High court upholds anti-terror law

[sabra]

Source: AFP

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court has upheld a federal law that bars "material support" to foreign terrorist organizations, rejecting a free speech challenge from humanitarian aid groups.

The court ruled 6-3 Monday that the government may prohibit all forms of aid to designated terrorist groups, even if the support consists of training and advice about entirely peaceful and legal activities.

Material support intended even for benign purposes can help a terrorist group in other ways, Chief Justice John Roberts said in his majority opinion.

"Such support frees up other resources within the organization that may be put to violent ends," Roberts said.

Justice Stephen Breyer took the unusual step of reading his dissent aloud in the courtroom. Breyer said he rejects the majority's conclusion "that the Constitution permits the government to prosecute the plaintiffs criminally" for providing instruction and advice about the terror groups' lawful political objectives. Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor joined the dissent.

Read more: http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iyoQvMNadtonx9sFU0beOI7UMaUgD9GFNGBO0

[Solly Mack]

1. K&R

Would dissent to the majority provide "aid" to terrorists...since dissent would indicate a belief that those who do provide peaceful advice or training should be able to do so free from prosecution and that could be seen as support of the right to perform those peaceful actions?


I mean, if we really want to create a string of actions & causes that could possibly free up resources within terrorists groups that might possibly allow them to engage in criminal acts.


http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=124012925
http://www.bordc.org/resources/cole-materialsupport.php


There's an obvious dancing around this topic...something about expert advice possibly attached to criminal activity being material support. Snicker.

[msanthrope]

2. Breyer's dissent is brilliant--we're gonna see a revisit on this issue

in the future, especially if someone is criminally prosecuted for pure advocacy.


It's tough to take sides on this one. On the one hand, the majority makes a compelling point that giving aid to terrorist organizations could possibly further terrorism, as money is fungible.

On the other, the dissent points out that money/goods/ aren't the support here--it's coordinated advocacy. Which should not be automatically excluded from 1st A protections.

In all, I have to agree with Breyer--the majority is correct in that the statute is NOT unconstitutionally vague. But, the government did not show how a ban on pure advocacy meets the compelling interest in anti-terrorism. And the standard should be compelling, because we are talking not just conduct, but speech.


What Breyer writes in the dissent, though, about 'delegitimization' should be read by each and every single poster concerned about civil liberties:


"Second, the Government says that the plaintiffs’ pro-posed activities will “bolste a terrorist organization’sefficacy and strength in a community” and “undermin this nation’s efforts to delegitimize and weaken those groups.” Government Brief 56 (emphasis added). In the Court’s view, too, the Constitution permits application of the statute to activities of the kind at issue in part becausethose activities could provide a group that engages interrorism with “legitimacy.” Ante, at 25. The Court sug-gests that, armed with this greater “legitimacy,” these organizations will more readily be able to obtain materialsupport of the kinds Congress plainly intended to ban—money, arms, lodging, and the like. See ibid.
Yet the Government does not claim that the statute forbids any speech “legitimating” a terrorist group.Rather, it reads the statute as permitting (1) membershipin terrorist organizations, (2) “peaceably assembling withmembers of the PKK and LTTE for lawful discussion,” or
(3) “independent advocacy” on behalf of these organiza-tions. Government Brief 66, 61, 13. The Court, too, em-phasizes that activities not “coordinated with” the terror-ist groups are not banned. See ante, at 21, 26, 31 (emphasis added). And it argues that speaking, writing, and teaching aimed at furthering a terrorist organization’speaceful political ends could “mak it easier for thosegroups to persist, to recruit members, and to raise funds.” Ante, at 25.

But this “legitimacy” justification cannot by itself war-rant suppression of political speech, advocacy, and asso-ciation. Speech, association, and related activities onbehalf of a group will often, perhaps always, help to le-gitimate that group. Thus, were the law to accept a “le-gitimating” effect, in and of itself and without qualifica-tion, as providing sufficient grounds for imposing such a ban, the First Amendment battle would be lost in untold instances where it should be won. Once one accepts this argument, there is no natural stopping place. The argu-ment applies as strongly to “independent” as to “coordi-nated” advocacy. But see ante, at 26–27. That fact is reflected in part in the Government’s claim that the ban here, so supported, prohibits a lawyer hired by a desig-nated group from filing on behalf of that group an amicus brief before the United Nations or even before this Court. See Tr. of Oral Arg. 47–49, 53.

