Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
American justice rant
genkaku
Northampton, Mass. U.S.A. Veteran
If Buddhist I be, I am not a cool, calm and collected one. Every once in a while, something sets my hair on fire and I'm too old to feel embarrassed by it. Generally, I try not to inflict my interior rants, but this morning ... well, this morning is one of the exceptions....
With apologies beforehand.
0
Comments
Well written, although I disagree with you about the age factor. 18 is considered adult, so she is an adult and ought to be treated as such.
I think we agree on the concept of "conspiracies" being a questionable part of law enforcement. For example, if I chat with someone about robbing a bank, I'm guilty of conspiracy, even if I never really plan to carry it our or never actually carry it out. I question whether thinking about doing something (which I see as freedom of thought) is comparable to actively preparing to do something or carrying it out.
It would be better if you add follow blog widget in blog to follow posts.
@Vinlyn -- Talking to young people, of whom I have a couple around the house, I doubt that the "legal" definition of adulthood matches the facts too well, but that may be sheer cussedness on my part.
But that aside, I think that when people are arrested for discussing/considering possibilities -- even the most unpalatable ones -- my country is on a decidedly slippery and dictatorial slope.
"As she came to the attention of authorities, federal agents tried repeatedly to dissuade her from her plans but Conley was resolved to use the nurse’s training she had received in Colorado to help in what she believed to be a holy war in Syria. She joined Young Explorers, an organization loosely affiliated with the U.S. Army and the Boys Scouts of America, to learn basic military tactics so she could help Islamic State combatants, court documents said.
Her parents became alarmed as they realized how extreme their daughter’s beliefs were. When her father found the airline ticket, bought by her Internet suitor, he called authorities.
Assistant U.S. Atty. Gregory Holloway argued at the sentencing hearing that Conley had been defiant with agents despite their efforts -- as well as her parents’ pleas -- to talk her out of her plan. “The defendant forced us to arrest her,” he said."
I don't think the father is suffering from hormone or immaturity issues. He probably saved his daughter's life.
No, I'm inclined to agree....
There are some teenagers who are mature beyond their years, and some adults who put children to shame, with their childishness.... So I get what you mean.
But the age of 18 is a point in Law in which a person is deemed old enough to be personally responsible... although there have been cases where some teens have been 'tried as adults' for specific crimes.....
>
The Law is a good one, with noble intentions.
Carrying it out is a pig of a job, and is bound to ruffle feathers.
All laws are made with noble intention, more or less. But sometimes, because a Law is not made for the individual, but for Society in general, something's going to fall foul of it.
The defendant likewise seems to have had noble, if confused, intentions. According to a CNN story, in a previous brush with the law: "According to court documents, she intended to become a nurse in an ISIS camp. She is a Colorado certified nurse's aide." In court she said, "Even though I was committed to the idea of jihad, I didn't want to hurt anyone. It was all about defending Muslims." And even the judge noted, "She has no history in the criminal justice system. She is very young. ... Teenagers make dumb decisions a lot."
Irrespective of intention, however, I think I would prefer that people be arrested for what they DO, not what they think or believe or bloviate about.
She wasn't arrested for what she thought or bloviated about. She was arrested, as I understood the article, for having a ticket to a Near Eastern country, after having bloviated about helping the wrong cause and aiming for the wrong destination.
Security services in Europe and North America have been on alert for some time, for people with certain stated travel destinations, or tickets in hand. It's a new thing, the new front on the war on terrorism. Last year two Serbian or Bosnian (?) girls from Austria went to Syria to support ISIS, and ended up married off to jihadists, pregnant, and miserable. They eventually managed to communicate with their families via some sort of covert intermediary, and cried that they wanted to come home. How the matter was resolved, IF it was resolved, I'm not sure. Stopping the CO girl was the right thing to do. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/austria/11098039/Austrian-teenage-girl-jihadist-killed-in-Syria.html
It's a different question: whether putting her in jail for 4 years was the right thing to do. The question in my mind isn't about her age, it's the fact that the judge noted that she exhibited symptoms of mental illness, and that she needed psychiatric help. Not sure how to reconcile the need to safeguard US national security interests with her need for psychiatric help, if she'd even agree to it, and any legal rights she might have (if any, at this point).
