more totalitarian bullshit from the supreme court

[Quantum Windbag]

You think it is fine that the government can effectively prohibit someone from giving legal advice to another person simply because that second person is a terrorist? This actually makes it impossible for groups that specialize in talking to organizations and teaching them that they have the option to pursue their greivances in court, instead of doing something crazy like killing people, from telling them how to do this. Yet you think it is a good idea and a solid ruling.

No I don't believe that the government should take legal rights away from even terrorists. But you do understand that those rights are only applicable to US citizens, and even then US citizens who are in a war zone are no longer afforded CON protections. This ruling didn't change that at all.

what should happen to american red cross workers who treat soldiers from hezbollah, taliban, etc ?

Red Cross defends helping Taliban treat casualties - CNN.com
FOXNews.com - Red Cross Gives First Aid Training to Afghanistan's Taliban, Report Says

According to SCOTUS they should be charged with giving aid to terrorist organizations. Funny thing is, so should everyone who donates to the Red Cross.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Are you seriously trying to trump me with the Sedition Act? Get real.

I'm seriously trying to tell you that free speech has its limitations.

The Sedition Act is not the way to prove your point. I love it myself because it has a very rare status as being a law that was repealed before SCOTUS ever ruled on it, yet still cited by SCOTUS as an example of a law that is unconstitutional. It may be unique in that respect, but I am not enough of a law geek to know that for sure.

Please, keep trying to prove your point by using the Sedition Act, it is amusing.

My point is that free speech has it's limitations and the sedition act was a good example. Even if you don't agree. It was repealed in 1920 but replaced with the Smith Act aka The Alien Registration Act in 1940. And though some courts have ruled it unconstitutional it is still on the books.

The point is, unfettered speech can be dangerous.

"The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent."
Chief Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.

 

[blu]

No I don't believe that the government should take legal rights away from even terrorists. But you do understand that those rights are only applicable to US citizens, and even then US citizens who are in a war zone are no longer afforded CON protections. This ruling didn't change that at all.

what should happen to american red cross workers who treat soldiers from hezbollah, taliban, etc ?

Red Cross defends helping Taliban treat casualties - CNN.com
FOXNews.com - Red Cross Gives First Aid Training to Afghanistan's Taliban, Report Says

According to SCOTUS they should be charged with giving aid to terrorist organizations. Funny thing is, so should everyone who donates to the Red Cross.

and everyone who pays taxes because our "foreign aid" reaches almost every terrorist group

 

[Lonestar_logic]

fuck marshall

High Court: Americans Can’t Help Terrorists Liveshots

now we can't send non-violent etc aid to some group just because some asshole in DC calls them a terrorist group?

So you think it should be ok to help terrorist?

Reagan thought so.

Link.

 

[ConHog]

You think it is fine that the government can effectively prohibit someone from giving legal advice to another person simply because that second person is a terrorist? This actually makes it impossible for groups that specialize in talking to organizations and teaching them that they have the option to pursue their greivances in court, instead of doing something crazy like killing people, from telling them how to do this. Yet you think it is a good idea and a solid ruling.

No I don't believe that the government should take legal rights away from even terrorists. But you do understand that those rights are only applicable to US citizens, and even then US citizens who are in a war zone are no longer afforded CON protections. This ruling didn't change that at all.

Yes it did. It has said that US citizens who are living and working in the US cannot talk to these groups and educate them in alternatives to violence, because by doing so they will somehow free up other resources to be used for violence.

read what you just wrote and tell me how telling someone you can't talk to a terrorist keeps the person you told that to from having legal advice?

It doesn't .

Red Cross is covered under The Geneva Convention and as such certain US laws do not apply.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

You think it is fine that the government can effectively prohibit someone from giving legal advice to another person simply because that second person is a terrorist? This actually makes it impossible for groups that specialize in talking to organizations and teaching them that they have the option to pursue their greivances in court, instead of doing something crazy like killing people, from telling them how to do this. Yet you think it is a good idea and a solid ruling.

Foreign groups like the PKK or LTTE have no constitutional right to our court system.

How do you jump to that conclusion?

Easy.

Article IV Section 2 says: The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. A Person charged in any State with Treason, Felony, or other Crime, who shall flee from Justice, and be found in another State, shall on demand of the executive Authority of the State from which he fled, be delivered up, to be removed in the State having Jurisdiction of the Crime.

The 14th Amendment Paragraph 1 says: All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

The Article IV material has to do with each state giving credit to the public acts of every other state. It makes specific reference to Citizens. The reference to non-citizens (A Person charged...) relates not to Privileges and Immunities, but to the States' rights to demand the return of anyone charged with a crime.

