>CB: You don't produce a valid legal argument for punishing the whole "army"
>of Al Queda for September 11 events. At most only the leaders might be
>charged for conspiracy to commit murder, in the technical legal sense. The
>vast majority of Al Queda members would not have been involved in planning
>or conspiring to commit the Sept. 11 crime, and would not be culpable for
>it.
This is probbaly true.
>Most of those legally culpable for September 11 crimes died on that day.
This we don't know. It was apparently a big operation.
>
>The U.S. attack on Afghanistan is definitely illegal pursuant to
>international law. The U.S. doesn't have the legal right to attack a
>country because it harbors criminals. This is outrageous from a legal
>standpoint.
Right.
>
>The U.S. armed forces are more "terrorists" than Al Queda, if you do a body
>count.
Not legally speaking, of course.
The legal category is "murder" not "terrorism". Timothy McVeigh was not
convicted of "terrorism", but murder.
>
There is a federal crime of international terrorism. 18 U.S.C. sec. 2331, commiting violent acts or acts dangerous to human life that violate any state or federal law or would a criminal violationif committedinthe US that appear to be intended to intimidate or coerce civilians, to influence the policy of a govt by intiminidation or coercion, or to acffect the condict of a govt by assassiniation or kidnapping. This has been a bit expanded by the USA Patriot Act.Also illegal under 18 U.S.C sec 2332(b) is conduct that transcends national boundaries and involves killing, mamiming, assulating w deadly weapon or in a way that results in serious bodily injury, or creates a substantial risk thereof by destroying or damaging any structure, conveyance, or real or personal property within the US.
jks
_________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp