Legal Experts Your Advice Is Needed Here.

[Nur]

The Issue:

 

 

The Somali Community in Minneapolis is undergoing Federal investigations about some of the Somali youth who may have traveled to Somalia to defend their country of birth from Warlord criminals, Ethiopian Army incursions and civilian killings which are blessed by both the Bush Administration and the current Obama ( CHANGE YOU CAN DISBELIEVE IN) administration:

 

 

The FBI and Homeland security are concerned that these Somali youths have joined the Somali resistance forces, specially the Al Mujaaahidoon Al Shabaab Movement who controls most of the South of Somalia where the US has strategic Oil interests. The U S accuses that this movement have links with Al Qaeda and the Al Shabaab deny this accusation.

 

 

Legal Question

 

 

1. Does the US has a legal ground to indict any Somali American for joining the AL Shabaab movement? Why wasn't Mandela and the members of the ANC not indicted when they were visiting the US while they were officially on the "Terror" List from the days of the Apartheid up until 2007?

 

2. If Yes, does this mean that the US Domestic Law covers American citizens behavior overseas, so that any American in a foreign country who violates any Domestic American Law, can be prosecuted. For example, many American tourists travel overseas and commit illegal acts according to American Law, while the same action is legal in that foreign country, such as Holland which allows smoking of Marijuana and use of any drug of choice by tourists.

 

 

3. Is it legal under the US constitution for American Law enforcement to be politically selective, so that the Government can pick and choose who to indict and who not to indict? (based on the current policies of the US administration), because, there is a precedent of Israeli Americans who've joined many foreign Middle East wars in which at times, they were against the American forces and even killed Americans, in the case of the Israeli Army who employs many American Jews, who killed American Navy soldiers?

 

4. If the US attacks the country of origin of a Native born US Citizen, and by way of a political alliance ( Which can change with elected officials), The US Military is causing the death of one's relatives, what is the moral venues an American-Somali can take as well as the legal venues as provided by the US Constitution? Protest? Free Speech? what are the moral and legal limits?

 

5. Are intentions of joining a a group that is classified as a "Terror" group in itself a crime? Are intentions alone judged as punishable crime? beginning with denial of right to travel? and how does the government PROVE beyond reasonable doubt the intention of a Somali-American youth on his way overseas?

 

 

6. Here is a question I need a legal answer from the experts of American Law:

 

A. Terrorism is not clearly DEFINED ( Definition in dispute to the best of my understanding, are freedom fighters liberating their countries from American Occupation Terrorists?).

 

B. There are laws that prohibit practice of "Terrorism" and punish "terrorists"

 

C. The Legislative; Law makers in Congress and the Senate make the laws.

 

D. The Executive branch of US Government Identifies who is a " Terrorist"

 

E. US Government has a record of wrong identification of criminals, and Guantanamo prisoners are a good example, men as young as 14 years old who are kept in animal cages for seven years without any charge and then released without apology.

 

F. Is this JUSTICE FOR ALL? or for an elite?

 

The Somali Community in Minneapolis needs to take this case to the Supreme Court to test the American constitution's moral fiber.

 

Need your legal expertise to help these Somali Families.

 

 

The Story

 

 

2010 eNuri Paralegals

"If I tell a Lie, Allah will Punish me,

If I tell The Truth, Big Brother Will Punish me

If I Keep Quiet, My Conscious ill Punish me!"

 

Nur

[Naxar Nugaaleed]

they are terrorist and all the people who enabled these terrorist to go kill people half across the need to be rounded up.

 

Terrorism: n.

The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.

[Nur]

The Many Definitions of Terrorism

 

There is no official definition of terrorism agreed on throughout the world, and definitions tend to rely heavily on who is doing the defining and for what purpose. Some definitions focus on terrorist tactics to define the term, while others focus on the actor. Yet others look at the context and ask if it is military or not.

 

We will probably never arrive at a perfect definition to which we can all agree, although it does have characteristics to which we all point, like violence or its threat. Indeed, the only defining quality of terrorism may be the fact that it invites argument, since the label "terrorism" or "terrorist" arises when there is disagreement over whether an act of violence is justified (and those who justify it label themselves "revolutionaries" or "freedom fighters," etc.). So, in one sense, it may be fair to say that terrorism is exactly violence (or the threat of violence) in context where there will be disagreement over the use of that violence.

