Transcript Chapter Thirteen - Fulton-Montgomery Community College

Chapter Thirteen
Crimes Against the State
Chapter Thirteen: Learning Objectives
• Understand how defining and applying crimes against
the state reflects the enduring idea of balancing
security and freedom during wartime.
• Know that treason is a fundamental weapon against
present allegiance and support to foreign enemies.
• Appreciate that crimes against potential terrorist
attacks are subject to the limits placed on traditional
criminal law.
• Understand that the most commonly prosecuted crime
against the state since September 11, 2001 is
“providing material support or resources” to terrorists
or terrorist organizations.
Applying Old and New Laws to
New Threats
• Older Laws
–
–
–
–
Treason
Sedition
Sabotage
Espionage
• New Laws
–
–
–
–
Use of Weapons of Mass Destruction
Acts of Terrorism Transcending National Boundaries
Harboring or Concealing Terrorist
Providing Material Support to Terrorists
Treason
• Article III, Section 3 U.S. Constitution (only
crime in constitution)
– Levying war against United States
– Adhering to enemies of United States
• Giving aid and comfort
– Conviction requires
• testimony of two witnesses to same overt act, or
• confession
Treason (continued)
• Law found in U.S. Constitution reflects the
debate and predicament of the drafters of the
Constitution (themselves traitors of England)
• Limited treason law
• Limits on prosecution of treason built into
Constitution
Treason (continued)
• Treason actus reus
– Levying war against U.S.
– Giving aid and comfort to enemies of U.S
• Treason mens rea
– Intentionally giving aid for purpose of betraying
U.S.
Treason (continued)
• Cases since Revolution
– Ethel Rosenburg, convicted of conspiring to give
atomic bomb secrets to Soviet Union (1951)
– U.S. v. Cramer (1945)
• Government failed to sustain a conviction
notwithstanding eyewitness accounts of two FBI agents
regarding a conversation they saw Cramer have with
two “saboteurs”
Sedition
• Stirring others up to overthrow the
government by violence
• Advocating violent overthrow of the
government
• Seditious speech
– Urging overthrow in speeches
• Seditious libel
– Urging overthrow in written materials
Sedition
• Seditious conspiracy
– Agreeing to overthrow
– Smith Act (1940)
• Congress made it crime to conspire to teach or
advocate overthrowing the government by force
• Crime to be a member of a group that advocated the
violent overthrow of the government
– Dennis v. U.S. (1951) – Convictions of communist party
members upheld against First Amendment challenge
– US Criminal Code (2006) seditious conspiracy
requires conspiracy that advocates violence
Sabotage
• Destroying or damaging property for purpose
of interfering with or hindering preparations
for war and defense during national
emergencies
• 2006 U.S. Criminal Code, Title 18, Part I,
Chapter 105, Section 2153
– Mens rea in code not clear: willfully, Intent to,
reason to believe…
– Actus reus: injure, destroy, contaminate, infect….
Espionage
• Spying
• 2006 U.S. Code, Title 18, Chapter 37, Section 794
• Espionage during Peace
– Turning over or attempting to turn over information
about national defense to any foreign country with
the intent or reason to believe that the information is
to be used to hurt U.S. or help foreign country
• Espionage during War
– Collecting, recording, publishing, or communicating
any information about troop movements, ships,
aircraft, or war material and any other information
which might be useful to the enemy
Anti-Terrorism Crimes
• Source
– Anti-terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (1996)(AEDPA)
• Response to Oklahoma City Bombing
– Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate
Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism (U.S.A.
PATRIOT ACT)
• Extended, embraced and modified, AEDPA
• Response to attacks on U.S. September 11, 2001
– Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act 2004 (IRTPA)
• Congress’ attempt to clarify, make less ambiguous crimes after
challenges to AEDPA
– Humanitarian Law Project v. Reno (2000)
• Humanitarian Law Project v. Mukasey (2009)
• (note: Oct. 1, 2009 U.S. Supreme Court decided to hear another
challenge in Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project)
Anti-terrorism Crimes
• Use of certain weapons of mass destruction
• Acts of terrorism transcending national
boundaries
• Harboring and concealing terrorist
• Providing material support to terrorists
• Providing material support or resources to
designated foreign terrorist organizations
Anti-terrorism Crimes (continued)
• International terrorism
– Violent acts or acts dangerous to human life
– Committed outside the U.S.
– Would be crimes if they were committed inside the
U.S.
– Are committed, or appear to be committed, with the
intent
• To intimidate or coerce a civilian population
• To influence the policy of a government by intimidation or
coercion;
• To affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction,
assassination, or kidnapping
Anti-terrorism Crimes (continued)
• Domestic Terrorism
– Violent acts or acts dangerous to human life
– Committed inside the U.S.
– Would be crimes if they were committed inside the
U.S.
– Are committed, or appear to be committed, with the
intent
• To intimidate or coerce a civilian population
• To influence the policy of a government by intimidation or
coercion;
• To affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction,
assassination, or kidnapping
Use of Weapons of
Mass Destruction
• Life imprisonment (or capital punishment if
someone died) to
–
–
–
–
–
Use
Threaten to use
Attempt or conspire to use
Weapon of mass destruction (any destructive device)
against
•
•
•
•
a U.S. citizen outside the U.S.
Any person or property in the U.S.
Property owned leased or used by U.S. Government
Property owned or leased by foreign government inside the
U.S.
Act of Terrorism Transcending National
Boundaries
• Conduct takes place partly outside and partly
inside the U.S.
– Kill, kidnap, maim, assault resulting in serious
bodily injury, assault with deadly weapon a person
within U.S
– Create a substantial risk of SBI
– Threaten or attempt or conspire to commit the
above
– If, victim is U.S. Government (expanded list of
governmental type folks, agencies)
Harboring or Concealing Terrorist
• Whoever harbors or conceals (actus reus)
• Any person he knows, or has reasonable
ground to believe (mens rea)
– has committed one of several offenses relating to
terrorism including chemical and biological
weapons, nuclear weapons, energy and airport
facilities, etc
Providing Material Support to Terrorists and/or
Terrorist Organizations
• Initially enacted as part of AEDPA
• Embraced by Patriot Act
• Federal felony to provide, attempt, or conspire
to provide material support or resources to
commit a long list of federal crimes
– Aimed at providing support to individual terrorists
– Or providing support to designated foreign
terrorist organizations.
Providing Material Support to Terrorists and/or
Terrorist Organizations (cont.)
• Proximity crime
– Close to other crimes (the 44 federal crimes terrorists
and terrorist organizations might commit)
• Aim at nipping terrorism in the bud
• Case holdings tend to indicate that this provision
is unconstitutional
• John Walker Lindh –challenged law on vagueness grounds,
but ended up pleading guilty
• Humanitarian Law Project v. Reno (2000)
– 9th Circuit held that the provision violated constitution because
several terms included were vague
Providing Material Support to Terrorists and/or
Terrorist Organizations (cont.)
• IRTPA enacted to amend the provisions of
AEDPA on providing material support which
were held unconstitutionally vague
• Humanitarian Law Project v. Mukasey (2009)
examined the IRTPA’s new language
Humanitarian Law Project v. Mukasey
(2009)
• Facts
• Issue
• Holding
Summary of case holdings
• Court examined the terms “training” (found it
vague); “expert advice or assistance” (found
parts vague and parts not vague); “service”
(found it vague); “personnel” (not vague)
• Decision of the US District Court was affirmed