This is new territory Western legal systems are getting into, and there will be very sticky issues raised. It's a Brave New World. Living in it won't be easy.
She made plans to aid to a terrorist group the country is at war with and then follow through despite being told repeatedly by the FBI not to. What part of "you're breaking the law, don't do it" do people not understand these days?
Yup! To me, that may warrant (pun intended) monitoring, but not legal action.
Cheaper, quicker, more impact to arrest and discover the facts after arrest than spend money on monitoring, manpower and endless hours of surveillance and observation.
The problem is where the line is drawn.
Ever fantasize about doing something that would technically be illegal?
Ever think about downloading a copyright protected video?
Ever contemplate not making a full stop at a stop sign?
The question is, do you have freedom of thought and freedom of speech or not.
If she carried through with something that is clearly illegal, I think most of agree off to jail.
What doesn't make sense to me is that she was committed to the idea of jihad she did not want to hurt anyone. That is like not wanting to hurt fish but fishing??
She had a ticket to Turkey, though, that someone on the internet had bought for her. The article doesn't say who that someone is. But police, security services and airport authorities in Western nations have been instructed to watch for citizens with tickets to Turkey and other Near East countries, and to watch out for people who talk about volunteering for certain Islamic organizations. Combine those two factors, and you've got a potential detainee. That's the new deal counter-terrorism efforts.
If they waited until she did something illegal, it would be too late, she'd be gone. The only way to deal with situations like this is to watch for critical signs, and detain the person before they leave their country of origin.
There are 2576 cases world-wide of juveniles having been given life without the possibility of parole. 2569 of those cases are in the United States. So certainly there are cases where some children have been tried as adults. It seems to me that if this is appropriate, and keeping in mind your other assertion:
then there would/should/could be some cases of adults tried as juveniles - especially those who, as in this case, are in the judges own words, 'pathologically naive'.
Can we use as a premise in this conversation the fact that no one, no matter how sophisticated the machinery or philosophy or analysis, can see into the future? Things may be more or less likely based on observation and collected data, but the premise with human beings, I think, is that anything is possible. Both the grandeur and the horror of the human race spring from this well. Imagining what someone may do tomorrow because of what they say today is just that -- imagination.
Think of good-natured Shunryu Suzuki who took in a man in dire straits. Suzuki's second wife asked her husband to send the man away -- said that he gave her the heebie-jeebies. Suzuki refused. The man killed Suzuki's wife with a hatchet or ax as I recall. (I may not have that story exactly right, but the meat and potatoes are in David Chadwick's "Crooked Cucumber."
Designating an entire nation as somehow suspect may sound sensible and patriotic, but it also sounds to me like a recipe for violence rather than any sort of nourishing solution.
But never mind me. I'm just one of those panty-waist, commsymp blowhards!
Yes, but it's not illegal to go to Turkey.
Same amount of sense that Bush sent our children on a "crusade".
All soldiers deserve medical attention. Even jihadis.
Insanity.
A ticket to Turkey is a red flag that police, airport and Customs authorities and various security agencies have as a red flag, though. By itself, it doesn't arouse attention, necessarily. But in combination with known conversations about going to Syria and/or volunteering for Islamic organizations working to destabilize the US and/or the West, it's enough to detain someone. As I said before, these are the guidelines many countries are using; it's a Brave New World, like it or not. Discussing by phone/email plans for a bombing or an act of terrorism may theoretically be protected speech under the First Amendment, but waiting for someone to carry through those plans before arresting them isn't acceptable.
I understand that.
But when I wire my adopted son living back in Pakistan money, that may be a red flag. But I haven't broken a law.
And that's my point -- until you actually break a law, there should be no arrest.
She must have broken a law because she has been convicted and sentenced.
The guy who paid for the ticket was her fiancé of the week. I believe he is said to be a jihadist.
You mean, until the planes actually fly into the office buildings, there should be no arrest?