The 14th Amendment defines citizenship. Again, the Supreme Court interprets the Constitution, it is not open to private interpretation. But it does appear that while any person in the US should enjoy basic rights that any person anywhere should have (Declaration), certain Privileges and Immunities seem to be reserved for citizens. This seems reasonable; the United States is a Sovereign State, and has the right and power (given by the People) to establish laws and enforce the rule of law. Privileges and Immunities of citizenship are not (and should not be) simply extended to anyone who crosses our borders. No nation on earth does that.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

fuck marshall

High Court: Americans Can’t Help Terrorists Liveshots

now we can't send non-violent etc aid to some group just because some asshole in DC calls them a terrorist group?

So you think it should be ok to help terrorist?

like when we helped the taliban, contra, ira, urgins, etc? I don't trust the government to decide which group is a terrorist group or not.

I asked you a question. Please answer it.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I'm seriously trying to tell you that free speech has its limitations.

The Sedition Act is not the way to prove your point. I love it myself because it has a very rare status as being a law that was repealed before SCOTUS ever ruled on it, yet still cited by SCOTUS as an example of a law that is unconstitutional. It may be unique in that respect, but I am not enough of a law geek to know that for sure.

Please, keep trying to prove your point by using the Sedition Act, it is amusing.

My point is that free speech has it's limitations and the sedition act was a good example. Even if you don't agree. It was repealed in 1920 but replaced with the Smith Act aka The Alien Registration Act in 1940. And though some courts have ruled it unconstitutional it is still on the books.

The point is, unfettered speech can be dangerous.

"The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent."
Chief Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.

It sure can, which is why tyrants always oppose it. Nice of you to declare which side you are on.

 

[Big Fitz]

and everyone who pays taxes because our "foreign aid" reaches almost every terrorist group

Been saying we should end foreign aid for about a decade now. I also disagree that this excuses individual funding of terrorism.

Maybe if more people funded Tim McVeigh he could have knocked the whole building down. Feel better? Or how about that abortion bomber? Maybe extra cash could have kept him out blasting the clinics longer.

So yes! Let's play moral equivalency! Whoopie!!!!!!

 

[MaggieMae]

fuck marshall

High Court: Americans Can’t Help Terrorists Liveshots

now we can't send non-violent etc aid to some group just because some asshole in DC calls them a terrorist group?

So you think it should be ok to help terrorist?

Every time an American oil company buys crude from OPEC, it is supporting countries that endorse terrorism. Just about everyone with a 401(k) pension plan or mutual fund has money invested in companies that are doing business in so-called rogue states, thereby supporting terrorism.

 

[blu]

So you think it should be ok to help terrorist?

like when we helped the taliban, contra, ira, urgins, etc? I don't trust the government to decide which group is a terrorist group or not.

I asked you a question. Please answer it.

my answer is pretty obvious. I don't think I would help a terrorist group, but I dont want or need the government telling me who is a terrorist group or not. If my opinion differed from the governments I would still support the group in question.

 

[ConHog]

fuck marshall

High Court: Americans Can’t Help Terrorists Liveshots

now we can't send non-violent etc aid to some group just because some asshole in DC calls them a terrorist group?

So you think it should be ok to help terrorist?

Every time an American oil company buys crude from OPEC, it is supporting countries that endorse terrorism. Just about everyone with a 401(k) pension plan or mutual fund has money invested in companies that are doing business in so-called rogue states, thereby supporting terrorism.

Yah and there is no difference in doing business with a company that may or may not fund terrorism and actually sending aid to that group............

 

[blu]

fuck marshall

High Court: Americans Can’t Help Terrorists Liveshots

now we can't send non-violent etc aid to some group just because some asshole in DC calls them a terrorist group?

So you think it should be ok to help terrorist?

Every time an American oil company buys crude from OPEC, it is supporting countries that endorse terrorism. Just about everyone with a 401(k) pension plan or mutual fund has money invested in companies that are doing business in so-called rogue states, thereby supporting terrorism.

everyone who buys a GE product (which is 99% of people who shop) are indirectly funding Iran since GE is very cosey with them and does billions in business with them

 

[Tech_Esq]

fuck marshall

High Court: Americans Can’t Help Terrorists Liveshots

now we can't send non-violent etc aid to some group just because some asshole in DC calls them a terrorist group?

So you think it should be ok to help terrorist?

Reagan thought so.

Guess you didn't read my post. Reagan didn't step on his dick like Obama. The Contras were not a designated Terror organization by the state department.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

No I don't believe that the government should take legal rights away from even terrorists. But you do understand that those rights are only applicable to US citizens, and even then US citizens who are in a war zone are no longer afforded CON protections. This ruling didn't change that at all.

Yes it did. It has said that US citizens who are living and working in the US cannot talk to these groups and educate them in alternatives to violence, because by doing so they will somehow free up other resources to be used for violence.

read what you just wrote and tell me how telling someone you can't talk to a terrorist keeps the person you told that to from having legal advice?

It doesn't .

Red Cross is covered under The Geneva Convention and as such certain US laws do not apply.

Maybe you should take a look at what lawyers say about the decision.

