Foreign Terrorist Organisations : Legal and Logical Loopholes, and Lopsided Labeling
Legal and Logical Loopholes, and Lopsided Labeling
Publication date: 2021-11-27
The British national news service, the BBC, informs us that their Home Secretary, Priti Patel, wishes to declare Hamas as a "terrorist group". Hamas has a para-military wing, which Gazan Palestinians probably see as a civilian defense force, which is already designated as a "terrorist group". The new determination is to have their political "wing" also declared a "terrorist group".
The Australian national news service, the ABC, implies that their Home Affairs minister Karen Andrews wishes to declare "the entirety of Hezbollah" to "also be listed as a terrorist organisation". Similarly to Hamas, some residents of Lebanon, in whose government the political "wing" of Hezbollah serve, may see the military wing of Hezbollah as a civil defense force.
Ignoring the paramilitary components and focusing on the political "wings", this is the UK and Australia outlawing (or placing various legal restrictions on their citizens supporting or endorsing) foreign political organisations.
Before we consider this rather strange state of affairs, it is worth revisiting Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR). I quote:
Article 19
Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.
Article 30
Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein.
To summarize, no party to the declaration (i.e nation states) has any right to deny or inhibit their citizens' rights to hold or express opinions. I would add that political opinions are particularly important, and the repression thereof is especially heinous. Nonetheless, here we have two governments of the "western liberal democracy" type declaring restrictions on their citizens' rights to express support for foreign political organisations. I cannot see how they can square this with any commitment to the UDHR. One can declare ones support for the Kitten Loving Society of North Dakota, the USA's Confederate States, the Cuban Communist Party or Hamas, and everyone else is free to express why you are poorly informed and/or should not be listened to.
One thing that the slave owning, wealthy white male, "founders" of the USA got right in their 1st Amendment of the USA's constitution was freedom of expression and assembly. These are fundamental ideas, and backsliding is a very, very bad idea.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
But, it would seem that things have been backsliding, and one may think that the UK and Australia are taking their lead from the USA's State Department's Foreign Terrorist Organisations list (FTOL) in which we find both Hizbollah (Hezbollah) and HAMAS.
The thing that I love about the USA is that they are sticklers for citing their laws and thus the legal justification for whatever it is they're up to. For the FTOL, its a cracker, so lets dive in. The usual "IANAL" (I am not a lawyer) caveat applies. The linked page which lists the FTOs further links to the legal justification, another "archived" page at the State Department's website, which provides the legal text of the relevant law(s), in this case "section 212 (a)(3)(B) of the INA (8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(3)(B))". I shall de-legalize the text. It states that terrorist activity is anything that is already illegal AND involves also any of 6 things. Part 5 (V), sub-section 2 (II) is:
The use of any -- explosive, firearm, or other weapon or dangerous device (other than for mere personal monetary gain), with intent to endanger, directly or indirectly, the safety of one or more individuals or to cause substantial damage to property.
This is a fascinating legal statement. To whit, the use of explosives or guns for personal monetary gain is NOT by definition a terrorist act. Because accrual of wealth by violence is not terrorism. But, a police officer shooting a civilian neither in self defense nor for personal monetary gain is a terrorist act. Hmmm. How many USA police officers have been charged with terrorism, given that they kill 2 or 3 people a day?
The legal text continues to further define "terrorist activity" with a long list of “commit, prepare, gather, solicit” and other verbiage and concludes with a lovely caveat:
This clause shall not apply to any material support the alien afforded to an organization or individual that has committed terrorist activity, if the Secretary of State, after consultation with the Attorney General, or the Attorney General, after consultation with the Secretary of State, concludes in his sole unreviewable discretion, that that this clause should not apply.
Which is to say that officers of the executive branch of the government can exclude whomever and whichever persons or organisations from "terrorist activity", and the decision is “unreviewable”. To quote one member of the Apache helicopter gunship crews who were murdering civilians in Iraq in 2007, as shown in the Collateral Murder video from Wikileaks (see sources): “Nice”.
Someone could charge, with mountains of evidence that the USA's government is the greatest purveyor of terror and terrorist activity on the planet, but the government would respond that pursuant to section 212 (a)(3)(B) of the INA (8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(3)(B)) subsection something we are exempt.
For more fun, at the end, is this bit about "terrorist organisations"
that is a group of two or more individuals, whether organized or not, which engages in ...
What is a "group of two or more" "individuals, whether organized or not"? Congress?
Joseph Heller would be laughing his arse off.
Sources
Hamas to be declared a terrorist group by UK, No Author, BBC, 2021-11-19
Australia lists neo-Nazi organisation The Base, Lebanese Shia party Hezbollah as terrorist organisations, Henry Belot, ABC (Australian Broadcasting Corporation), 2021-11-24
Foreign Terrorist Organizations, BUREAU OF COUNTERTERRORISM, USA State Department, no date of publication but viewed 2021-11-17
Immigration and Nationality Act Section 212, Office of the Coordinator for Counterterrorism, USA State Department, linked to from the above Foreign Terrorist Organisations but stated as ARCHIVE and published 2008-04-08
UK Declares Hamas Terrorist Organization, Richard Medhurst, his youtube channel, 2021-11-27
WikiLeaks: Collateral Murder (Iraq, 2007), People Over Politics youtube channel, uploaded 2012-08-08
Do Not Subscribe: This blog does not and will not ever issue "notifications". Do not "subscribe", it wont help. Use RSS. The URL is the obvious: https://yesxorno.substack.com/feed .
If you like what you read here then thank the author by sharing it.
Copyright and Licensing
This work is copyright to the blog's author with CC BY-SA 4.0 licensing. Have fun, reuse, remix etc. but give credit and place no further restrictions. Lets build culture. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/legalcode