Submitted by Lawrence Rafferty (rafflaw), Guest Blogger
I realize that one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter, but when organizations are added to the Federal government’s list of Terrorist Organizations, the Supreme Court has determined that any assistance to that organization is a criminal act. Even a speech in support of that particular group can be a criminal act. http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-1498.pdf http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/03/opinion/03cole.html?_r=1 It seems that in December of 2010, former Attorney General Michael Mukasey along with former Homeland Security Director Tom Ridge and Rudy Giuliani, a former Mayor of New York City and a former Presidential candidate, all spoke at a conference in Paris in support of the Mujahedeen Khalq. The Mujahedeen Khalq is an Iranian dissident group that the State Department has labeled as a terrorist organization. http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/other/des/123085.htm
Why does the fact that some United States politicians gave speeches in support of the Mujahedeen Khalq matter to me? I care because in the case of Holder, Attorney General, et al v. Humanitarian Law Project, et al., the Supreme Court declared that a speech could be considered as indirect support of a terrorist group’s alleged illegal activity. The New York Times article linked above was written by Georgetown Law Professor David Cole and we learn in that article that the kind of activity that Mukasey and Ridge and Giuliani were involved in on behalf of the Mujahedeen Khalq was exactly the same kind of activity that his client was engaged in the Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project case and it was declared illegal.
“It is therefore a felony, the government has argued, to file an amicus brief on behalf of a “terrorist” group, to engage in public advocacy to challenge a group’s “terrorist” designation or even to encourage peaceful avenues for redress of grievances. Don’t get me wrong. I believe Mr. Mukasey and his compatriots had every right to say what they did. Indeed, I argued just that in the Supreme Court, on behalf of the Los Angeles-based Humanitarian Law Project, which fought for more than a decade in American courts for its right to teach the Kurdistan Workers’ Party in Turkey how to bring human rights claims before the United Nations, and to assist them in peace overtures to the Turkish government. But in June, the Supreme Court ruled against us, stating that all such speech could be prohibited, because it might indirectly support the group’s terrorist activity.” http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/03/opinion/03cole.html?_r=1
I just don’t understand why the Federal Government would prosecute one party for assisting a terrorist organization, but not prosecute former Attorney General Mukasey and his associates? Is there a double standard in the Justice Department?
By Lawrence Rafferty, Guest Blogger
Tootie wrote:
“Call it spice if you like (you diplomat you).”
____________
Moreover, perceptive to boot; goes to show there is an abundance of knowledge to be had during protracted studies and travails as a card carrying student within the ‘School of Hard Knocks Throughout Life’.
Former LEO:
Thank you. I appreciate your kindness.
I know a lot of ladies who knit and a lot of ladies who crochet, but rarely they do both well. It’s like one is either a knitter or a knotter (one who crochets).
Anyway, I’m thinking that might be the same with day and night folks. It seems some can work nights and some cannot. I seems to work well enough for me.
I don’t mean to be annoying. It’s just me!
Call it spice if you like (you diplomat you).
🙂
Thus the phrase “Too Big To Jail” …
Elaine,
you are right!
Hey, Tootie, old gal,
Although I rarely agree with you regarding any natural—and never any supernatural—topic relating to this whole-wide-world-and-beyond, keep a’postin’ ’cause you have exactly the same rights as anyone else within this blawg. We have all heard the old adage, “variety is the spice of life”; well, you and ol’ Doc Harris do spice thangs up a bit in this chat room.
Good luck with that graveyard shift job. I tried that once and I very much disliked it because I am an “early to bed, early to rise” type of feller.
rafflaw,
For the same reason our government is going after Julian Assange but not the New York Times, Washington Post, etc.
Thanks Elaine. Great link! I had forgotten about those raids. Why do you suppose the DOJ isn’t raiding Mukasey’s offices??
frank
I’m coming off the graveyard shift and haven’t been to bed yet. I work like a horse and I’m an old girl with more irons in the fire than a whiner like you could likely take. (As evidenced by your prissy fit about my writing).
Insult me all you like. It’s the low-life road to take and you are, apparently, well suited to travel it. No sensible person should expect more from you.
I figure it is more stupid to insult people you don’t like (instead of dealing with issues) than to have bad grammar, poor syntax, or crummy sentences.
So continue to make it about me, my writing, but not my ideas. Because in doing so you make it look like you don’t have the brains to take on the bigger challenge.
Was that clear enough?
