Should We Be Preventing People From Joining ISIS?

[Lord Jim]

I'm not so sure...

What got me thinking about this were the two most recent "lone wolf" terrorist attacks in Canada...

In both cases, intel correctly identified them, and the government confiscated their passports to prevent them from flying to Turkey and then going on to Syria to hook up with ISIS...

All this did was piss them off to the point that they immediately turned around and conducted domestic attacks...

Wouldn't it be better to just let them go, and then bomb the hell out of the training camps in Syria and deal with them that way?

[MajGenl.Meade]

[Gob]

Ouch!

I'm all for encouraging them to go to Syria. If they don't get shot by the opposition, bomb them.

[Lord Jim]

If they don't get shot by the opposition, bomb them.

In fact maybe what we should be doing rather than trying to stop people who are keen to join up with these medieval sociopaths is providing them with free one way tickets...

We get them out of our societies, and they get to become Martyrs for Allah...

Sounds like a win-win...

[oldr_n_wsr]

Tough question.
Something is missing in their lives. An identity, peace, a job, love of family. I don't know. As someone who tried to "off" themselves, I know what they are feeling. Some turn to drugs and alcohol to get what is missing. These people find a "cause" alog with having someone else telling them what to do (shoot the infidels) so they don't have to figure it out for themselves.

[rubato]

I'm not so sure...

What got me thinking about this were the two most recent "lone wolf" terrorist attacks in Canada...

In both cases, intel correctly identified them, and the government confiscated their passports to prevent them from flying to Turkey and then going on to Syria to hook up with ISIS...

All this did was piss them off to the point that they immediately turned around and conducted domestic attacks...

Wouldn't it be better to just let them go, and then bomb the hell out of the training camps in Syria and deal with them that way?

Preventing them from leaving did not cause them to do what they did. And until we can know the future, it is impossible to determine in advance who will do something like this and who will not.

There is an element of social momentum to this; when one goes he becomes a model and an inspiration to others in his social circle to follow. It is a self-accelerating phenomenon.

It is possible that close surveillance or some other method might have prevented it. I don't think this is a failing only an opportunity for the future.

yrs,
rubato

[Guinevere]

You mean other than that little problem of the US Constitution? Do you intend to detain them based on their thoughts or ideas? What exactly is the basis and authority for this "preventative" action?

[Big RR]

You mean other than that little problem of the US Constitution?

While I agree with you theoretically, constitutional rights and guarantees are pretty worthless now in this day and age of the "war" on terror. Ask the people in Gitmo held for 12 years + without a charge or hearing. If the government wants to do something, it will; and for the most part the USSC will chime in and excuse it.

[MajGenl.Meade]

Having posed the question, LJ answered it with a "no". But in terms of "joining", I take it to mean the travelling to foreign climes in order to get video taken of them cutting off citizens' heads. I suppose that if the U.S. gov wants to ban travel to certain places, then they can. The arseholes will then of course travel to Italy or Greece or some nearby country not on the proscribed list and then make it to ragland any way they can. So travel bans wouldn't work. That leaves the Canadian solution of confiscating passports which as we know definitely prevents illegal movements across the US border. Can the US gov confiscate passports?

ETA apostrophe correction (aka Biter Bit)

[Big RR]

They can and often have, particularly in times of hysteria. fro example, with the "red scare", the respected scientist, Linus Pauling (already a Nobel laureate in chemistry), was denied a passport to travel to Oslo to collect his Nobel Peace Prize (mainly because it was received in connection with his work in support of a nuclear test ban treaty). I'm not certain what process is needed to deny a passport, but denial is permissible.

[Sue U]

citizen's heads

Indicates a problem much more severe than travel bans. Hydraphobia, perhaps?

[MajGenl.Meade]

[Big RR]

Hydraphobia

[Sue U]

I don't know that it's either practical or good public policy -- let alone constitutional -- for the US government to prevent its citizens from merely joining any organization or traveling to any particular area. However, I don't see a problem in criminalizing certain acts committed abroad, as has long been the case with extraterritorial jurisdiction over US citizens; committing acts of terrorism overseas is just as illegal as committing them at home (isn't it?).

In the bigger picture, though, would/should Americans have been prevented from volunteering in France as aviators and ambulance drivers at the outbreak of WWI, or from serving in the French Foreign Legion? Would/should the volunteers of the Abraham Lincoln Brigade been prevented from participating in the Spanish Civil War? Would/should the Flying Tigers have been prevented from volunteering in China before WWII?

[MajGenl.Meade]

18 U.S. Code § 959 - Enlistment in foreign service
(a) Whoever, within the United States, enlists or enters himself, or hires or retains another to enlist or enter himself, or to go beyond the jurisdiction of the United States with intent to be enlisted or entered in the service of any foreign prince, state, colony, district, or people as a soldier or as a marine or seaman on board any vessel of war, letter of marque, or privateer, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.

Wiborg v. United States 163 U.S. 632 (1896) apparently (and I'm just a parrot here) interpreted this to mean that it was only illegal for citizens to be recruited for a foreign army in the United States, not to simply fight in one. In that case the courted cited Title LXVII of the Revised Statutes, headed "Neutrality," which embraces eleven sections, from 5281 to 5291, inclusive - I couldn't find a direct link to that Title. Legal beagles to the fore!

A few caveats: If an American joins an army engaged in hostilities against the United States, that's considered an act of treason and punishable by death. The law also, obviously, doesn't sanction membership in designated terrorist organizations, though the family of "American Taliban" John Walker Lindh has tried to argue that he was simply serving in the armed forces of another country and didn't intend to aid al Qaeda or attack U.S. troops... If you hold a U.S. passport, you'll note that it advises that you "may lose your U.S. citizenship" by "serving in the armed forces of a foreign state." The word may is critical. In the 1967 case Afroyim v. Rusk, the Supreme Court ruled that under the 14th amendment, U.S. citizens cannot be involuntarily stripped of their citizenship. (That case involved a dual U.S.-Israeli citizen who had his U.S. citizenship revoked after voting in an Israeli election, but the precedent applies to military service as well.) Since then, the government has had to prove that an individual joined a foreign army with the intention of relinquishing his or her U.S. citizenship. The army in question must be engaged in hostilities against the United States or the individual must serve as an officer

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2 ... try_s_army

[Sue U]

So, as succinctly stated in the linked article's headline:

Is It Legal for Americans to Fight in Another Country's Army?
For the most part, yes, unless they're fighting against America

[MajGenl.Meade]

And you bill by the hour....??!!

[Sue U]

And you bill by the hour....??!!

Just think how much you've gotten for free right here!

[Jarlaxle]

Tough question.
Something is missing in their lives. An identity, peace, a job, love of family

Sanity?

[Lord Jim]

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.