Mohammed Hamzah Khan, aged 19, was indicted by a federal grand jury in Chicago on Jan. 8. He had been arrested at O'Hare Airport by the FBI for trying to join ISIS. My personal opinion? I don't have a problem with Americans joining ISIS. In fact, I believe it is their constitutional right to do so:
Ninth Amendment:
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be
construed to deny or disparage others retained by the
people."
One such right is the right of self-defense. If one thinks of one's self as being part of a larger entity - for instance ISIS and the ideals it represents - then one has a right to defend that self.
Tenth Amendment
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."
One such power reserved to the people is the power of individual sovereignty. When the 13 states joined the union, they had surrendered a portion of their state sovereignty - but not all of it. In like manner, the individual citizen has a degree of sovereignty. If the US Congress had declared war on ISIS, then Khan could not have exercised his personal sovereignty. But...Congress did no such thing.
He should have
Khan could have avoided this mess when he was stopped for questioning at the airport. Typically, the FBI asks, "Where are you going and why?" All Khan had to do was say, "That's none of your business." Once Khan admitted he was going to join ISIS, then the FBI had probable cause to obtain a search warrant which yielded evidence that he intended to join ISIS.
If Khan had said "None of your business," the FBI would have had to let him board that plane. There are lots of people who fly to Turkey, so the FBI would not have had probable cause.
Closing Comments
As for it being against the law to support terrorism, then it should be against the law to join the CIA or the US army. They engaged in terrorist acts - enhanced interrogation and waterboarding come to mind. Our own police departments also do this, though we don't even think twice when we hear of suspects being interrogated for 20 hours straight. During the Israeli campaign to free themselves from British rule, there were young, idealistic Jews from the US who joined a variety of militias, some of which engaged in terrorist acts; they weren't stopped at the airport and questioned.
Then there's the case of a young, former US military man who was interviewed recently on TV. He is now fighting with the Kurds against ISIS. However, I don't recall that US policy involves boots on the ground, only that advisors would help out. Is this man in violation of US policy?
So where do we draw a line or should we? Maybe Western volunteers for ISIS might end up getting killed in battle, or come to recoil from the horrors of war, or serve as a moderating influence within ISIS. Of course, that last is dangerous and might cost them their lives. Once a person makes a decision to engage in an activity that might cost him his life, he should be respected for his decision to the greatest degree possible and allowed to proceed.
If convicted, Khan could face a maximum sentence of 15 years in prison and a $250,000 fine. Fifteen years? That ought to be enough time to further radicalize this young man. Not to mention his circle of friends and family members. One thing we've become very good at: Creating more terrorists.
One such right is the right of self-defense. If one thinks of one's self as being part of a larger entity - for instance ISIS and the ideals it represents - then one has a right to defend that self.
Tenth Amendment
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."
One such power reserved to the people is the power of individual sovereignty. When the 13 states joined the union, they had surrendered a portion of their state sovereignty - but not all of it. In like manner, the individual citizen has a degree of sovereignty. If the US Congress had declared war on ISIS, then Khan could not have exercised his personal sovereignty. But...Congress did no such thing.
He should have
Khan could have avoided this mess when he was stopped for questioning at the airport. Typically, the FBI asks, "Where are you going and why?" All Khan had to do was say, "That's none of your business." Once Khan admitted he was going to join ISIS, then the FBI had probable cause to obtain a search warrant which yielded evidence that he intended to join ISIS.
If Khan had said "None of your business," the FBI would have had to let him board that plane. There are lots of people who fly to Turkey, so the FBI would not have had probable cause.
Closing Comments
As for it being against the law to support terrorism, then it should be against the law to join the CIA or the US army. They engaged in terrorist acts - enhanced interrogation and waterboarding come to mind. Our own police departments also do this, though we don't even think twice when we hear of suspects being interrogated for 20 hours straight. During the Israeli campaign to free themselves from British rule, there were young, idealistic Jews from the US who joined a variety of militias, some of which engaged in terrorist acts; they weren't stopped at the airport and questioned.
Then there's the case of a young, former US military man who was interviewed recently on TV. He is now fighting with the Kurds against ISIS. However, I don't recall that US policy involves boots on the ground, only that advisors would help out. Is this man in violation of US policy?
So where do we draw a line or should we? Maybe Western volunteers for ISIS might end up getting killed in battle, or come to recoil from the horrors of war, or serve as a moderating influence within ISIS. Of course, that last is dangerous and might cost them their lives. Once a person makes a decision to engage in an activity that might cost him his life, he should be respected for his decision to the greatest degree possible and allowed to proceed.
If convicted, Khan could face a maximum sentence of 15 years in prison and a $250,000 fine. Fifteen years? That ought to be enough time to further radicalize this young man. Not to mention his circle of friends and family members. One thing we've become very good at: Creating more terrorists.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Steven Searle, just another member of the
Virtual Samgha of the Lotus and
Former Candidate for US President (2008 & 2012)
Contact me at bpa_cinc@yahoo.com
No comments:
Post a Comment