Posted on 02/23/2010 2:35:40 PM PST by NormsRevenge
WASHINGTON (Reuters) – Supreme Court justices on Tuesday questioned whether a law that bars Americans from providing support to foreign terrorist groups violated constitutional rights of free speech and association.
Some justices seemed concerned the law outlawed the provision to such groups even of advice about lawful advocacy, such as petitioning the United Nations or filing legal briefings in American courts.
The hour-long arguments represented the first test to reach the Supreme Court after the September 11, 2001, attacks pitting First Amendment rights of free speech and association against government efforts to fight terrorism.
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said verbal or written communications, protected by the First Amendment, could be censored under the law.
"You can communicate, but the communications are censored," she told the Obama administration lawyer who defended the law. "There's a certain point where the discussions must stop."
The law barring material support, first adopted in 1996, was strengthened by the USA Patriot Act adopted by Congress right after the September 11 attacks and underwent minor amendment again in 2004.
The law bars knowingly providing any service, training, expert advice or assistance to any foreign organization designated by the U.S. State Department as terrorist.
Georgetown University law professor David Cole argued to the court that the law made it a crime for his clients, the Humanitarian Law Project in Los Angeles and its president Ralph Fertig, to speak out in assistance of the Kurdistan Workers Party, a militant separatist group in Turkey.
Solicitor General Elena Kagan, the administration's top courtroom lawyer, called the law a "vital weapon" for the government in fighting terrorism.
But Justice Stephen Breyer asked whether the law would cover teaching how to do something protected by the First Amendment, such as petitioning an international body like the United Nations.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
What part of “we’re at war” do they not understand?
Self-serving playing with words — fiddling while Rome burns.
For crying out loud!
Justice Stephen Breyer is so far removed from reality as to be a danger to the country. When people are trying to kill you, theoretical discussions tend to serve only the quickest draw.
Right!
Money talks and forbidding someone from giving money ... well I will not be surprised if someone on the Court says this. Next the USSC will say it’s mandatory for citizen to give $3 (or some other amount) to the Presidential Reelection Fund. Balderdash.
The actions of the Court recently have left me wondering. Guess I was raised different or read different or something.
How difficult is the phrase "aid and comfort"?
These are our mortal enemies, people! They are cold-blooded, hateful murderers! We are at war with them!
You do NOT give "friendly advice" to an enemy who has sworn to kill you and everyone you love. Why is this even under consideration???
Has the SCOTUS lost their flipping MINDS!?
They should name it the AssHat law....after the originator of care and support for the enemy....our esteemed prez.
Our troops are being “murthaized”
Slippery slope
So... Big Sis and Holder say the IRS crash guy is linked to the Tea Party Movement and designate them a terrorist organization. Then...
then..
WE all go to the WH for a beer summit. :-)
It’s interesting that Elena Kagan had to defend the Patriot Act.
What part of aid and abet don’t they understand!
They could help us all out by defining terrorism seeing as Obama is now including Americans she(the far left) doesn’t like as “domestic” terrorists. War vets, Christians, pro-lifers, constitution hangeron-ers, gun owners and second admendment advocates...
Excuse me, but haven't code pinko and cair been doing this for years?
Perhaps, but from a Constitutional perspective what makes them so? Should the President be able to forbid people from supporting anyone and anyone he claims to be an enemy of the U.S.?
Why the disingenuous questions?
Are you unclear on Article III of the Constitution as it relates to treason? Treason is a much more serious thing than the President bossing folks around. But I'm sure you know that.
Are you unclear on the United States' involvement in an ongoing war? Are you fuzzy in your thinking as to who the enemy are, and what they do?
Why do cerebral elitist types have such difficulty with the plain facts of our situation? We are at war. Radical Islamic terrorists have already killed thousands of us, and have boldly declared their intent to continue. They have attempted many times to do so.
This is REALLY happening. Real people have died. They REALLY want to kill YOU, and ME, and any other American who might fall into their hands.
WHY ON EARTH DOES ANY SANE AMERICAN PUSSY-FOOT AROUND WITH THE IDEA OF *HELPING* PEOPLE WHO LIKE TO SAW INNOCENT VICTIMS HEADS OFF ON CAMERA AND BLOW UP OUR CHILDREN???
"Our work to end violence sometimes requires interacting directly with groups that have engaged in it," Carter said in a statement. "Unfortunately, efforts like ours, and those of the many other human rights groups . . . are hindered by the extremely vague 'material support' law that leaves us guessing whether our work to encourage peace could actually be considered illegal."
....Kagan was challenged by other members of the court, particularly Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen G. Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor...
Sotomayor said the law is so broadly written that almost anything can be included in the category of "training."
"Under the definition of this statute, teaching these members to play the harmonica would be unlawful," she said. http://www.washingtonpost.com/
“I signed the brief,” said Chandler Davis, an emeritus professor of mathematics at the University of Toronto, “because I can testify to the way in which the dubious repression of dissent disrupted lives and disrupted political discourse.”
Professor Davis refused to cooperate with the House Un-American Activities Committee in 1954 and was dismissed from his position at the University of Michigan. Unable to find work in the United States, he moved to Canada. In 1991, the University of Michigan established an annual lecture series on academic freedom in honor of Professor Davis and others it had mistreated in the McCarthy era.
Mr. Fertig said the current climate was in some ways worse.
“I think it’s more dangerous than McCarthyism,” he said. “It was not illegal to help the communists or to be a communist. You might lose your job, you might lose your friends, you might be ostracized. But you’d be free. Today, the same person would be thrown in jail.” - http://www.nytimes.com
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.