AFAIK, wiring money to people in "sensitive" countries doesn't trigger an arrest or even an investigation unless other factors are present, such as: wiring too much money (over a certain amt. per occasion or smaller amts. too frequently). Just as having a plane ticket to Istanbul doesn't trigger an investigation unless it's coupled with suspicious activity. It's the combination of factors that creates the red flag, not an individual thing, generally.
But yes, this is the new circumstance we're living in now; it's now OK for the gov't to monitor citizens' communications. It's ok to detain people who make a joke at the airport security checkpoint about having a bomb or flammable materials. It's ok to bust in on people whose emails have displayed certain patterns.
Enemies within, and enemies without. Surely you want to cooperate with your government in protecting the country from these dangers, don't you, citizen?
It's very Stalinesque. Whether or not it's a necessary evil is the real question. But the question has only one answer.
You know this isn't new. Far from it. What about the Internment of Japanese Americans in WW2? What about McCarthyism? In light of all that, I think we're actually doing better these days...
EDIT: I just wanted to clarify that I'm not justifying witch hunts that the government could employ to catch those that they believe will become terrorists based on dubious evidence... Rather, it just sounds like in this instance, they had a lot of evidence that it had gone beyond the theoretical phase for this woman.
Of course not. Going to most countries is not illegal. Actively initiating a plot to do what 9/11 terrorists did goes beyond talking to actually doing. That's the line.
Look at it this way. What if Dakini talked to the neighbor about robbing a bank? In my view, no law has been broken. Maybe it's just daydreaming. Maybe it's a mental exercise. Dakini may have never planned to have actually done anything, or could completely have a change of mind and do nothing. Or, Dakini can actually take a concrete step to carry out the chatter.
As I recall -- correct me if I'm wrong -- you have kids. So let's say one of your kids says to another kid, "You know, we could cheat on the math test by....." You would accept your kid being suspended or expelled for simply saying that sentence?
@genkaku imagining was not necessary. She created a plan to help terrorists who kill and terrorize innocent people. And she was clearly intent on following through, again, despite warnings from the FBI to stop. Aiding criminals is a crime in this country and ignorance is never a valid defense.
@just_so you have inferred too much, and are too judgemental, but perhaps I am reflecting your attitude too much.
Regardless, it is difficult to assume that there is an age when you become competent to account for your view; but when you do account yourself for the acclaim of your view - be ready for the back-lash!
Thank you for countering with a straw man argument. You can't yell "fire" in a theater because it's against the law to panic people which could lead (and had, historically) to people being trampled and seriously injured or killed. That's not same as saying to your buddy, "Do you want to yell "fire" in this theater?", and then not doing it.
@vinlyn Nope, no kids. And I don't know how many times I'll have to post the same thing over and over, but what triggers an investigation and possibly an arrest in a case like this is a combination of factors, not just one thing.
btw, some 4th graders were investigated by school officials and the sheriff's office a few weeks ago for plotting to poison and kill their teacher. Saying "let's break the law, and let's do it like this..." can, and sometimes does, have serious consequences.
No I didn't counter with a 'straw man' argument @vinlyn - can you reflect and change your quote as it in no way reflects what I said.
I am happy to Rant against American Injustice however!
...\lol/...
I didn't respond to your post at all.
@anataman - what do you believe I inferred? The girl outright said her intention was to help terrorists. She made repeated and definite efforts to carry out her plan. Her parents didn't infer anything; they called the authorities themselves. What more do you need to know? If someone was plotting to kill your parents, how would you feel about a person whose plans were to help them? I honestly don't get where the confusion is coming from.
Well, actually I think we're talking right past each other.
I have no problem with this girl going to prison.
But if every American who spoke about possibly committing a crime, or thought about committing a crime were sent to prison, the majority of Americans would be in prison. I have no problem with crime and punishment. I'm actually a "hold people responsible" type of guy. But I also think this country -- with the highest incarceration rate in the world -- is too "into" locking people up and throwing away the key.
"Let's go out and find some pot." Lock 'em up.
"I'd like to punch that guy right in the mouth." Lock 'em up.
"I wonder if we could get away with robbing a bank." Lock 'em up.
"I had a dream last night of having sex with someone under age." Lock 'em up.
(Thinking:) "I bet I could shop lift that candy bar." Lock 'em up.