The bar just keeps getting lower and lower. As long as Democrats do not have the courage to persecute crimes committed by Republicans (it would, after all be very un-bipartisany and all) future administrations will continue to press the down button on the American elevator. LAws don’t mean anything if they are not enforced equally.
Oh, and tootie – your random word generator actually came close to making sense in your comment so those adjustments you are making to it are getting closer. Still won’t pass the turing test but pretty close to human speech patterns.
Oh, I think Fran Townsend might be in on this and Glenn Greenwald is very upset about it.
These folks are absolutely nuts.
GET OUT OF THE MIDDLE EAST AFFAIRS.
It provokes terrorism.
Oh wait. That [terrorism) is Obama’s newest jobs program. So we need more terrorism and the government will provide it.
Never mind.
rafflaw,
I’m glad you posted this. It reminded me of the story about the FBI raiding homes and offices of some antiwar activists last September because they were supposedly “providing material support or resources to designated foreign terrorist organizations.” Democracy Now! did an update on the story in December.
*****
From Democracy Now (12/23/2010)
FBI Expands Probe into Antiwar Activists
http://www.democracynow.org/2010/12/23/fbi_expands_probe_into_antiwar_activists
Excerpt:
The FBI’s probe into antiwar activists is growing. In September, FBI agents raided the homes and offices of activists in Chicago and Minneapolis. Subpoenas that were withdrawn have been reactivated, and a new subpoena was served to a Palestinian solidarity activist in Chicago. We speak with two of the people targeted and two former FBI agents.
JUAN GONZALEZ: We turn now to the latest developments in the FBI’s widening targeting of antiwar and Palestinian solidarity activists. In late September, FBI agents raided the homes of activists in Minneapolis and Chicago. They seized phones, computers, documents and other personal belongings. Subpoenas to appear before a grand jury were served on 13 people but later withdrawn when the activists asserted their right to remain silent.
But earlier this month, subpoenas were reissued against three of those targeted in the raids. And just this week, a new subpoena was delivered to a Chicago-based activist and journalist involved in Palestinian solidarity work—at least the 23rd person subpoenaed since September.
AMY GOODMAN: All those subpoenaed have been involved with antiwar activism that’s critical of U.S. foreign policy. Details on the grand jury case remain scarce, but the subpoenas cited federal law prohibiting, quote, “providing material support or resources to designated foreign terrorist organizations.” In June, the Supreme Court rejected a free speech challenge to the material support law from humanitarian aid groups that said some of its provisions put them at risk of being prosecuted for talking to terrorist groups about nonviolent activities.
No calls from Sarah Palin & co to hunt down and execute these terrorists for their anti-American actions?
Odd how that goes..
Former Fed,
The officials are only immune to civil suits for acts committed during their term of office. I do not believe that they are immune from Criminal charges for acts committed during their term of office. I agree with your second paragraph that in reality, they are given a “pass” because of their past positions.
raff,
You did state clearly that they were all “former” officials. However, the torturers were not former officials when they committed their acts. That is the main reason I posted Rumsfeld’s case, and to add him to the discussion.
Nevertheless, former presidents and other former high officials are still afforded ‘cloaked’ immunity and deference by those officials who follow them in office, resulting in the double standard of justice you mentioned.
James,
You are right that this speech in Paris had nothing to do with their prior governmental duties. Former Fed, the pols in question have no immunity for activities after they have left office. I believe that they were not investigated because the Obama Administration doesn’t want any political trouble. In my opinion, the same reason the torturers are not being prosecuted.
From the description above, it doesn’t appear that any of them were acting in their official capacities. Rudy Giuliani, in particular, could not possibly have been.
raff,
Here is the problem. I experienced this same legal roadblock when I filed a criminal complaint against another LEO/supervisor who clearly violated a federal statute. That is, the deference/ immunity granted government officials performing within their “official capacities”.
Quote:
“The biggest obstacle facing the ACLU: The full circuit court previously ruled in a similar case that Rumsfeld and others are immune from such suits because they were acting in their capacity as government officials”. End Quote.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/13/attempt-to-reinstate-tort_n_808621.html
AY,
That is an understatement. If the Obama Department of Justice can’t prosecute all people, no matter their stature, for the same “offense” how can any “non connected” people be assured that justice will prevail for them?
They have better connections than some….
I just don’t understand why the Federal Government would prosecute one party for assisting a terrorist organization, but not prosecute former Attorney General Mukasey and his associates? Is there a double standard in the Justice Department?
Oh, I see what you did there!