Not-so-innocents Abroad
The New York Times reported on the acquittal of a young Muslim-American from Virginia accused of participating in a "jihad network." You see, he was playing a lot of paintball with his Muslim friends, some of whom were linked to Lashkar-e-Taiba, a U.S. designated terrorist organization dedicated to the Muslim control of Kashmir. The judge concluded that defendant Caliph Basha Ibn Abdur-Raheem was "just an ordinary run-of-the-mill paintball player." (Yes, the judge is a Clinton appointee.)
At any rate, I found the following passage curious:
Prosecutors asserted that the defendants played paintball in the Friedricksburg area to prepare for combat against Indian forces in Kashmir. Some of the defendants have been charged under a law that bars Americans from waging war against countries that are at peace with the United States.
I didn't know there was such a law on the books. I'm curious about when the law was passed and what its intended scope was, because I find it questionable.
On the one hand, it seems reasonable for the U.S. government to prohibit Americans from participating in terrorist activities in foreign countries. (Reasonable, but also hypocritical, given the CIA's sordid history in this regard.)
However, I don't think the government has the right to prohibit Americans from participating in foreign wars in which it is not actively involved. For example, the U.S. government did not participate in the Spanish Civil War, and yet it seemed perfectly legitimate for individual American citizens, on their own accord, to participate in that war.
I also wonder whether the law raises problems for the many private companies with American employees that provide military services in countries "at peace with" the United States.
Finally, I find the law questionable on consequentialist grounds. American companies that sell lethal weapons used in foreign wars do far more harm than the participation of individual citizens. In fact, the participation of individual citizens makes so small of a difference that I wonder why anyone thinks it is worth the infringement on people's liberty.
UPDATE
The defendant was charged under the Neutrality Act.
According to Encyclopedia.com, it is a
law passed by the U.S. Congress and signed by President Franklin Delano Roosevelt in Aug., 1935. It was designed to keep the United States out of a possible European war by banning shipment of war materiel to belligerents at the discretion of the President and by forbidding U.S. citizens from traveling on belligerent vessels except at their own risk. The demand for this legislation arose from the conviction of many Americans that U.S. entry into World War I had been a mistake. This conviction was strengthened by the well-publicized investigations by a Senate committee headed by Gerald P. Nye of American war loans to the Allies. The Neutrality Act was amended (Feb., 1936) to prohibit the granting of loans to belligerents, and later (Jan. and May, 1937) neutrality was extended to cover civil wars, a step inspired by the Spanish civil war. In Nov., 1939, the act was revised in favor of supplying warring nations on the [base "]cash-and-carry[per thou] principle; but U.S. vessels were excluded from combat zones, and U.S. citizens were forbidden from sailing on belligerent vessels. These provisions were lifted by amendment in Nov., 1941, after the lend-lease policy had been established. The act was thus practically out of operation even before American neutrality ended with Pearl Harbor.
The defendant was specifically charged under Title 18, Section 960 of the federal code.
Title 18 Sec. 960. - Expedition against friendly nation
Whoever, within the United States, knowingly begins or sets on foot or provides or prepares a means for or furnishes the money for, or takes part in, any military or naval expedition or enterprise to be carried on from thence against the territory or dominion of any foreign prince or state, or of any colony, district, or people with whom the United States is at peace, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.
Some comments:
- The history of the Neutrality Act underscores my original point. The ostensive purpose of the law was to avoid American entanglement in foreign wars. With the beginning of Lend-Lease, the U.S. repealed the provisions regarding selling arms abroad. And as history has proven, selling arms can lead to just as many (if not more) foreign entanglements as allowing citizens to participate in fighting abroad. In fact, I would argue that there is no comparison -- the troubles from arms sales far outweigh any potential difficulties (if there are any) for American interests in permitting individual citizens, on their own accord, to participate in foreign wars. Thus, I don't think it's right to allow one and forbid the other.
- The defendants with alleged Lashkar-e-Taiba ties visited a training camp before the U.S. designated the group a terrorist organization.
- There was some evidence that the defendants took an interest in the conflicts in Chechnya, Kashmir and Palestine. Clearly, the U.S. has important ties with Russia, India and Israel, and as I noted before, there is good reason to prohibit participation in terrorist activities. But I still question the right of the government to forbit an individual citizen to participate, on his own accord, in a war in which the United States is not involved. The individual's action does not represent U.S. policy, it does not lead to foreign entanglements (the original concern of the Neutrality Act), and we're talking about deep-seated aspects of people's identity here.
2:21:39 AM 
|
|