"I'm in a hurry. I'm gonna go 10 miles over the speed limit." Lock 'em up.
"I gotta go in the bushes and pee." Lock 'em up.
Did you know that in Colorado it is a FELONY to take outside food into a movie theater?
I think you're talking about the way it is, while I am talking more about the way it should be.
But, whatever, be happy with your viewpoint. I'm happy with mine.
You and me both.
Keep practicing.
. . . and now back to this sorry thread . . .
@vinlyn Sorry, you lost me. I don't know what you're talking about in your last post. Nobody gets cited for daydreaming or even mouthing off unless there are extenuating circumstances, like those previously cited (taking about a weapon or bomb in the airport security line, for ex.)
According to my brother, who had a career as a lawyer and a judge, those "3 strikes, you're out"-type laws are popular with politicians, because if they appear to be "tough on crime" during their campaigns, it gets them votes. Even if tough-on-crime laws cause more problems than they solve. Sad, but true.
lol! A felony to take outside food into a theater? Some kid has a couple of candies in his pocket, oops--felony rap! That's INSANE! Who passed that? Who voted for it??! sputter
I know. And I used to do it cause I preferred a couple of cookies to the other junk. Then, one day, up popped that notice, and I looked it up...sure enough.
I know what you mean about the 3 strikes concept. In my school system...at the time...they had a lot of zero tolerance policies. I would have to take kids to the central office for expulsion hearings, but my heart was often not in it. But they didn't want the principals to have any say for a potentially expellable offense. One time I was ordered to move for expulsion on a kid, and refused.
We just have a punish, punish, punish mentality in this country. Until, of course, state budgets were falling short, and then bunches of felons were released early. Just makes me shake my head sometimes.
I keep coming back to what this young woman actually DID.
She bought a ticket to Turkey. She professed a desire to help Muslims. She took down details of a public venue -- a church. Apparently without blush, she said she supported jihad but had no intention of indulging in violence.
Any or all of this may be quantified as wrong-headed, neurotic or downright stupid, but does the nation wish, with its judicial system, to call it criminal and impose a criminal penalty?
If so, I think we should all be prepared for a knock on the door, as for example in this admittedly sketchy tale.
@genkaku - she defied the FBI. Why do you keep leaving that out?
Yes...young and stupid. Problem is.....what she did that was stupid was....playing around with the government. Some of the evidence and things that were brought up in court....yikes! She was playing big girl games.....People have gotten longer sentences for evading taxes...and she showed up to FBI meetings with taunting t shirts and stuff.....this was more than just 'thoughts'. She played games with the FBI.....and lost. There was evidence presented that violence was being worked on (shooting sheets, etc)
I hate it for her, though. She got sucked into a world that she had no idea about....
She'll be ok.....she'll be out in 3, and it seems like her family here knows that she has mental needs that should to be addressed. What type of mental needs....depends...was she hearing voices? No. She was impressionable and looking for things in all the wrong places....
She got convicted on more than thoughts and/or wanting though...lets be honest.
Well, let's tackle that one specific point. How exactly does one defy the FBI? I didn't that -- unless you are being arrested -- that the FBI can give you an order.
I mean, did they place a restraining order on her?
I think where "terrorism" is concerned, there is a lot that isn't typical of our normal legal system that happens. The wrong utterance can result in a fully legal charge, and you can be convicted and handed down a punishment or it. That might not happen in the normal rounds in our legal system, but it happens where fear of terrorism has taken over what used to make at least some common sense. She was supposedly engaged to a member of ISIS and had planned to serve them as a nurse. Of course, again, where terrorism is concerned we won't get the full story. However, she plead guilty to planning to knowingly provide resources and assistance to a known terrorist organization. She made NUMEROUS trips to the church to draw maps...the same church where people had been shot and killed a few years ago in the name of terrorism. She specifically did these things to lead the people to believe she was a terrorist. Read the whole document. She plead guilty to all of this. It seems pretty cut and dry to me, and doesn't seem she was prosecuted for her thoughts but for a lengthy series of questionable behavior and comments. Right or wrong, that is how terrorism is handled. She was given the option to make different choices, repeatedly expressed she knew what she was planning to do was illegal and it appeared she was prepared to carry out her plan. Planning a crime is a crime. Conspiring to help a terrorist organization is a crime, even if she had not yet actually helped them. I do hope if it's true she has mental health issues that she gets help for that. I absolutely do not approve of punishing those with mental health issues as criminals.