 

But this doesn't mean that no one has tried to define terrorism! In order to prosecute terrorist acts, or distinguish them from war and other violence that is condoned, national and international institutions, as well as others, have sought to define the term. Here are some of the most frequently cited definitions.

 

 

League of Nations Convention Definition of Terrorism, 1937

 

Ethnic separatist violence in the 1930s provoked the League of Nations, formed after World War I to encourage world stability and peace, to define terrorism for the first time, as:

 

All criminal acts directed against a State and intended or calculated to create a state of terror in the minds of particular persons or a group of persons or the general public.

 

 

The FBI defines terrorism as:

 

The unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a Government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.

 

 

The Department of Defense Dictionary of Military Terms defines terrorism as:

 

The calculated use of unlawful violence or threat of unlawful violence to inculcate fear; intended to coerce or to intimidate governments or societies in the pursuit of goals that are generally political, religious, or ideological.

 

 

Definition of Terrorism under U.S. Law

 

 

United States Law Code – the law that governs the entire country – contains a definition of terrorism embedded in its requirement that Annual Country reports on Terrorism be submitted by the Secretary of State to Congress every year. (From U.S. Code Title 22, Ch.38, Para. 2656f(d)

 

(d) Definitions

As used in this section—

(1) the term “international terrorism” means terrorism involving citizens or the territory of more than 1 country;

(2)the term “terrorism” means premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents;

(3) the term “terrorist group” means any group, or which has significant subgroups which practice, international terrorism;

(4) the terms “territory” and “territory of the country” mean the land, waters, and airspace of the country; and

(5) the terms “terrorist sanctuary” and “sanctuary” mean an area in the territory of the country—

(A) that is used by a terrorist or terrorist organization—

(i) to carry out terrorist activities, including training, fundraising, financing, and recruitment; or

(ii) as a transit point; and

(B) the government of which expressly consents to, or with knowledge, allows, tolerates, or disregards such use of its territory and is not subject to a determination under—

(i) section 2405(j)(1)(A) of the Appendix to title 50;

(ii) section 2371 (a) of this title; or

(iii) section 2780 (d) of this title.

 

 

Source: About.com

[Nur]

The definition of terrorism

 

A new US government report illustrates that any classification of terrorist groups is fundamentally motivated by self-interest, writes Brian Whitaker

 

Brian Whitaker

guardian.co.uk,

Monday 7 May 2001 10.12 BST

 

 

Decide for yourself whether to believe this, but according to a new report there were only 16 cases of international terrorism in the Middle East last year.

 

That is the lowest number for any region in the world apart from North America (where there were none at all). Europe had 30 cases - almost twice as many as the Middle East - and Latin America came top with 193.

 

The figures come from the US state department's annual review of global terrorism, which has just been published on the internet. Worldwide, the report says confidently, "there were 423 international terrorist attacks in 2000, an increase of 8% from the 392 attacks recorded during 1999".

 

No doubt a lot of painstaking effort went into counting them, but the statistics are fundamentally meaningless because, as the report points out, "no one definition of terrorism has gained universal acceptance".

 

That is an understatement. While most people agree that terrorism exists, few can agree on what it is. A recent book discussing attempts by the UN and other international bodies to define terrorism runs to three volumes and 1,866 pages without reaching any firm conclusion.

 

Using the definition preferred by the state department, terrorism is: "Premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant* targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience." (The asterisk is important, as we shall see later.)

 

"International" terrorism - the subject of the American report - is defined as "terrorism involving citizens or the territory of more than one country".

 

The key point about terrorism, on which almost everyone agrees, is that it's politically motivated. This is what distinguishes it from, say, murder or football hooliganism. But this also causes a problem for those who compile statistics because the motive is not always clear - especially if no one has claimed responsibility.

 

So the American report states - correctly - that there were no confirmed terrorist incidents in Saudi Arabia last year. There were, nevertheless, three unexplained bombings and one shooting incident, all directed against foreigners.

 

Another essential ingredient (you might think) is that terrorism is calculated to terrorise the public or a particular section of it. The American definition does not mention spreading terror at all, because that would exclude attacks against property. It is, after all, impossible to frighten an inanimate object.

