NATO leaders are guilty under US code of providing material support to terrorists

NATO leaders are guilty under US code of providing material support to terrorists

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/65279af233dc.jpg[/atsimg]

"Whoever knowingly provides material support or resources to a foreign terrorist organization, or attempts or conspires to do so, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 15 years, or both, and, if the death of any person results, shall be imprisoned for any term of years or for life.

To violate this paragraph, a person must have knowledge that the organization is a designated terrorist organization (as defined in subsection (g)(6)), that the organization has engaged or engages in terrorist activity (as defined in section 212(a)(3)(B) of the Immigration and Nationality Act), or that the organization has engaged or engages in terrorism (as defined in section 140(d)(2) of the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 1988 and 1989)."

LII / Legal Information Institute
usc_sec_18_00002339---B000-
Providing material support or resources to designated foreign terrorist organizations


abdulhaki m belhadj (LIFG) Rated 26th in the terrorist list Provided by the US-state department NATO Terror list

LIFG fighters are noted as having "combat experience in Iraq or Afghanistan," and that they are part of the "social fabric of eastern Libya," namely Benghazi, Tobruk, and Darnah in a region often referred to as Cyrenaica.
Noted here in the WestPointStats
these graphs created by data obtained in Iraq clearly show that Libya's eastern region, and the cities of Darnah and Benghazi in particular, provided by far more militants found fighting US troops in Iraq than any other nation, including Saudi Arabia.

libya rebels the same terrorists who killed us nato troops in iraq

The most striking finding which emerges from the West Point study is that the corridor which goes from Benghazi to Tobruk, passing through the city of Darnah (also transliterated as Derna) them represents one of the greatest concentrations of jihadi terrorists to be found anywhere in the world.

Quoted Griffin Tarpley

rebel military chief says he was tortured by cia while leading an Islamist guerrilla organisation LIFG fighting the Gaddafi regime in the 1990s
According to US Code Section2339A & 2339B, the leaders of NATO, along with the US, UK, and French governments, are clearly guilty of providing a listed terrorist organization with material support.

The enemy of my enemy is my friend.

The Monroe Doctrine has been in use for longer than NATO has existed.

And you don't think the US have been arming, training, supplying, dealing, trading etc etc with suspect organisations throughout the world?

Originally posted by EnigmaAgent
And you don't think the US have been arming, training, supplying, dealing, trading etc etc with suspect organisations throughout the world?

Exactly, just one instance is the US arming the taliban to fight the Russians.
Very ironic when the same weapons were then used to kill americans later on.

If they ignore their own laws, I dont see why anyone else should take notice of them.

The USA's foreign affairs certainly pursues an agenda of playing all sides, and specifically all sides against the middle. They aren't the ONLY ones doing it.

I do think that the USA, amoungst others, takes a very short term view of strategy and in doing so consistently makes their own enemies powerful.

Which in this case they are out doing themselves. They are arming and training and giving succor and support to several operations around the World, and specifically in Africa, in which they are setting up a wide ranging superpower.

I can't tell if they are so smart that they are doing this intentionally because they think that having an Islamic superpower with its pillars in some of the most resource rich areas of the planet is a good thing for them....or if they are just THAT shortsighted that looking at the entire theatre just didn't occur to them.

I have no problems with using one's enemies to occupy one's enemies. I do have a problem when you're doing it BADLY.

reply to post by Aeons

I can't tell if they are so smart that they are doing this intentionally because they think that having an Islamic superpower with its pillars in some of the most resource rich areas of the planet is a good thing for them....or if they are just THAT shortsighted that looking at the entire theatre just didn't occur to them.

I have no problems with using one's enemies to occupy one's enemies. I do have a problem when your doing it BADLY.

I agree totally ,it does seem very shortsighted ,and very dangerous game being played out.

reply to post by TheMaverick


Maverick, please explain to me how European NATO leaders can be found guilty under U.S law?

reply to post by cripmeister


Same way you can charge a pedophile who is screwing children in Thailand.

Once your in my jurisdiction, if I can get you I'm gonna.

reply to post by Aeons


True,

(d) Extraterritorial Jurisdiction.— (1) In general.— There is jurisdiction over an offense under subsection (a) if—
(A) an offender is a national of the United States (as defined in section 101(a)(22) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101 (a)(22))) or an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence in the United States (as defined in section 101(a)(20) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101 (a)(20)));

(B) an offender is a stateless person whose habitual residence is in the United States;

(C) after the conduct required for the offense occurs an offender is brought into or found in the United States, even if the conduct required for the offense occurs outside the United States;

(D) the offense occurs in whole or in part within the United States;

(E) the offense occurs in or affects interstate or foreign commerce; or

(F) an offender aids or abets any person over whom jurisdiction exists under this paragraph in committing an offense under subsection (a) or conspires with any person over whom jurisdiction exists under this paragraph to commit an offense under subsection (a). Source

Still, the Libyan rebels are not a 'designated foreign terrorist organization' and Abdelhakim Belhadj being a commander for the rebels is unconfirmed information from Pepe Escobar.

I'm not too excited by this thread. As has been pointed out, quite ably I might add, the policy may be judged as stupid or not. I don't feel like getting drawn into that.

But I do have a couple of thoughts relating to the practical and legal side, as that seemed to be the thrust of the OP.

1) Even the protesters described it as legal terrorism.

2.) Diplomatic immunity.

3.) An executive order from the President allowing it.

4.) A treaty supercedes a statute. The NATO treaty beats this section of US law.

Sure, the policy may be crazy. Focus on that. The legal path doesn't look likely at all.

