Here's One for the Courts
Monday, May 15, 2006
Rather than wasting federal money trying enemy combatant Zacharias Moussaoui in a civilian court, we ought to have been getting ready to try Noam Chomsky for treason. Unfortunately, even if our leaders came to their senses instantly, this would not be possible, and it isn't because he asked for asylum in Lebanon.
Chomsky recently gave some of our enemies -- Hezbollah -- the aid and comfort of his unabashed support during a visit to the Middle East. Here are just a couple of snippets from an account of this visit.
When asked about the U.S. list of terrorist states, he [Chomsky] said [that] if the U.S. was to stick to the clear and precise definition of terrorism in its code of laws, it would be the leading terrorist state."Pure treason!" That was my initial reaction to Chomsky's bilge.
...
'Umm Kamel' - the Israeli [MK] spying aircraft - was the first to welcome leftist Jewish American intellectual Noam Chomsky, in his visit to Al-Khiyam Prison. Chomsky chose to provide 'Umm Kamel' with the pictures most detestable from the Israeli perspective, by smiling and shaking hands with Hizbullah's leader in South Lebanon, Nabil Qauq. Then they both entered the prison's Hall of Martyrs. Chomsky, who toured the prison with his wife and university professor Fawwaz Al-Trabulsi, insisted on staying inside one of the prison cells for a short while. He commended the perseverance of the inmates during the years of cruelty and pain, stressing that this prison was no different from Guantanamo. [bold added]
Some time back, I had heard -- not quite accurately as it turns out -- that citizens abroad can perform certain acts that will strip them of their citizenship. So I became curious as to how feasible it would be to strip this reprobate of his citizenship. Here is what some very brief looking around turned up....
Certainly, the U.S. State Department -- and Chomsky, born in Philadelphia, has not explicitly renounced his citizenship to my knowledge -- lists treason among the reasons one might forfeit his citizenship when abroad.
Section 349 of the Immigration and Nationality Act, as amended, states that U.S. citizens are subject to loss of citizenship if they perform certain acts voluntarily and with the intention to relinquish U.S. citizenship. Briefly stated, these acts include ... conviction for an act of treason (Sec. 349 (a) (7) INA). [bold added]This passage states, and further reading confirms, that Chomsky would have to actually declare that he intends to renounce his citizenship in order to lose it. So much for Chomsky losing his citizenship....
So what about treason? No dice there, either. This is, at least in part, because the legal definition of treason -- as given in the Constitution -- precludes prosecution of this seemingly open-and-shut case.
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.Setting aside whether Chomsky's open solidarity would be interpreted as aiding the war effort of the Islamists by its propaganda value, we have one small problem. We have not declared war!
The Congress shall have power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted. [bold added]
Felipe Sediles argued some time back that this lack of a war declaration endangers the individual rights of citizens at home by making certain emergency measures into police state powers by virtue of leaving them open-ended. Apparently, this missing war declaration also leaves us unable to prosecute an open enemy like Noam Chomsky. Or a John Walker Lindh. Or worse. And in this case, it's a shame, too, for Chomsky, someone never to miss an opportunity to grandstand, would, I am sure, happily admit to his act in court!
-- CAV
11 comments:
So the fact that Chomsky claimed that the US was the 'leading terrorist state,' coupled with shaking hands with the Hisbullah leader and claiming that the prison cell he visited was as bad as Guantanamo, qualifies Chomsky for treason? Does that mean that he has no authority or moral right to question the actions of the elites? By such an assumption, you are relegating the United States to the status of an autocracy rather than a democracy - officially! What happened to freedom of expression?
Castedus,
On a moral level, yes. Chomsky is a traitor who, if some of his slanders about his own country were true, would have been imprisoned or executed long ago.
But on a legal level, Chomsky is not guilty of treason, which is the whole point of my post. And even if we had declared war, I am not completely sure whether Chomsky would or should be charged with treason. He has not, after all, provided material support for the enemy, and even his propaganda value is limited by the fact that, after decades of exercising his right to freedom of speech -- under America's protection, by the way -- most people regard him as a crackpot anyway.
Be that as it may, it is your last point that is the most important. If Chomsky's support for terrorists does not really help them, then no, we should not waste our time and money prosecuting him for treason. (And it would be contrary to protecting freedom of speech to do so.) So long as all he does is say that America is evil, etc., etc., etc, then fine. But if he aids our enemy, then we should prosecute him.
Hope that helps.
Gus
Gus,
I think we're in agreement on the legal level. It seems though that you justify the 'War on Terrorism' - if there can ever be such a war. Would you not agree that the decision to invade and the circumstances have been the result of seriously flawed foreign policy by the Bush administration?