 

Among last year's attacks, 152 were directed against a pipeline in Colombia which is owned by multinational oil companies. Such attacks are of concern to the United States and so a definition is required which allows them to be counted.

 

For those who accept that terrorism is about terrorising people, other questions arise. Does it include threats, as well as actual violence? A few years ago, for example, the Islamic Army in Yemen warned foreigners to leave the country if they valued their lives but did not actually carry out its threat.

 

More recently, a group of Israeli peace activists were arrested for driving around in a loudspeaker van, announcing a curfew of the kind that is imposed on Palestinians. Terrifying for any Israelis who believed it, but was it terrorism?

 

Another characteristic of terrorism, according to some people, is that targets must be random - the intention being to make everyone fear they might be the next victim. Some of the Hamas suicide bombings appear to follow this principle but when attacks are aimed at predictable targets (such as the military) they are less likely to terrorise the public at large.

 

Definitions usually try to distinguish between terrorism and warfare. In general this means that attacks on soldiers are warfare and those against civilians are terrorism, but the dividing lines quickly become blurred.

 

The state department regards attacks against "noncombatant* targets" as terrorism. But follow the asterisk to the small print and you find that "noncombatants" includes both civilians and military personnel who are unarmed or off duty at the time. Several examples are given, such as the 1986 disco bombing in Berlin, which killed two servicemen.

 

The most lethal bombing in the Middle East last year was the suicide attack on USS Cole in Aden harbour which killed 17 American sailors and injured 39 more.

 

As the ship was armed and its crew on duty at the time, why is this classified as terrorism? Look again at the small print, which adds: "We also consider as acts of terrorism attacks on military installations or on armed military personnel when a state of military hostilities does not exist at the site, such as bombings against US bases."

 

A similar question arises with Palestinian attacks on quasi-military targets such as Israeli settlements. Many settlers are armed (with weapons supplied by the army) and the settlements themselves - though they contain civilians - might be considered military targets because they are there to consolidate a military occupation.

 

If, under the state department rules, Palestinian mortar attacks on settlements count as terrorism, it would be reasonable to expect Israeli rocket attacks on Palestinian communities to be treated in the same way - but they are not. In the American definition, terrorism can never be inflicted by a state.

 

Israeli treatment of the Palestinians is classified as a human rights issue (for which the Israelis get a rap over the knuckles) in a separate state department report.

 

Denying that states can commit terrorism is generally useful, because it gets the US and its allies off the hook in a variety of situations. The disadvantage is that it might also get hostile states off the hook - which is why there has to be a list of states that are said to "sponsor" terrorism while not actually committing it themselves.

 

Interestingly, the American definition of terrorism is a reversal of the word's original meaning, given in the Oxford English Dictionary as "government by intimidation". Today it usually refers to intimidation of governments.

 

The first recorded use of "terrorism" and "terrorist" was in 1795, relating to the Reign of Terror instituted by the French government. Of course, the Jacobins, who led the government at the time, were also revolutionaries and gradually "terrorism" came to be applied to violent revolutionary activity in general. But the use of "terrorist" in an anti-government sense is not recorded until 1866 (referring to Ireland) and 1883 (referring to Russia).

 

In the absence of an agreed meaning, making laws against terrorism is especially difficult. The latest British anti-terrorism law gets round the problem by listing 21 international terrorist organisations by name. Membership of these is illegal in the UK.

 

There are six Islamic groups, four anti-Israel groups, eight separatist groups and three opposition groups. The list includes Hizbullah, which though armed, is a legal political party in Lebanon, with elected members of parliament.

 

Among the separatist groups, the Kurdistan Workers Party - active in Turkey - is banned, but not the KDP or PUK, which are Kurdish organisations active in Iraq. Among opposition groups, the Iranian People's Mujahedeen is banned, but not its Iraqi equivalent, the INC, which happens to be financed by the United States.

 

Issuing such a list does at least highlight the anomalies and inconsistencies behind anti-terrorism laws. It also points towards a simpler - and perhaps more honest - definition: terrorism is violence committed by those we disapprove of.

