bu$h* legacy...Supreme Court Affirms Ban on Aiding Groups Tied to Terror

[spanone]

WASHINGTON — Rejecting a First Amendment challenge, the Supreme Court on Monday upheld a federal law that bans 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 on 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.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/22/us/politics/22scotus.html?ref=global-home&pagewanted=print

[joeybee12]

1. They've ripped up the constitution so much and thrown so much out, there's not enough to

use even as a bookmark.

[spanone]

2. sad

The Humanitarian Law group and others sued in an effort to renew support for what they described as lawful, nonviolent activities overseas.

"The Supreme Court has ruled that human rights advocates, providing training and assistance in the nonviolent resolution of disputes, can be prosecuted as terrorists," said Georgetown University law professor David Cole, who argued the case.

"In the name of fighting terrorism, the court has said that the First Amendment permits Congress to make it a crime to work for peace and human rights. That is wrong," Cole said.

Obama administration lawyers defended the law and called it a vital weapon in the government's effort to fight terrorism.

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE65K4B420100621

[katandmoon]

3. You are not aware that the Obama admin. went to bat for this law?

It is now the Obama legacy.

[spanone]

5. the court is the bu$h* legacy....this ruling is Obama's

[joeybee12]

4. Corporations buying politicians = free speech; working for world peace =

terrorism.

[BrklynLiberal]

6. Ain't that something else????

:puke: :silly: :grr:

[WeDidIt]

7. Interesting that Stevens joined the majority opinion

I respect Stevens more than any other Associate Justice, so for him to join the majority opinion pulls a lot of weight with me.

One wonders, though, if it would have been a 5-4 decision had Kagan already replaced Stevens.