That fact is also reflected in the difficulty of drawing aline designed to accept the legitimacy argument in some instances but not in others. It is inordinately difficult todistinguish when speech activity will and when it will notinitiate the chain of causation the Court suggests—a chain that leads from peaceful advocacy to “legitimacy” to in-creased support for the group to an increased supply of material goods that support its terrorist activities. Even were we to find some such line of distinction, its applica-tion would seem so inherently uncertain that it would often, perhaps always, “chill” protected speech beyond itsboundary. In short, the justification, put forward simplyin abstract terms and without limitation, must always, or it will never, be sufficient. Given the nature of the plain-tiffs’ activities, “always” cannot possibly be the First Amendment’s answer.

Regardless, the “legitimacy” justification itself is incon-sistent with critically important First Amendment case law. Consider the cases involving the protection the First Amendment offered those who joined the Communist Party intending only to further its peaceful activities. In those cases, this Court took account of congressional find-ings that the Communist Party not only advocated theo-retically but also sought to put into practice the overthrow of our Government through force and violence. The Court had previously accepted Congress’ determinations that the American Communist Party was a “Communist action organization” which (1) acted under the “control, direction,and discipline” of the world Communist movement, amovement that sought to employ “espionage, sabotage,terrorism, and any other means deemed necessary, toestablish a Communist totalitarian dictatorship,” and (2)“endeavor” to bring about “the overthrow of existinggovernments by . . . force if necessary.” Communist Party of United States v. Subversive Activities Control Bd., 367U. S. 1, 5–6 (1961) (internal quotation marks omitted)."

Much more at link...

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-1498.pdf

[Jefferson23]

3. Supreme Court Affirms Ban on Aiding Groups Tied to Terror

Source: New York Times

By ADAM LIPTAK
June 21, 2010

WASHINGTON — Rejecting a First Amendment challenge, the Supreme Court on Monday upheld a federal law that bars providing “material support” to terrorist organizations.

The decision was the court’s first ruling on the free speech and association rights of American citizens in the context of terrorism since the Sept. 11 attacks.


Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., writing for the majority in the 6-to-3 decision, said the law’s prohibition of providing some forms of intangible assistance to groups said by the State Department to engage in terrorism did not violate the First Amendment.

“At bottom, plaintiffs simply disagree with the considered judgment of Congress and the executive that providing material support to a designated foreign terrorist organization — even seemingly benign support — bolsters the terrorist activities of that organization,” the chief justice wrote. He was joined by Justices John Paul Stevens, Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, Anthony M. Kennedy and Samuel A. Alito Jr,

“Given the sensitive interests in national security and foreign affairs at stake,” Chief Justice Roberts continued, “the political branches have adequately substantiated their determination that, to serve the government’s interest in preventing terrorism, it was necessary to prohibit providing material support in the form of training, expert advice, personnel, and services to foreign terrorist groups, even if the supporters meant to promote only the groups’ nonviolent ends.”

Justice Stephen G. Breyer took the unusual step of summarizing his dissent from the bench. He wrote:


Read more: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/22/us/politics/22scotus.html?hp

[Mojorabbit]

4. I am not surprised with this court

but this will eventually have to be overturned. I can't see how it could not be.

[kpete]

5. SCOTUS Ruling Criminalizes Speech in Material Support Law Case-President Carter Could Be Prosecuted

Source: Center For Constitutional Rights

Supreme Court Ruling Criminalizes Speech in Material Support Law Case

President Carter Could Be Prosecuted for Monitoring Fair Elections in Lebanon

Contact: [email protected]

June 21, 2010, Washington and New York – Today, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 6-3 to criminalize speech in Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project, the first case to challenge the Patriot Act before the highest court in the land, and the first post-9/11 case to pit free speech guarantees against national security claims. Attorneys say that under the Court’s ruling, many groups and individuals providing peaceful advocacy could be prosecuted, including President Carter for training all parties in fair election practices in Lebanon. President Carter submitted an amicus brief in the case.

Chief Justice Roberts wrote for the majority, affirming in part, reversing in part, and remanding the case back to the lower court for review; Justice Breyer dissented, joined by Justices Ginsburg and Sotomayor. The Court held that the statute's prohibitions on "expert advice," "training," "service," and "personnel" were not vague, and did not violate speech or associational rights as applied to plaintiffs' intended activities. Plaintiffs sought to provide assistance and education on human rights advocacy and peacemaking to the Kurdistan Workers' Party in Turkey, a designated terrorist organization. Multiple lower court rulings had found the statute unconstitutionally vague.