Castadeus,
I have already made the point elsewhere in this blog that we should be fighting a declared war.
Bush's stated war objectives (i.e., the "Forward Strategy of Freedom"), while not optimal, could work (due to the military ineptitude of our enemy) if carried out consistently, but even this is not being done, and the whole enterprise is in jeopardy of backfiring.
A more proper approach would be to strike at the heart of the Islamist enemy by oerthrowing the regimes of Iran and Saudi Arabia, which are the main finaciers and ideological backers of the Islamic war on civilization.
Gus
Ok. Do you agree then that the way to prevent terrorism is by blasting the hell out of countries that harbour them - after which, terrorism all over the world will melt away like ice? And will you define the enemy? Is Islam the enemy or some other?
Castadeus,
Yes. But only in the long run.
Will it make terrorism "melt away like ice" as you sarcastically put it? Probably not. No war has magically ended after a single blow. We would have to do a few other things, like blockading "Palestine" and taking over the oil fields used to finance terrorism. Basically, we (meaning the West) should do whatever it takes to make the enemy unable to strike at us the way it did again. "Whatever it takes" is defined by whatever is necessary to make the enemy physically or psychologically unable or unwilling to try a stunt like the September 11, 2001 atrocities again. Why? Simply because our enemy have stated in word and shown in deed that they will do exactly that to us if we sit on our hands and let them do it.
The real question is for people who seem to think that actually fighting back -- something I do not think Bush has done very well -- is useless, and it is this: "Do you think that by doing nothing, or by taking orders from terrorists, that this will somehow magically deter their butchery -- or cause them to stop ordering us around?"
Of course, to Chomsky, America is the terrorist state, his unfortunately prolonged existence as a free man to the contrary. For him and his followers, the above question is totally irrelevant, because they are indifferent to the threat to freedom posed by Islam, and see no moral difference between the butchers of Islam and the armed forces of a free nation acting to defend itself from them.
Gus
Gus,
I'm afraid I haven't received a direct answer to my question 'is Islam the enemy or some other?' In fairness to you, although I think your answer indicates, I will not state presumptions. What I'm driving at is: do you make distinctions between Islam and radical Islam or is it all the same to you? Do you think that Islam is the driving factor of terrorism or that the doctrine of Islam is being used as a populist tool in a move towards delegitimation and terrorism?
Castadeus,
Islam, an ideology, is no more an enemy than terrorism, a tactic, is. It is nation-states that aid and abet terrorism, the terrorists themselves, and their accomplices who are the enemy in this war.
Having said that, I do regard Islam and all other religions as fundamentally at odds with the requirements of man's life because they demand a renunciation of reason, and abject surrender to allegedly divine dictates.
Religions do this to greater or lesser degrees, but the worst hands down in this respect is Islam, which has no strong tradition of rational inquiry or of religious toleration, and which incites violence and murder against unbelievers. I regard the religion as fundamentally evil and am very suspicious of its followers.
Gus
Gus,
I wish to quote you:
"Islam, which has no strong tradition of rational inquiry or of religious toleration, and which incites violence and murder against unbelievers."
May I enquire as to the facts on which you base your confidant claim that Islam 'incites violence and murder against unbelievers. Although not a member of the faith myself, I would encourage you to do your homework before resorting to such seemingly authoritative but baseless and misinformed claims.
Castedeus.
Castadeus,
For incitement, might I suggest an authoritative book on Islam, by a man named "Mohammed"? The book contains numerous famous passages calling for attacks on nonbelievers I need not quote again. Its title seems to change every few months or so, depending upon which method of transliterating Arabic is in fashion, but the title is pronounced, "Koran".
Might I also suggest listening to the words of the terrorists themselves, who frequently cite religious motivations for their murders.
I have even read a book here and there. You can learn a few of these by perusing my blog.
But yes, believe it or not, I do have a basis for my "claim" about Islam, as surprising as this might be to someone who seems to disagree. In fact, you are the only visitor to this blog who seems unaware of the general lines of evidence I cite and have blogged about numerous times in the past.
But no. I am not going to reproduce this all in detail here, for you, personally. Why? Because if, in the years since September 11, 2001 you really haven't noticed a theme by now, you never will and nothing I can say is going to change your mind. And if you have, and are still asking questions like this, interrogating me as if I am some sort of war criminal, then you are no better than a terrorist yourself. In either case, I am wasting my time.
I do not owe you an explanation for my views, and I do not intend to give you one. I am finished with this conversation.
Good day, and may you not be confronted by any fatal evidence that Islam is a violent religion!
Gus
Castadeus:
Please come on down to faithfreedom.org and debate us on Islam. The Awful Truth of Islam is opened up already.
Ansar al-Zindiqi
Post a Comment