[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Sign-in] [Mail] [Setup] [Help]
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
|
Dead Constitution See other Dead Constitution Articles Title: Supreme Court in contempt of First Amendment I have read scores of Supreme Court decisions, but rarely has their been so broadly vague and amateurishly twisted a rationale as in Chief Justice John Roberts majority decision (Jan. 21) on "Holder, Attorney General, Et al. vs. Humanitarian Law Project." With only three justices dissenting, this dangerous judicial activism disables the free-speech anchor of the First Amendment. The chief dissenter, Justice Stephen Breyer, was so outraged by the ruling that he read it aloud from the bench. He first cited verbatim the Patriot Act statute that punishes "knowingly provid(ing) material support or resources to a foreign terrorist organization," including "expert advice or assistance" that "threatens the security of the United States or its nationals ... with intent to endanger directly or indirectly, the safety of one or more individuals." Founded in 1985, the nonprofit Humanitarian Law Project (HLP) describes itself as "dedicated to protecting human rights and promoting the peaceful resolution of conflict by using established international human rights laws and humanitarian law." A nongovernmental organization, it has consultative status at the United Nations. Illustrative of its "terrorist" work is its persistent concern through the years about the genocide in Darfur because, as board member David Lynn, emphasizes: "To do nothing concerning the crisis in Darfur and Eastern Chad makes us all accomplices." The HLP advocated, uselessly, peaceful U.S. and U.N. intervention. Nonetheless, the Humanitarian Law Project is targeted by the Obama administration for providing "material support" to terrorists; and after the lower federal courts held that such clauses in the Patriot Act section as providing "expert advice or assistance" to terrorists are unconstitutionally vague, President Barack Obama commanded Attorney General Holder to get the Supreme Court to review the lower courts' findings. But what are these crimes it committed? In his crystal-clear dissent, Justice Breyer tells us. After the Secretary of State designated the Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK) and the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) as "foreign terrorist organizations," Holder charges the HLP nonetheless provided "material support" to these terrorists. I have read scores of Supreme Court decisions, but rarely has their been so broadly vague and amateurishly twisted a rationale as in Chief Justice John Roberts majority decision (Jan. 21) on "Holder, Attorney General, Et al. vs. Humanitarian Law Project." With only three justices dissenting, this dangerous judicial activism disables the free-speech anchor of the First Amendment. The chief dissenter, Justice Stephen Breyer, was so outraged by the ruling that he read it aloud from the bench. He first cited verbatim the Patriot Act statute that punishes "knowingly provid(ing) material support or resources to a foreign terrorist organization," including "expert advice or assistance" that "threatens the security of the United States or its nationals ... with intent to endanger directly or indirectly, the safety of one or more individuals." Founded in 1985, the nonprofit Humanitarian Law Project (HLP) describes itself as "dedicated to protecting human rights and promoting the peaceful resolution of conflict by using established international human rights laws and humanitarian law." A nongovernmental organization, it has consultative status at the United Nations. Illustrative of its "terrorist" work is its persistent concern through the years about the genocide in Darfur because, as board member David Lynn, emphasizes: "To do nothing concerning the crisis in Darfur and Eastern Chad makes us all accomplices." The HLP advocated, uselessly, peaceful U.S. and U.N. intervention. Nonetheless, the Humanitarian Law Project is targeted by the Obama administration for providing "material support" to terrorists; and after the lower federal courts held that such clauses in the Patriot Act section as providing "expert advice or assistance" to terrorists are unconstitutionally vague, President Barack Obama commanded Attorney General Holder to get the Supreme Court to review the lower courts' findings. But what are these crimes it committed? In his crystal-clear dissent, Justice Breyer tells us. After the Secretary of State designated the Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK) and the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) as "foreign terrorist organizations," Holder charges the HLP nonetheless provided "material support" to these terrorists. (2 of 2) Justice Breyer shows exactly how the HLP did not, in any way, support terrorism. "The plaintiffs, all United States citizens or associations," declare "they can (1) 'train members of the PKK on how to use humanitarian and international law to peacefully resolve disputes'" (2) "engage in political advocacy on behalf of Kurds who live in Turkey; (3) teach PKK members how to petition various representative bodies such as the United Nations for relief; and (4) engage in political advocacy on behalf of Tamils who live in Sri Lanka." s this supporting terrorism? Educating his colleagues and the president, Breyer repeatedly reminds them that "speech and association for political purposes" is the very core of the First Amendment, adding that not "'even the war power ... removes constitutional limitations safeguarding essential liberties.' (United States v. Robel)." The ACLU also reminds us all that the penalty for providing "material support" to terrorists is 15 years in prison. ("Supreme Court Rules 'Material Support' Law Can Stand," June 21). And Ahilan Arulanantham, an ACLU attorney for Southern California, explains another brutal dimension of this law: "A humanitarian organization may send medicine to perform dialysis, but risks prosecution if it also seeks to send either the doctor or the equipment needed to perform the dialysis itself." (acslaws.org, Nov. 17, 2009). "This is a very dark day in the history of the human rights struggle to assist groups overseas that are being oppressed," said Ralph Fertig, president of the Humanitarian Law Project, as he read the Roberts Court decision. His group will continue peaceful advocacy, "but we do so with great fear." There are a steadily increasing number of reasons to vote in the midterm elections.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 1.
#1. To: Ada (#0)
And do what Nat, replace them with the very same Republicans who wrote the Patriot Act, or more accurately pieced together various bills both Democrats and Republicans had been trying to pass for years? As if this is going to change a damned thing. Hey Nat weren't you one of those Hope and change guys? How's that working for you?
There are no replies to Comment # 1. End Trace Mode for Comment # 1.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest |
||
|
[Home]
[Headlines]
[Latest Articles]
[Latest Comments]
[Post]
[Sign-in]
[Mail]
[Setup]
[Help]
|
||