[Nur]

Naxar

 

Are the Somali Clan Warlords who are now anointed by the US government as Statesmen fit your definition of Terrorism? have they committed any act of terrorism against civilians since the fall of the Siad Barre government back in 1991?

 

Nur

[rudy-Diiriye]

i believe this homie is clueless, therefore, you should ignore his pseudo alcoholic tantrums.

 

He has no clue why secular govt so far never succeeded in somalia. They come and go like toilet paper. Why, basically, its not what the majority of the people want at this point of somali events. Thats plain and clear. Somali history is of full of legacies where somalis broke up like a shattered glass. But we all knew what brings us back together..our religion. from The Sayid to Ahmed Gurey, this has been the case.

 

These people have done no crime against usa, so they shouldnt be harassed or condemned in no way. Thats illegal period.

[Naxar Nugaaleed]

No, that is not the case Nur. I will presume that the aforementioned war lords are members of the Somali government. In order for act to be deemed an act of terrorism, it has to be unlawful. The Somali Government is recognized by the international community including the United States. So what ever you want think of their actions, its not unlawful. You can even say state terrorism but not terrorism because by it very definition an act of terrorism is done by non-state actors. Also, because the United States recognizes and kinda has to because its a fellow Un member, for its citizens to go their and participate in acts of terrorism meant to topple that government, looks bad to say the least.

[Fabregas]

Originally posted by Nur:

The News:

 

http://www.foxnews.c om/story/0,2933,5297 96,00.html

 

 

The Issue:

 

 

The FBI and Homeland security are concerned that these Somali youths have joined the Somali resistance forces, specially the Al Mujaaahidoon Al Shabaab Movement who controls most of the South of Somalia where the US has strategic Oil interests. The U S accuses that this movement have links with Al Qaeda and the Al Shabaab deny this accusation.

 

 

Nur

Wrong, ya Sheikh. They have openly admitted,boasted about and celebrated their admiration for Al Qacida( a group who who justify the killing of western/non muslim civilians). I think it would be very easy for any lawyer to build a case against the Somalis in this case. Remember that some people have been put away for longer times for merely "inciting violence" and not actually helping or aiding anyway participate in a war. As for the legal and moral questions regarding America's conducts in various war: big boys make the rules.

[rudy-Diiriye]

How can say this wrong!! do u have any proof or have been shown any yet. U gotta understand why they are against this folks who dont want no usa interest in somali.

 

its all about the business dollar. Do u think that usa will be interested in somalia if it wasnt for the petro-dollars. Think hard homie.

[Nur]

Naxar saaxib

 

My question was:

 

"have they committed any act of terrorism against civilians since the fall of the Siad Barre government back in 1991?"

 

Note that my question is about the PAST, when they were not statesmen, nor covered by US plea-bargains to cover up their war crimes. I repeat, Did they commit acts of terror against civilians or not ( Based on your definition)

 

 

Fabergas .

 

Akhi, the Shabab movement does not hide that they are sympathetic to what is fictitiously known as Al Qaeda, ( Like so many other Muslims worldwide who have taken that position as a protest against US policy in Muslim world, and NOT to be part of that Shadowy unknown and fictitious group created by the US as a bait for naive Muslims to justify American invasions) The Muslim Lock Ness Monster. But they have more than once said that they are neither collaborating with that shadowy fictitious group, nor take orders from them. In an interview, their spokesman may have said to the effect that if a foreign power has to interfere in Somalia militarily, that the Shabaab prefer Al Qaeda, not the Ethiopians, Ugandans and others who destroyed Somalia before any accusation of presence of that fictitious group.

 

About the Shabaab's admiration of that Shadowy group, isn't that freedom of speech, guaranteed by the US Constitution? is it more criminal to admire Bin Laden than the admiration of the legitimate American Nazi Party for Adolf Hitler who killed six million Jews, and yet, the American Nazi Party remains a legitimate party in America.

 

 

Nur

[Naxar Nugaaleed]

They is a very broad term. We should stay away from such blanket statements espacially given that the term warlord is a flexable often times used against people we do not politically agree with. Be that as it may, I willing to assume that any faction leader who has used violence against unarmed people for political reasons has committed an act of terrorism despite the fact that there was a power vacum at the time and no legitemate state. If they used violence for other reasons like wealth, I think the term war lord is more befiting.

