Greta Berlin
Once again, as we witness American activists (like Greta Berlin-above) engaging in action against a US ally (Israel) with this latest flotiilla to Gaza, isn't time that our vaunted Justice Department take a look at the US Code, specifically Title 18 USC 962?
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/718/usc_sec_18_00000962----000-.html
§ 962. Arming vessel against friendly nation
Whoever, within the United States, furnishes, fits out, arms, or attempts to furnish, fit out or arm, any vessel, with intent that such vessel shall be employed in the service of any foreign prince, or state, or of any colony, district, or people, to cruise, or commit hostilities against the subjects, citizens, or property of any foreign prince or state, or of any colony, district, or people with whom the United States is at peace; or
Whoever issues or delivers a commission within the United States for any vessel, to the intent that she may be so employed—
Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.
Every such vessel, her tackle, apparel, and furniture, together with all materials, arms, ammunition, and stores which may have been procured for the building and equipment thereof, shall be forfeited, one half to the use of the informer and the other half to the use of the United States.
What do you think? As Greta van Susteren would say, let's ask our expert legal panel.
"Uhhhh.....yeaaaah."
The second question is whether the current Justice Department under Attorney General Eric Holder would even enforce the law if it did apply. It seems to me clear that anti-Israel activists in the US are engaging in hostile action against a key US ally. They are attempting to conduct their own form of foreign affairs. The last flotilla resulted in violent resistance, indeed, physical assault against the Israeli troops attempting to board the Mavi Marmara. As a result, 8 persons were killed-fortunately all bad guys.
Is this the kind of action American citizens should be involved in against an American ally? In this case, they are attempting to break a naval blockade by Israel designed to keep weapons out of the hands of Hamas-a terrorist organization by our own designation. The Israelis have provided a reasonable method of delivery of legitimate humanitarian goods to Gaza through an authorized port subject to inspection. The activists reject this. Their purpose is to provoke a violent incident with Israel in their campaign of deligitimization.
It is time for the American government and the Justice Department to investigate whether these American activists are violating American law, and, if so, enforce the law.
While they are at it, they can investigate people like Brit George Galloway for coming to our shores and teaming up with other radicals like New York City politician Charles Barron in collecting and delivering funds to Hamas in Gaza.
Don't hold your breath.
I admire the legal research Gary, but there is a lot that would have to be established in order to apply that statute.
ReplyDeleteWere any of the boats fitted out in the United States?
Assuming that the statute applies to a citizen of the United States participating in fitting out a boat in a foreign country for the purpose described, was any American citizen a participant in bringing arms aboard?
Does the fact that some persons on a boat are personally armed constitute fitting out a boat with arms?
(I have no doubt that bringing a supply of arms and ammunition aboard, as cargo, or for the purpose of arming all or most of the complement of the boat, would be arming the boat. It would not require putting artillery into position for firing).
I'll stop there, since your set-up does not allow me to read back over your text while typing a comment. Interesting, but quite possibly not worth much time by Justice Department staff, no matter how much they love Israel.
Charlie,
ReplyDeleteThey don't pay me to do they legwork. That is the job of the investigators. How about conspiracy to violate the statue? Then you don't have to prove that a certain person did a specific act, but that they were a part of the conspiracy.
Conspiracy? That's my field... studying the law about it, I mean. To prove conspiracy, you have to prove that the individual charged was aware of, and intended to join, the illegal objectives of the conspiracy. A sincere "I thought this was a peaceful civil disobedience action" would be a valid defence.
ReplyDeleteI'm sure you know that would-be revolutionists often maneuver a peaceful protest up against a police line, then start throwing rocks, or whatever, putting everyone in the line of fire.
In MOST conspiracy law, although - due to a typographical oversight by congress, which activist judges elevated to mandatory authority - not in Title 21, it is also necessary to prove an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy.
If you have evidence of an American citizen carrying a crate of rifles on board, you would have a case. That said, I would not care to volunteer for any of these ships.
Siarlys,
ReplyDeleteYou are correct that Title 21 (drug law) technically does not require an overt act. As a matter of paracicality, it ewould be pretty hard to convince a prosecutor to take a case without one.
Alos keep in mind, once the agreement is made the overt act can be carried out by any of the co-conspirators to make the conspiracy complete. An overt act also does not have to be a crime in itself. For example, buying a boat is not illegal, but would be an overt act in furtherence of the conspiracy.
Gary, there are people who got 18 years on the uncorroborated testimony of an informer desperate to get time off his own sentence, for crimes he HAD committed, that at some party several people had talked about how they were going to start a meth lab. No lab equipment, no raw materials, nothing produced... and the sentence was based on an "expert witness" opinion about how much they might have produced if they had ever acted on the alleged intention.
ReplyDeleteYou are either badly informed, blindfolded, or incredibly naive about how these laws play out in real life.
As for buying a boat, IF an American citizen bought a boat on American soil, with the intention that it would be armed for hostilities against a national with which the United States is at peace, yes, that would definitely be an overt act.
But if an American citizen flew to Greece with the intention of boarding a boat to transport food and medicines in violation of the military edicts of a nation with which the U.S. is at peace, that would not be evidence of conspiracy to commit anything but nonviolent civil disobedience.
Siarlys,
ReplyDeleteYou have quoted some case that you couldn't put a dog in the pound on that evidence. Where was the overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy? Why don't you give the name of the case and then we can examine it together.
This seems to be wandering a bit off topic. A more salient question would be, were any of the vessels assembling in Greece, or previously assembled in Turkey, purchased or leased in the United States for this purpose? If not, did American citizens procure arms in the United States for this purpose? If not, are any Americans participating in the effort aware of intent to launch a military attack -- and if so, is that within the ambit of the statute?
ReplyDeleteSeems like a stretch to me.