Solid legal argument, but you will not get anywhere with this in court. It's like the sovereign citizens, at least in that one regard.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
Solid legal argument, but you will not get anywhere with this in court. It's like the sovereign citizens, at least in that one regard.
Thanks, @lexiconical,
Yes, I think it would be a tough confrontation since the courts are financed by the terrorist state. And another poster made me aware that it's already been tried in UK court to some extent: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2284337/TV-licence-evader-refused-pay-BBC-covered-facts-9-11.html
That's very interesting. I can take a guess at what a US court would say about your argument, and they sort of have a point.
Terrorism is defined by the government of each nation. Let us ignore the morals of that, it simply is, by statute and definition.
They keep the watch lists, add or remove people, etc. The correct reading of the legislation/executive orders that prevent "making payments to terrorists" would most properly be read as "making payements to terrorists (as defined by the entity also making the legislation or EO, ie the USG)". After all, it is their rule you are citing, so it is only fair and logical to use their definition of the words when they wrote the rule. Given they are the ones responsible for meting out the punishment, (and, therefore, bearing the cost of that, taxpayer-theft aside,) I'd say that makes it even more fair defer to their terms.
After establishing all that, they'd point out the USG (Britain, or whoever) is not on the terrorist watch list, and therefore is by definition, not a terrorist as defined in the laws of the US. Therefore this law does not apply.
Case dismissed. Appeal denied.
PS - I don't like the result, but I can't come up with a way to win that argument in court.
PPS - If you could establish in a US court that the US was guilty of war crimes, perhaps for Iraq, you may have the beginnings of a case. International court would probably be no use, however, so this is an unlikely avenue.