Incitement to terrorism???

[caracasjim]

While understanding the British governments wish to serve and protect by bringing in new laws to stop the incitement of terrorism I can't help remembering that after the first Iraq war that both British and American governments urged Iraqis to rise up and topple their government. Would that be regarded as incitement under the new laws?????

[Loosehead]

yes it would, but we are the good guys!

[january_bug]

I don't know if overthrowing the government is terrorism - it would depend on the fine wording of the act and judicial interpretation.  It probably would be incitement, but then Iraq has totally different laws to our own. 

I've said it before and I'll say it again - if people have that much of a problem, we'd be seeing strikes and riots like we did under the Tories.  If you hate it - something!

[Grunty]

There are several definitions of terrorism, but the US Intelligence Community is guided by the definition of terrorism contained in Title 22 of the US Code, Section 2656f(d):

�The term �terrorism� means premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience.

So one word makes all the difference - subnational.

[caracasjim]

Our governments (UK and US) were inciting the Kurds to overthrow their government and being a subnational group would be regarded as terrorists by the US definition.

[january_bug]

But we were talking about new BRITISH laws in IRAQ, so what has an American definition got to do with it?

[Dom Tuk]

Somethings are Ok when they are done by the so called liberated west but not when it is done to them. January you may wish to address the question. Is it or is it not incitement regardless of the Iraqi laws. Would you or your representative be inciting terrorism by asking for a people in another country to overthrow their govenment. It has not got to do with definitions or where the incitement takes place. Can you bring yourself to say' yes it is incitement and no i dont agree with it'?

[january_bug]

First get off my back. 

Then read the first five words of the second sentence of my first answer. 

Thanks.

[january_bug]

It's ok - I've worked it out Dom Tuk, and there's nothing I can do about it so I'm not going to let it bother me.  There are a fair few people on the answerbank (and I include you in that number) who, although they respect my views, do have a patronising view that I will 'grow out of it sooner or later'.  I can see that people mistake my passion for anger, my positive outlook as naivity and/or innocence, and my upbringing as sheltered and unaware. 

People seem to think that I should 'admit I'm wrong', rather than accepting that my views may be inteeligently formed, but nonetheless different from their own.  As a result, like you did above, people do not read my posts properly, but jump to conclusion about me, based on this ridiculous notion that they think they know where I'm coming from. 

Oh - and back to the point.  It has everything to do with definitions.  Law is more about the interpretation than what it says on the statute books (in Common Law countries anyway).  The entire question here is about judicial interpretation.  So my point about the term being interpreted differently in different countries stands.  You might think I know nothing on many subject, but I do know about legal interpretation. 

[caracasjim]

Calm down guys. As far as I am concerned everyone has a valid opinion and I am grateful for them all.The reason for posting the question was that I asked myself this question and  every TV debate I have seen always seems to avoid it.I am no lawyer, but I would like a legal eagle to voice an opinion on it and would like an opinion from Tony Blair. Maybe its a question that can never be fully answered.

[january_bug]

caracasjim - believe me I'm totally calm on this one.  However, I forgot to apologise to you in my previous thread for "hijacking" - I felt that starting a new thread to make one point would just be daft.  *passes compensatory cake/G&T/pint*

The question you ask is legally very tricky indeed.  Simply because you basically (as far as I understand it) ask if the actions of the British in Iraq would, if they had occured in Britain under the new laws, be interpreted as illegal. 

So if we give a hypothetical scenario (it just helps me, please bear with me!):  Britain is ruled by a brutal dictator and the country is divided into warring factions.  The Iraqi army flies in to remove the dictator and bring stability (supposedly).  In order to do this, they encourage groups of Brits to rise and topple our dictator ourselves.  The new terror laws are in place in the UK.  Are the actions of the Iraqis illegal? 

Given that the law is about "inciting" terrorism, rather than acts of terrorism per se, we must assume here that the accused party, is the government in charge of the 'offending' army.  This brings it to a matter of international law.  Do the laws of one country apply to governments of other nations when acting in the country which made the law? It's a hugely complex and ever changing issue. 

(caracasjim, I did study law, and have an LLM too, but I have never studied international law.  Therefore anything I say here is based on a vague knowledge of the subject, and my legal intuition.  I think here perhaps I'm a legal robin rather than a legal eagle! :-) )

ctd...

[january_bug]

... ctd

It's a very interesting question, but one that I don't think can ever be given a straight answer.  That's why I said "it probably would be" - because my gut legal instinct says yes, but my legal background also tells me that it's complex enough that a one word answer would not suffice. 

Sorry that took so long to say!

[caracasjim]

That is sort of what I think. What I think I  understand is that if "we" have laws in the UK  designed to prevent "incitement or glorification of terrorism" then calling for the overthrow of legitimate governments in other countries would be an incitement. (whether we like the government or not). My example of the call for an uprising of the Kurds by the UK government after the first Iraq war could also be challenged under international law as it already illegal for foreign powers to instigate regime changes.(this was how we had UN backing for the war to "free" Kuwait.I have mailed this question to Tony Blair but don't expect an answer.

Try this for a UN ruling:

"No country should have the right to put its soldiers on any other nations land for any reason.The only soldiers who would have this right must be under the control of the UN ."

Failure to comply with this rule should result in the immediate suspension from the UN and its negotiated treaties. (Telecommunications and Air travel being the best two)

No country could survive with its airlines grounded and telecomms cut.

[january_bug]

caracasjim - Does rather look like we're in violation doesn't it!?!

dumbblonde - what an eloquent contribution.  I graduated with a 2.i from one of the country's top universities in 2004.  That was an LLB (Hons).  I graduate on Sautrday from my LLM.  Now please, what was your contribution to this debate?!  I'm sure everyone's interested to hear. 

[nodumbblonde]

LOL january_bug where is your sense of humour?

[january_bug]

I'm sorry - just WHAT was funny about your contributions?  Seriously.  If there was some ironic twist that I didn't see, I will happily admit my mistake.  Please do explain.  And I would still ike to see a useful contribution from you.  I'm sure caracasjim is interested too - he's only too keen for the subject to be debated as he's said.  Just to remind you - the subject up for debate is"incitement to terror", not "january_bug's legal credentials". 

[caracasjim]

after all this time this is still a good question that remains avoided by politicians