http://www.cpr.org/sites/default/files/shannon_conley_complaint.pdf
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/23/obama-drone-program-anniversary_n_4654825.html
Western powers are daily creating more enemies than they are killing. Nothing they have done yet has made the situation better, only worse. As long as that is happening our governments are going to use increasingly harsh measures to keep a lid on things at home. I think we have to get used to it.
That girl was troubled by all accounts. Treatment would probably solve the problem better than prison.
I believe the thinking is that a harsh sentence would be a deterent to being radicalized for other young people.
Which seems to make some kind of sense. Until you look at recent history.
Locking a few hundred guys up in Guantanamo hasn't slowed down the recruitment of jihadists in the ME. Nothing has.
So, as the authorities crack down at home, do they run the risk of inspiring an increasingly fanatical element amongst young people? People who think it's their duty to risk prison to fight back? I don't think it can be ruled out. But what else can they do?
I think people who say and do those things should be detained and investigated, in light of what those Austrian girls did. But in the current case, in view of the fact that she showed signs of mental health issues, I don't know that a 4-year jail term is the right action. But it's good to raise public discussion about this.
OTOH, what would be the alternative for dealing with her? Have her committed to a mental health facility? Is that even lawful anymore in the US? Get her court-ordered mental health care while living at home, and risk her disappearing and trying to realize her plans again?
@Dakini - the answer is that we, as a society, should commit a LOT more resources to people with disabilities. It's shameful how we give away money and time to people who are totally capable of taking care of themselves while kicking people with physical and mental disabilities to the curb.
Absolutely! Well, people with physical disabilities can get help from state agencies for vocational rehabilitation and that sort of thing. But there's not enough mental health care available. And insurance doesn't want to pay for effective care, they only want to pay to medicate people.
I wonder if the girl's parents noticed while she was younger, that she might have been showing symptoms of mental health issues.
I agree we need to do much, much more to help our at-risk populations. But we have to be careful about judging who truly needs help and who we perceive are "totally capable of taking care of themselves." Different groups need different kinds of help and I think we can do better at helping all of them.
It sounds like she was made an 'example' of, thus the flurry of publicity. Arresting her was less about 'stopping' her from strapping on bombs and more about 'this is how far we'll go to root you out and bust you.'
For what it's worth, my earlier assessment of the legal system has nothing to do with my opinion of it. I majored in criminology so it's where my mind goes, lol. That doesn't mean how I feel about it matches up, though.
I think our country wastes a lot of resources processing cases like this that are minimal to no threat in the name of making us safer, while we continue to perpetuate wars and forcing our ideology on other parts of the world. Basically, we do very small things to make us feel safe, and do nothing to tackle the elephant in the room that is causing people to want to terrorize and sympathize with those causes to start with. Just like our supposed war on drugs. "Whew, another drug dealer/druggie/terrorist off the street! I'm so glad to know we are DOING something so that our country is safe!" without addressing the root causes of the problem. We really do a horrible job of that in so many areas. Try to eliminate symptoms without looking at the cause of them. Terrorism is no different, is just happens to be what scares us now. The girl in this case was just a pawn in the game. A way for the government to prove to us they are doing their job and keeping us safe from terrorists, and a way for us to lie to ourselves and believe it.
But the legal codes surrounding terrorism are set up to be vague to account for all these cases. If the expectation for terrorism cases were as high as it typically is in the justice system, we'd hardly get any of them, and then we'd REALLY be unsafe!
As I said @just_so, it is just so!
@vinlyn - it's a quotes thing - I apologise if I misread you!
Most of what I thought of saying has been said, I just want to throw my hat in the ring on the side of the legal system in this case.
The girl not only thought about, talked about, and made plans to aid terrorists actively engaged in military activity she took definitive actions to make it happen.
I can see the danger of the slippery slope here heading into thought crimes and '1984' but, in this case, I think the law got it right.