[Castro]

^^^^ Occasionally you sound normal.

 

Nur, the only two issues I have with the Shabaab are the suicide bombings and their utter refusal to talk to Sharif (even though the more I hear this guy the more I am convinced he has sold his soul like Yey did before him).

 

So in a way, I can understand the latter but the former is a show-stopper for me.

 

Unless they change their ways (which is highly unlikely), I'm done with these fools.

[Nur]

Naxar

 

You write:

 

"I willing to assume that any faction leader who has used violence against unarmed people for political reasons has committed an act of terrorism"

 

 

That wasn't hard, let it out saaxib, consistency in judgment makes you believable.

 

So, the next logical question to ask:

 

Why does the US and Britain harbor these criminals and not indict them like the young kid in Minneapolis?

 

I just wanted to show, that the case against the kid is Political, and not judicial, which requires the interference of Amnesty International.

 

 

Castro Saaxib

 

"^^^^ Occasionally you sound normal. "

 

So, you visit this page for excitement only, sorry if I let you down this time around. InshAllah I will make it up to you next time.

 

There are two types of Bombing going on in Somalia:

 

1. Suicide Bombings ( By Al Shabaab)

 

2. Homicide bombings ( By, TFG WARLORDS, ETHIOPIA, UGANDA, BURUNDI, US)

 

For Example, the US covert/overt operations in Somalia has killed thousands (Black Hawk down, US soldiers killed over a thousand Somalis, for death of 18 American rangers/marines). The Criminal warlords have killed thousands in the last 18 years before the existence of the Shabaab. The Ethiopian invasion and bombardment has killed thousands in Somalia and thousands in the Somali regions that Ethiopia administers by colonial agreement with Britain. The Ugandan and Burundi soldiers of fortune kill hundreds of civilians every time the Shabaab engages them.

 

 

The two types of bombings are horrible, gruesome, and inhumane for non combatant civilians, but the same logic is at play, the Americans kill 13 civilians with their Tomahawk missile just to kill a terror suspect Ayro, or burn an entire southern Somali village to kill a suspected "terrorist". The number of casualties in the Homicide bombing far outweighs the Suicide bombings, and from the point of view of relatives of the victims, its all equally very bad.

 

Nur

[Castro]

^^^^ The "normal" comment was meant for Naxar Dubaaleed.

 

We're on the same page for the most part. I'm no less outraged by the wanton killing of civilians by the means you mentioned. But brother, please, the Shabaab, ostensibly, are a Muslim group. That they would approve of and use such tactic is unforgivable (in my view) much as the carpet, surgical and other bombings are.

 

I think the Shabaab have lost their way. You are free, of course, to convince me otherwise.

[Nur]

Sorry to have intercepted your comment to Naxar.

 

Its very sad brother for a young soul to shred itself to pieces in search for Justice which is denied. Its inconceivable how desperate a human being can be for such an act. If you remember, in WWII, the Japanese pilots where committing suicide missions against the US navy ships. In a suicide mission, an Egyptian pilot sank an alliance ( Israel, Britain, France) ship of the coast of Egypt in the 1956 Egyptian Israeli war. The Tamil tigers justify this suicide tactic, Basque separatists, Hamas and now increasingly the Taliban, and as the powerful nations oppress the weak, if we live long enough, I am afraid that this menace is here to stay, there is a Hadeeth by the Prophet SAWS to the effect that "the signs of the last days, is too much unjustified killing, a person is killed, the killer does not know why, and the victim does not know why". . Now think about this hadeeth, and imagine that you are a young American pilot flying a bombing mission in one of those banana republics, at an altitude of 35000 feet, your target appears in the screen, and with your finger tips you click button that unleashes a death angel for e village below, when its over, an entire village is pulverized, and the young pilot gets a note that he hit the wrong target by mistake, its called civilian casualty. The young pilot has no remorse for the tragedy since he has not seen the faces, nor attended the funeral.

 

Now, a young boy survives that bombardment, he was told that Americans killed his entire family, that kid grows with hatred to all Americans, and one day, in a shopping mall, he detonates himself to kill Americans, now, who really killed those innocent Americans? the young American Pilot? The angry village boy? or a policy of the US administration?

 

 

Nur