What do you call someone who knowingly finances terrorists?

The law:

18 U.S. Code § 2339C – Prohibitions against the financing of terrorism:

(a)Offenses.—
   (1)In general.—Whoever, in a circumstance described in subsection (b), by any means, directly or indirectly, unlawfully and willfully provides or collects funds with the intention that such funds be used, or with the knowledge that such funds are to be used, in full or in part, in order to carry out—

   (A)

an act which constitutes an offense within the scope of a treaty specified in subsection (e)(7), as implemented by the United States, or
   (B)
any other act intended to cause death or serious bodily injury to a civilian, or to any other person not taking an active part in the hostilities in a situation of armed conflict, when the purpose of such act, by its nature or context, is to intimidate a population, or to compel a government or an international organization to do or to abstain from doing any act,
shall be punished as prescribed in subsection (d)(1). …
   (d)Penalties.—

   (1)Subsection (a).—

Whoever violates subsection (a) shall be fined under this title, imprisoned for not more than 20 years, or both.
The lawless:
DAVOS, Switzerland — U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry said some of the funds freed up by the implementation of the Iranian nuclear deal could end up in the hands of the hard-liner Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps and wouldn’t rule out the possibility that they could be used for terrorism, but he insisted the money isn’t driving Iranian provocation in the region.

Republicans in Washington were quick to condemn Mr. Kerry’s comments, citing his acknowledgment in a television interview and a later meeting with reporters that the money could support terrorist activities. …

Mr. Kerry said on CNBC that the U.S. so far isn’t seeing “the early delivery of funds going to that kind of endeavor,” but added: “I’m sure at one point we will.”

Secretary of State John Kerry (AP photo)

See the video here.

Advertisements

23 comments on “What do you call someone who knowingly finances terrorists?

  1. nyp says:

    Nice try.

  2. That’s your answer? A nice try? Wait until they spend it somewhere near you and yours.

  3. Anonymous says:

    Guess we ought to just go to war instead

  4. nyp says:

    let’s bring back the draft and invade Iran. Our ground wars in the Middle East always work out so well.

  5. nyp says:

    Interesting discussion in the Times on the subject of whether Iran remains a threat:

    http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2016/01/21/does-iran-remain-a-threat

  6. Barbara says:

    There is a wide gulf between giving terrorists millions of dollars and sending American troops to a ground war. 364 days and counting – can’t come soon enough. New President, new Attorney General – all kinds of possibilities.

  7. Steve says:

    Clinton, Sanders or Trump

    All kinds of horrifying possibilities.

    Congress approval rating might actually go up!

  8. Rincon says:

    Your partisanship is showing. Your suggested defense against an Iranian nuclear threat is to merely take some of their money and just let it happen – which would have occurred by now. You also still tacitly advocate sending money to the Wahabis, the greatest financiers of terrorism in the world and have consistently supported the Republican policy of sending them vast sums of money for decades. Why?

  9. nyp says:

    actually, that’s a good point. While we are following Mr. Mitchell’s advice and invading Iran, I guess we ought to invade Saudi Arabia — I mean, it’s all the same neighborhood, right?

  10. nyp says:

    Since the Iran deal was announced, Iran has:
    1. disposed of 25,000 pounds of enriched uranium under international supervision;
    2. dismantled 2/3 of its centrifuges
    3. decomissioned its heavy water reactor and filled it with concrete.
    4. Oh, and cooperated with the US in defusing a potential international incident when one of our boats accidentally strayed into an Iranian naval base.

    Mr. Mitchell (& Barbara) think this is all a bad thing.

  11. nyp says:

    yes, defused

  12. Steve says:

    Defused would have been not airing a video of the captured sailors.

    In this case it was the US that defused it, by submitting.

  13. nyp says:

    “Submitting”? Our boat inadvertently sailed into their naval base. The crew was detained overnight and returned the next day.
    You guys really are deranged.

  14. Steve says:

    Sure…….the video was all about that….and those apologies they were made to say….just theatre.

  15. nyp says:

    If I sailed a naval vessel into the naval base of a hostile country I would apologise as well.
    It is just incredible to me that you people would think that a swiftly-settled incident was a tremedous blow to America. Your Obama derangement knows no bounds

  16. Rincon says:

    If there had been no agreement, Iran would have demanded release of her frozen assets to return them. We would have refused and the men would have become long term prisoners. Are you guys paid by the Republican Party by any chance?

  17. Steve says:

    Yeah, explains the public airing of that video……not.

    Humiliation. Intentional. World.

  18. Rincon says:

    We have an agreement. We’re hardly buddies. My words still apply.

  19. Steve says:

    really…..
    All they wanted was a delay in a report in 2011…..with no so called “agreement” ……your words are fantasy.

    http://www.newser.com/story/219424/report-iran-offered-to-release-american-years-ago.html

  20. Rincon says:

    We’re talking about a U.S. naval vessel and its crew in 2016, not a prisoner from 2011. Are you saying that Iran is run by a bunch of nice guys that would have handed over their prisoners for next to nothing? Would you have taken the bait in 2011? If the story is true, then it’s obvious that a delay was important to Iran at the time. Of course, the story is that the NY Times claims to have SEEN “A memo sent to the FBI on Oct. 31, 2011 states that Iran’s ambassador to France had told representatives of the Fellowship Foundation group…” No copy of the memo, no other witnesses, and we don’t know who showed this piece of paper to the Times reporter. You call that gospel? Boy, for someone that thinks global warming is mostly a hoax, you sure are trusting when a scrap of news says what you want to hear.

  21. Steve says:

    Yeah and there was NO AGREEMENT in 2011…..smh

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s