I'm not going to focus on the legal aspect at all.

I'm going to focus on the utter insanity of the First World Nations setting up Al-Qaeda with their own resource rich capital in Africa.

Oh pumpkins....is Somalia not working out for you? Let us send in our do-gooders to clean up that mess for you, and in the mean time we're going to help you get a big fat Oil-Barony with a successful upper class in Africa providing a charming sweeping view of THE most important trade sea gate on the Planet. Hugs and Kisses, NATO.

reply to post by Aeons

Dear Aeons,
You are absolutely correct, I agree with you completely, and you write very well. If there is a deep thought guiding this policy to an advantage for the US, I will stand in awe at the subtlety and foresight of the plan.

As it is, however, the policy seems to be either very foolish or intentionally destructive of our interests.

I focused on the legal aspects only because the OP seemed to stress them.

With respect,
Charles1952

reply to post by cripmeister

Maverick, please explain to me how European NATO leaders can be found guilty under U.S law?

Aeons explained it for me already ,probably better ,once your in the the jurisdiction were the law applies.
Example: is those 3 spies who were caught crossing into Iran a while ago,and the female who never went back to face trial claiming she was to ill ,she can never go to Iran for the rest of her life ,or she will be tried and sentenced for her alleged crime.

Still, the Libyan rebels are not a 'designated foreign terrorist organization' and Abdelhakim Belhadj being a commander for the rebels is unconfirmed information from Pepe Escobar.

Well it's not unconfirmed information ,it's a fact with a simple search of google ,you can find Abdelhakim Belhadj is the Military commander of Tripoli ,for the rebels.


End of the day cripmeister ,all I'm doing is pointing out the Hypocrisy of the west ,who have become a world law unto themselfs.

Do as they say ,not as they do kinda rule.

No matter how it spun in the media ,the fact of the matter is ,in one hand the west is fighting Al-qaeda Ie: Iraq/afghanistan for the freedom of the western society so were told ,and in the other hand in Libya were arming and fighting side by side with them.
(more then likely a lot of them are guilty for the death of our soilders in Iraq/afghanistan which the West point stats show )

Surely you see the absolute madness of this.

Themaverick, please make allowances for a slow-minded individual such as I am. My confusion is growing constantly.

The thrust of the opening post was a discussion of the legality of NATO's actions in Africa. Since then there seems to be no disagreement that the policies are completely crazy. But attention to the legal side has been noticeably lacking.

You've been asked about the legalities of the situation, but I haven't seen the strength of your replies. If you have the time, would you please respond to my post on the liegal side of the issue? Oh, and let me add 5) The US has claimed reliance on the UN resolutions.

By the way, if you accept that long list of American laws and decisions you cite, will you also accept the American decision that, besides Cuba, the only three State Sponsors of Terrorism are Iran, Syria, and Sudan?

Depends deeply on your definition of terrorism.

There is maybe little difference between terrorism and deep commitment to self-interest, one that at its murkiest may not be all that different.

Why does the thread creator have as many Flags as Posts?

reply to post by TheMaverick


Yes he is commander of the Tripoli rebels, I didn't check the facts and for this I apologize.

Originally posted by TheMaverick
reply to post by cripmeister

 

No matter how it spun in the media ,the fact of the matter is ,in one hand the west is fighting Al-qaeda Ie: Iraq/afghanistan for the freedom of the western society so were told ,and in the other hand in Libya were arming and fighting side by side with them.

I found an interview with Abdel Hakim Belhadj originally from Le Monde but translated and republished by Time. On the accusations that he had been an al-Qaeda member he said:

A lot of false information is circulating concerning this subject. Yes, I was a member of the Islamic Fighting Group whose area of operation was always and exclusively Libya. The goal of this organization was to deliver the Libyan people from the dictatorship of Muammar Gaddafi. We never had any interest outside of our country. The Islamic combat group was never a part of al-Qaeda, neither from an ideological viewpoint, nor at an operational level, nor in its goals. It happened that we found ourselves in the same place at the same time as al-Qaeda: in Afghanistan, where we sometimes fought next to them when it was to liberate the country, but we were never at their service.

On the contrary, when Osama Bin Laden founded the Global Islamic Front to fight against the Jews and crusaders, in the autumn of 1998, we refused to become members of it. How could we want to kill all Christians? Or all Jews? That's absurd! And why not the Chinese or Japanese? Christians and Jews are the people of the Book, we have to protect them.

Source

Is he lying? I have no idea but this man is now under close scrutiny and if he is lying the world will know. Until then I think we should give him the benefit of a doubt.

reply to post by Pervius


If your asking seriously, and considering this is a conspiracy site, may I offer my idea on the subject? I've spent a fair amount of time in the Middle East forum and there seem to be about seven people who constantly show up with very angry anti-Israel posts. You can find flags and stars flying on their anti-Israeli threads and comments. I truly believe they simply flag and star each other to boost their stats.

Further, some of then have a purely incredible number of threads. It's like it's their job.

There is nothing new under the sun. Words to live by.

Amazing how we're about to reach the ten year mark of 9-11 and not one MSM outlet has taken the United States and NATO to task for aiding TERRORISTS in Libya.

I'm sure if people knew about the connections between the Libyan Rebels and 'Al Qaeda', things would get quite testy for Mr. Obama and his den of thieves.

reply to post by cripmeister


Only focusing only on this one guy and his affiliations is ridiculous. Al-Qaeda has a presence in Libya, is actively involved in this fight, and the affiliations of one gang leader doesn't change that.