Preventing them from leaving did not cause them to do what they did.
Well, we can discuss all of the life experience factors that played a role, but it's been pretty well established that it was the immediate proximate triggering cause...
And it's obviously indisputable that had they
not been prevented from leaving the country, they would
not have done what they did...(Since they would have, uh, no longer been physically present in Canada to do it...)
It is possible that close surveillance or some other method might have prevented it.
I thought about the surveillance angle, but there really aren't sufficient police resources to provide comprehensive surveillance on a long term basis in situations like that...
And as others have pointed out, you can't very well go around incarcerating every person who you suspect might join a terrorist organization...
The fact is that from a security stand point the real issue for the US and other Western nations really isn't letting people
leave to join up with ISIS....
It's having the legal mechanisms necessary to nab them, hold them, charge them, and prosecute them when they
return, should they unfortunately not wind up being killed in battle or by bombing...
Rather than just letting them come back in and then waiting around for them to apply their new found skills before we can deal with them...
It seems that even under existing law, there are a whole slew of statutes they can be arrested and prosecuted under upon their return (this is an excerpt from an
excellent piece on the subject; for anyone really interested in the topic, I recommend following the link to the article; there are a number of other links there to the specific laws mentioned):
Americans who fight abroad can face a variety of criminal charges, depending on the particular facts associated with their fighting. The May 14, 2014 State Department designation of ISIS as a foreign terrorist organization is an important fact that satisfies an element of the offense for prosecutions under some of the statutes discussed below. Interestingly, some of the alleged criminal conduct may have pre-dated the State Department’s ISIS designation, which could pose a problem if Muhumed or others are apprehended and prosecuted. The problem would be surmountable though, so long as the criminal activity continued to occur after the State Department designation.
Below is a run down of some of the applicable provisions of federal criminal law.
If the Americans fighting for ISIS, prior to leaving the United States, agreed with others to fight for ISIS (where fighting means killing or injuring others) and took some steps toward achieving that agreement, they may be subject to federal laws which criminalize conspiracies to engage in violence against people or property overseas. Specifically, it is unlawful to conspire within the United States, to commit murder, kidnapping, or maiming outside the United States, or to destroy foreign government property of a government with which the United States is at peace. An individual can be prosecuted so long as one overt act of the conspiracy takes place within the United States. The crime carries with it a sentence of life in prison if the aim of the conspiracy is to murder or kidnap, up to 35 years in prison if the aim of the conspiracy is to maim, and up to 25 years in prison if the aim of the conspiracy is to damage certain property. Importantly, this offense criminalizes the conspiracy, one need not successfully carry out the violent or destructive acts to be prosecuted.
If while abroad, the Americans fighting for ISIS take hostages, they may face charges for hostage taking, which is a death penalty eligible offense if the death of any person results from the offense. To have jurisdiction over hostage taking abroad, the offender or person seized must be a United States national, or the offender must later be found in the United States.
Americans fighting for ISIS may also face charges for Bombings of Places of Public Use, Government Facilities, Pubic Transportation Systems and Infrastructure Facilities. Federal law criminalizes placing, discharging, or detonating an explosive device in a place of public use, a state or government facility, a public transportation system, or an infrastructure facility with the intent to cause death or serious bodily injury or extensive damage to the structure. For such bombings abroad, an individual can be prosecuted if: the perpetrator “is a national of the United States or is a stateless person whose habitual residence is in the United States”, “if a victim is a national of the United States” or “if a perpetrator is found in the United States.” (along with a handful of other ways of finding jurisdiction).
There are also terrorism statutes which may also apply to the conduct of Americans fighting on behalf of ISIS.
If individuals fighting for ISIS harm United States persons, even accidentally, they could be subject to federal laws which criminalize Terrorist Attacks Abroad Against United States Nationals. The crime includes killing, attempts to kill, and conspiracies to kill United States nationals outside the United States. It also criminalizes physical violence outside the United States if that physical violence is committed with the intent to cause serious bodily harm to a United States person or ends up resulting in serious bodily harm to a United States person. The punishment for committing terrorist attacks abroad against United States Nationals ranges from the death penalty downward to three years of imprisonment in the case of involuntary manslaughter (accidental killings). Prosecutions for such attacks abroad may only occur if the Attorney General certifies that the crime was “intended to coerce, intimidate, or retaliate against a government or a civilian population.”
Federal law also criminalizes Providing Material Support To Terrorists and Providing Material Support Or Resources To Designated Terrorist Organizations. The first offense requires the government prove that the defendant intended that his material support would be used to commit or to prepare for a lengthy list of predicate offenses that could support terrorism. The second offense, providing material support to a designated terrorist organization, requires that the support go to a group that is in fact designated by the State Department as a foreign terrorist organization (here the provision of material support will need to occur or continue to occur after the group was designated as an FTO). The punishment for providing material support ranges from 15 years in prison to a life sentence if death results from the conduct. Material support includes all manner of things that can aid an enemy group, specifically:
the term “material support or resources” means any property, tangible or intangible, or service, including currency or monetary instruments or financial securities, financial services, lodging, training, expert advice or assistance, safehouses, false documentation or identification, communications equipment, facilities, weapons, lethal substances, explosives, personnel (1 or more individuals who may be or include oneself), and transportation, except medicine or religious materials;
If the Americans fighting for ISIS received training from ISIS at any point after its designation as an FTO, they could also be punished for Receiving Military-Type Training From A Foreign Terrorist Organization. This statute criminalizes receiving training from or on behalf of a designated foreign terrorist organization. Training is broadly construed as instruction in means or methods that can cause death, serious bodily injury, destruction of property, disruption of critical infrastructure, weapons and firearm training. Importantly, once an individual receives military training, they have likely satisfied the overt act necessary to prosecute them for a conspiracy to provide material support, with the material support being themselves (as personnel). Receiving military training is punishable by a mandatory 10 year sentence in prison.
All six of the crimes listed above might be possible charges against individuals fighting on behalf of ISIS. As would conspiracy charges against individuals who agreed to engage in any of the specified crimes above (or others), assuming the elements of conspiracy are satisfied.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/gregorymcne ... l-charges/
So the most important thing isn't to stop these people from leaving; it's to have them nailed as soon as they cross the border should they return. Being able to have the alarm bells go off when one of them comes back is where we should focus our resources. It makes more sense from a security standpoint, and it's less problematic from a legal one.
