Supreme Court Upholds Law Banning Even Peaceful Support for Terrorist Groups

[bobbyw24]

In the first major test of whether anti-terrorism laws conflict with free speech principles, the war on terrorism is victorious.

In a 6-3 ruling (PDF), the U.S. Supreme Court has upheld a federal law banning material support for designated terrorist groups, even when the support is for legal activities, the Associated Press and the New York Times report.

The law had been challenged by aid groups who taught Kurds in southeastern Turkey how to bring human rights complaints to the United Nations and helped them in peace negotiations. The plaintiffs had claimed the material support ban was too vague, in violation of the Fifth Amendment, and infringed their rights to free speech and association, in violation of the First Amendment.

Writing for the majority, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. said support for even benign purposes “frees up other resources within the organization that may be put to violent ends. It also importantly helps lend legitimacy to foreign terrorist groups—legitimacy that makes it easier for those groups to persist, to recruit members, and to raise funds—all of which facilitate more terrorist attacks.”

Liberal Justice John Paul Stevens and moderate Justice Anthony M. Kennedy joined the conservative justices in the majority.

The majority opinion cautioned that more difficult cases involving the First Amendment and terrorism may arise in the future, involving either the material support statute or other laws. "In particular, we in no way suggest that a regulation of independent speech would pass constitutional muster, even if the government were to show that such speech benefits foreign terrorist organizations," Roberts said. "We also do not suggest that Congress could extend the same prohibition on material support at issue here to domestic organizations."

Justice Stephen G. Breyer read his dissent aloud. He was joined by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsbug and Sonia Sotomayor. "I believe application of the statute as the government interprets it would gravely and without adequate justification injure interests of the kind the First Amendment protects," Breyer wrote in the dissent.

The case is Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project.

http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/supreme_court_upholds_law_banning_material_support _to_terrorist_organizatio/

[dannno]

Wow, that is completely insane.

[sevin]

This is getting scary. So they can label any group a terrorist group (even if the people haven't committed acts of terrorism), and if you help that group pass out fliers or something, you've broken the law?

[sailingaway]

And we all remember that DHS / Fusion center 'domestic terrorist' list that warned to be on the look out for Constitutionalist, Ron Paul supporters, pro life groups, anti illegal immigration groups.... by political identification.

This is really unsettling. I can't believe the Supreme Court ruled this way.

[Krugerrand]

This is getting scary. So they can label any group a terrorist group (even if the people haven't committed acts of terrorism), and if you help that group pass out fliers or something, you've broken the law?

And if new proposed legislation is passed, you can be stripped of your citizenship and taken away without trial.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=243228

[roho76]

If it was banning free speech it wouldn't have had the same outcome and/or they wouldn't have been able to get away with it but since it's about terrorism than "we gotta get them terrorists".

Sad day.

[Agorism]

oops you beat me to it

[catdd]

sailingaway
"And we all remember that DHS / Fusion center 'domestic terrorist' list that warned to be on the look out for Constitutionalist, Ron Paul supporters, pro life groups, anti illegal immigration groups.... by political identification."



Yeah, they could enact laws while in an official "state of emergency" that could crush the liberty movement. That's the fear of the Obama administration keeping the country in a perpetual state of emergency; they can and will use that excuse to circumvent the constitution and give themselves a clear path to socialism.
I honestly do not think there is time to vote this administration out of office.

[bobbyw24]

And if new proposed legislation is passed, you can be stripped of your citizenship and taken away without trial.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=243228

Crazy

[catdd]

bump for importance

[erowe1]

Roberts reasoning is correct, though.

You can't ban funding just one part of their operation without banning all funding of anything the groups do, because money is fungible.

So if it's ok to ban funding their purchase of weapons, then it's ok to ban funding them at all. If you want to allow funding their legal defense, then you're de facto also allowing funding of everything else they do.

[Anti Federalist]

Bump because this will largely be ignored and passed over and greeted with a "meh, so what?".

Unless something radically changes, rest assured, we will not be accused of doing nothing during the fall of the republic, but rather, of doing nothing more than taking notes for posterity.

Just another day in the land of the free...

[Inflation]

They have made their ruling, now let them enforce it.

http://fija.org/wp-content/uploads/primaryfunction-rev4.jpg

http://www.yannone.org/BlogPics/FIJA2.gif

[charrob]

insane. this really pisses me off.

Cindy Sheehans' group will be protesting in D.C. from July 4 thru July 17. I'm getting active.

Enough of this bullshit!:mad:

[Mach]

What is more shocking to me than the decision is the surprise by some people that this could even happen.

When they stopped that Presidential re-count awhile back I never expected anything from them again.

They just seem to be political tools these days.

[Dr.3D]

They have made their ruling, now let them enforce it.

http://fija.org/wp-content/uploads/primaryfunction-rev4.jpg

http://www.yannone.org/BlogPics/FIJA2.gif

The problem is, they always get rid of the people who would consider jury nullification. Those people don't get to sit on a jury.

[Anti Federalist]

The problem is, they always get rid of the people who would consider jury nullification. Those people don't get to sit on a jury.

Do what I did one time years back, lie.

Let me sit on a gun technicality or IRS case jury.

I'd hang that son of a bitch until Judgment Day.

But you're right, in the long run, they'd weed us out, or reduce juries to six or not require a unanimous decision.

[catdd]

According to this report, the US gov is funding terror.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/world/us_and_canada/10372309.stm

[catdd]

bump

[bobbyw24]

(CNSNews.com) – Former President Jimmy Carter has voiced concern that Monday’s Supreme Court ruling on “material support” to terrorist groups may criminalize his “work to promote peace and freedom.”

Carter, whose advocacy has entailed contact with groups designated by the U.S. government as “foreign terrorist organizations” (FTOs) – notably Hamas and Hezbollah – said he was disappointed by the court decision.

The high court, in a 6-3 decision, upheld a federal law that forbids providing “material support” to an FTO, ruling that it can be applied to U.S. organizations whose engagement with terrorists involves promoting non-violent solutions to conflicts.

The law, part of the post-9/11 USA Patriot Act, forbids the provision of any aid, defined as including “service,” “training” or “expert advice or assistance,” to a designated FTO.

Although the free speech challenge derived from organizations wanting to work with terrorist groups in and around Turkey and in Sri Lanka – the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) and Tamil Tigers (LTTE) – the ramifications may be most evident in 2010 in the Middle East, amid growing calls for Western governments to recognize and engage with groups like Hamas and Hezbollah.

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/68167

[jmdrake]

Our government continually gives violent support to terrorist groups! That's where Al Qaeda go it's start. Indirect funding from the U.S. through Pakistan of radical Islamists to fight the Soviet Union. Now we are supporting an Islamo-marxist group in order to fight the Iranians (the MEK). For that matter the U.S. funded the same Kurdish group at the heart of this case.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1543798/US-funds-terror-groups-to-sow-chaos-in-Iran.html

[catdd]

The United States Government is the number one supporter of terrorism on the planet!
http://www.globalissues.org/article/332/western-support-for-terrorism

Spread the word that this "do as we say and not as we do" bullshit will not be tolerated.

[Krugerrand]

Can this be a legally defensible reason to stop paying taxes?

Whereas the federal government provides material support to terrorist groups, to fund the federal government would be providing indirect support to terrorists groups. To stay in compliance with this new law, we must all stop paying taxes.

[catdd]

can this be a legally defensible reason to stop paying taxes?

Whereas the federal government provides material support to terrorist groups, to fund the federal government would be providing indirect support to terrorists groups. To stay in compliance with this new law, we must all stop paying taxes.

+ 1000

Our tax dollars are being used as material support of terrorism.

[John Taylor]

+ 1000

Unfortunately a solitary individual citizen lacks legal standing to challenge federal expenditures, even if those expenditures are illegal. :mad::mad:

[Krugerrand]

Unfortunately a solitary individual citizen lacks legal standing to challenge federal expenditures, even if those expenditures are illegal. :mad::mad:

But, this is slightly different.

This isn't challenging "I don't like how the money is spent." In this case, the government passed a newer statute that said you must not provide direct or indirect support to terrorists. If taxes are providing indirect support, would not people be obligated not to pay them?

[erowe1]

But, this is slightly different.

This isn't challenging "I don't like how the money is spent." In this case, the government passed a newer statute that said you must not provide direct or indirect support to terrorists. If taxes are providing indirect support, would not people be obligated not to pay them?

Sure. Go ahead and try that. Let us know how it works out.

[Krugerrand]

Sure. Go ahead and try that. Let us know how it works out.

I like to think of myself as an "ideas" guy. ;)

[Mach]

Israel wins again. Flotilla, case closed.

I wonder how they do that?