Said CCR Cooperating Attorney David Cole, “We are deeply disappointed. The Supreme Court has ruled that human rights advocates, providing training and assistance in the nonviolent resolution of disputes, can be prosecuted as terrorists. In the name of fighting terrorism, the Court has said that the First Amendment permits Congress to make human rights advocacy and peacemaking a crime. That is wrong.”

Originally brought in 1998, the case challenges the constitutionality of laws that make it a crime to provide “material support” to groups the administration has designated as “terrorist.” CCR’s clients sought to engage in speech advocating only nonviolent, lawful ends, but the government took the position that any such speech, including even filing an amicus brief in the U.S. Supreme Court, would be a crime if done in support of a designated “terrorist group.”

.............................



Read more: http://ccrjustice.org/newsroom/press-releases/supreme-court-ruling-criminalizes-speech-material-support-law-case

[damntexdem]

6. For many, this will make breaking the law a necessity.

It is not at all wise policy.

[Larkspur]

7. I'd like to see the government try to arrest President Carter

It would show how undemocratic this country has become.

I wonder if my donations to the International Solidarity Movement is considered an act of terrorism by the Roberts Court?

[sam sarrha]

16. i always thought the ReThugs invited people to a dinner, gave em a Rufi and take pictures of em with

farm animals and little boys.. cause they get 150% cooperation every time they need it, from people that definitely do know better..

[Joe Bacon]

21. Carter will stand up to them!

Let them try to attack President Carter. Just let the ASSHOLE MAJORITY on the Whore Court just try it!

[LiberalFighter]

8. Would the training and assistance that Supreme Court Justices provide

at venues outside the USA open to other countries be classified as criminal?

[alfredo]

9. If we get another bush in office, he could name MoveOn, or

Amnesty International terrorist organizations and then round up their contributors.

[msongs]

10. ha ha ha our new administration will change the law to avoid this, yeah right nt

[bergie321]

11. If Carter is arrested

Before Bush, I will renounce my citizenship.

[mbperrin]

12. So fucked up at so many levels.

wow

[Dawson Leery]

13. k/r

[glitch]

14. Fascists can't de-cloak fast enough. nt

[SILVER__FOX52]

15. Damn ! How much more damage are these

Fascists going to do?

[elleng]

17. Justice Stevens in the majority.

It CAN'T be all bad.

[GoddessOfGuinness]

18. If they won't go after Dumbyass, couldn't Congress at least take a closer look at

the freaking mess we've got in the SCOTUS?
Alito and Scalia ought to be easy to impeach.

[papadog]

19. Holder brought this to the SCOTUS?

Can the Obama Administration get anymore Bushy? I'm so disappointed with this administration I'm starting to think McCain would have been more liberal.

[Jefferson23]

20. Then think again. n/t

[ElsewheresDaughter]

22. another dark day

[indepat]

23. The felonious ones keep churning out the most odious felonious decisions, not steeped

in the Constitution, but in their undeniably warped ideology, imo, that is absolutely foreign to every thing the framers intended. Nefarious and unconscionable judicial misconduct at its zenith and running amok. :P

[Politicub]

24. Free speech is ecclipsed by the Patriot Act

It's a sad day in America that the Bill of Rights gets gutted by the the Supreme Court (again).

[Odin2005]

25. I'd like to see them TRY to arrest Carter! Assholes!

[Bragi]

26. They wn't arrest Carter, they will arrest organizers of protests

This appalling ruling will make it easy to claim that anyone who organizes protests against Israel's right-wing regime is actually supporting terrorism. That's who they will now target -- organizers of political protests -- not Jimmy Carter, despite his status as one of the few leaders who still support political rights.

I find it depressing to realize that had this law been in place in the 1980's, me and thousands of others could easily have been arrested as terrorist backers for supporting the rebels (now called "terrorists") then fighting to overthrow the Reagan-backed fascist government of El Salvador.

Will people now finally rise up to reassert their rights against this rogue Supreme Court?

Frankly, at a time when people won't even go tot he streets to protest an entire ocean ecosystem being killed off, I doubt it. People seem content to see their political rights disappear.

<Big sigh>

- B