Lude Generation

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-26755985

The jury returned a guilty verdict on three charges: conspiracy to kill Americans, conspiring to provide support to al-Qaeda, and providing support to al-Qaeda.

Why should there be a specific charge in the US for "conspiracy to kill Americans"?
Does that mean if someone plotted to blow up a plane in US air space that didn't have any American nationals on board, they wouldn't be comitting an offence?
Or would they be facing a different punishment?
And if either of the second/third are correct, is there any reason why a non-American National life would be considered to have a different 'value'?


(Or is there some logic behind it after all and I'm reading it too literally..? )

Legal wording init.

Conspiracy can be charged as a general intent, it doesn't require proof of a specifically targeted person in order for a charge to be brought against the conspirator. Conspiracy to kill people on US soil would lead to the presumption (and highest probability) that the intended victims are American.

Plus:

Videos showing Abu Ghaith threatening America

Supports the presumption that the intended victims would be Americans.

Yeah but still the point remains - what if they aren't Americans?

e.g. UK charges don't relate to specific race, they're gender/race neutral? (i.e. it would be something like "consipracy to commit murder" or "conspiracy to commit terrorist act" etc.). Irrelevant what race it is against?

its all to do with making it easier to prosecute people for terrorism charges. As said earlier you require a higher level of proof to prove conspiracy against a instance of general threat than a targeted threat, Thus they make all instances of terrorism or any threat against any citizen of the US a conspiracy
There is no value set on US or non US its just so that anyone thinking they can get away with any act of terror against either the US or any US citizen had better think twice as the scales of justice are now skewed

wurlycorner wrote:Yeah but still the point remains - what if they aren't Americans?

e.g. UK charges don't relate to specific race, they're gender/race neutral? (i.e. it would be something like "consipracy to commit murder" or "conspiracy to commit terrorist act" etc.). Irrelevant what race it is against?

Yes but he specifically said he was targeting America, which can be taken to mean American soil and/or citizens. You're reading too much into it. There is no separate charge between Americans/non-Americans. It's just conspiracy to kill x.

Also careful you don't use race interchangeably with nationality


Edit:

Here you go:

http://www.lawfareblog.com/wp-content/u ... tamped.pdf

He was only charged with the intent to solely harm United States citizens and residents, based on his own words in whatever video it is they're using as evidence, and so could only be convicted of that conspiracy. If it went further than conspiracy and he actually did kill nationals from multiple nations then he wouldn't have been charged with conspiracy but actual murder of x nationals.

Remember this is a conspiracy charge and so they can only charge based on his own threats, not what could possibly happen.

Nationality would have been a better word than race, aye - that was what I meant, couldn't think of the word at the time!