, dans vos reves!"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RememberWellstone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-25-05 04:50 PM
Response to Original message
24. Don't get carried away.
we went from perjury to treason in a very short period of time, slow down. And this would be terrible for our nation to go through. Unlike the bull shit kangaroo court they put Clinton through, we must stick to the real breaks in the law and pursue the right course of action.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
berni_mccoy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-25-05 09:19 PM
Response to Reply #24
27. As I posted above, TERRORISM is MUCH EASIER to prove than TREASON
And if you prove TERRORISM, treason follows.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dennisnyc Donating Member (388 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-25-05 05:58 PM
Response to Original message
25. Congressman Nadler's response is more interesting
He is demanding that the investigation be expanded into the use of intel in the lead up to the war.


Nadler: Fitzgerald Must Broaden Investigation

“Did the Bush Administration deliberately mislead Congress about the war?

WASHINGTON, D.C. – In light of recent developments in the CIA leak investigation and other recent revelations, Congressman Jerrold Nadler today called for Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald to expand his investigation to include a criminal investigation to examine whether the President, the Vice President, and members of the White House Iraq Group conspired to deliberately deceive Congress into authorizing the war in Iraq. 

http://www.house.gov/apps/list/press/ny08_nadler/FitzgeraldwarMemo102005.html

i love my congressman!!!!!!!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jed Dilligan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-26-05 11:46 AM
Response to Original message
28. Bing... F*ckin... Oh.
That's it. That's what I've been whining about "treason" for. There's the crime. And it's poetic. I love it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Wed May 01st 2024, 02:32 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC