Now what surprises me is that something like this actually has to go to court...........the right to support terrorism in or against our own country that is. And that people in this country think it is ok to provide material support for just that. Why don't these people just leave if they hate it here so much? And if they hate Americans so much? I am also surprised 3 of the justices thought it was ok to do that. Well we know how much they think of the U.S. now don't we?
High Court: Americans Can’t Help Terrorists
June 21, 2010 - 10:51 AM | by: Lee Ross
Over the objections of three justices, the Supreme Court has upheld a federal law prohibiting American citizens from providing "material support or resources" to foreign terror groups. The 6-3 majority opinion from Chief Justice John Roberts is a victory for the government’s efforts to fight terrorist organizations.
"It is not difficult to conclude, as Congress did, that the taint of [terrorist's] violent activities is so great that working in coordination with them or at their command legitimizes and furthers their terrorist means,” Roberts wrote. “Moreover, material support meant to promote peaceable, lawful conduct can be diverted to advance terrorism in multiple ways."
A group called the Humanitarian Law Project sought to provide legal training and political advocacy for a pair of groups designated by the State Department as foreign terrorist organizations. Monday’s ruling says that support is illegal because "...all contributions to foreign terrorist organizations--even those for seemingly benign purposes--further those groups' terrorist activities."
The Humanitarian Law Project claimed the law violated its First Amendment rights to free speech and assembly. The Court’s ruling said that was not the case.
Justice Stephen Breyer took the unusual step of reading his dissent from the bench, something that is rarely done and often only when a justice feels particularly strong about the outcome of the decision. Breyer said he could not agree with the Court’s conclusion that “the Constitution permits the Government to prosecute the plaintiffs criminally for engaging in coordinated teaching and advocacy furthering the designated organizations' lawful political objectives." Breyer was joined in dissent by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor.
The case ends 12 years of litigation in which the Humanitarian Law Project had sought to assist the lawful and nonviolent activities of two separatist groups in Turkey and Sri Lanka. Notwithstanding any benevolent activities, the United States government says the groups PKK and LTTE are terrorists groups. The Project claimed the “material support” law infringed on their First Amendment rights to advocate and speak on behalf of the separatist groups. But the Court concluded that it is “wholly foreseeable” any support for these groups would provide them with “information and techniques that it could use as part of a broader strategy to promote terrorism, and to threaten, manipulate, and disrupt.” It set aside the Project’s claims saying its proposals of political advocacy were so broad in scope that they could not prevail on their constitutional claims.
Breyer said he does not dispute the Court’s concerns about protecting the country from the threat of foreign terrorist groups. But he said he was unable to determine how applying the law actually achieves that purpose. "I believe the Court has failed to examine the Government’s justifications with sufficient care. It has failed to insist upon specific evidence, rather than general assertion. It has failed to require tailoring of means to fit compelling ends. And ultimately it deprives the individuals before us of the protection that the First Amendment demands."
Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan argued and won the case for the government.
one battle won
There is 1 reply to this message