Providing foreign terrorist groups with material support in any form also furthers terrorism by straining the United States’ relationships with its allies and undermining cooperative efforts between nations to prevent terrorist attacks. We see no reason to question Congress’s finding that “international cooperation is required for an effective response to terrorism, as demonstrated by the numerous multilateral conventions in force providing universal prosecutive jurisdiction over persons involved in a variety of terrorist acts, including hostage taking, murder of an internationally protected person, and aircraft piracy and sabotage.” The material-support statute furthers this international effort by prohibiting aid for foreign terrorist groups that harm the United States’ partners abroad: “A number of designated foreign terrorist organizations have attacked moderate governments with which the United States has vigorously endeavored to maintain close and friendly relations,” and those attacks “threaten [the] social, economic and political stability” of such governments. “[O]ther foreign terrorist organizations attack our NATO allies, thereby implicating important and sensitive multilateral security arrangements.” For example, the Republic of Turkey — a fellow member of NATO — is defending itself against a violent insurgency waged by the PKK. That nation and our other allies would react sharply to Americans furnishing material support to foreign groups like the PKK, and would hardly be mollified by the explanation that the support was meant only to further those groups’ “legitimate” activities. From Turkey’s perspective, there likely are no such activities. See 352 F. 3d, at 389 (observing that Turkey prohibits membership in the PKK and prosecutes those who provide support to that group, regardless of whether the support is directed to lawful activities).

The Volokh Conspiracy Avoiding Bad Reactions by Foreign Nations as a Justification for Speech Restrictions?

The speech the plaintiffs said was improperly restricted:

1. “train[ing] members of [the] PKK on how to use humanitarian and international law to peacefully resolve disputes”;
2. “engag[ing] in political advocacy on behalf of Kurds who live in Turkey”;
3. “teach[ing] PKK members how to petition various representative bodies such as the United Nations for relief”;
4. “[e]ngag[ing] in political advocacy on behalf of Tamils who live in Sri Lanka.”

The Volokh Conspiracy Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project

A humanitarian aid group is not a lawyer, and they are now prohibited of advocating legally on the behalf of anyone the US, or its allies, declares a terrorist group, simply so that we do not offend our allies in the campaigns to violate human rights.

 

[Gunny]

The Sedition Act is not the way to prove your point. I love it myself because it has a very rare status as being a law that was repealed before SCOTUS ever ruled on it, yet still cited by SCOTUS as an example of a law that is unconstitutional. It may be unique in that respect, but I am not enough of a law geek to know that for sure.

Please, keep trying to prove your point by using the Sedition Act, it is amusing.

My point is that free speech has it's limitations and the sedition act was a good example. Even if you don't agree. It was repealed in 1920 but replaced with the Smith Act aka The Alien Registration Act in 1940. And though some courts have ruled it unconstitutional it is still on the books.

The point is, unfettered speech can be dangerous.

"The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent."
Chief Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.

It sure can, which is why tyrants always oppose it. Nice of you to declare which side you are on.

Only totalitarian I see around here is the goofwad some lefties put in office while the right squabbled amongst itself.

 

[MaggieMae]

 

[MaggieMae]

The Constitution is not a suicide pact. Free speech doesn't include plotting to destroy the USA. Unless you're on our enemies side, which is quite possible if you're a Liberal, what part of that do you not understand?

From the article:
The HLP website:

Humanitarian Law Project
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]Looks like they don't care much for the US or the Constitution. [/SIZE][/FONT]

If you are correct that free speech does not include anti government speech, then you should be able to point to the fact that every justice agrees with your position, and the decision is unanimous. Unfortunately for you, you cannot. This is one of the dumbest decisions ever handed down by the court.

Section 3
Whoever, when the United States is at war, shall willfully make or convey false reports...with intent to interfere with the operation...of the military or naval forces of the United States...
or say or do anything...to an investor...with intent to obstruct the sale by the United States of bonds or other securities...
and whoever when the United States is at war, shall willfully cause or attempt to cause...insubordination... in the military or naval forces of the United States,
or shall willfully obstruct or attempt to obstruct the recruiting or enlistment services of the United States
and whoever, when the United States is at war, shall willfully utter, print, write or publish any disloyal, profane, scurrilous, or abusive language about the form of government of the United States or the Constitution...or the military or naval forces of the United States, or the flag...
or shall willfully utter, print, write, or publish any language intended to incite, provoke, or encourage resistance to the United States...
or shall willfully display the flag of any foreign enemy
or shall willfully by utterance, writing, printing, publication, or language spoken, urge...any curtailment of production in this country of any thing...necessary...to the prosecution of the war...
and whoever shall willfully advocate...the doing of any of the acts or things in this section enumerated...or favor the cause of any country with which the United States is at war...
shall be punished by a fine of not more than $10,000 or the imprisonment for not more than twenty years, or both....
Section 4
When the United States is at war, the Postmaster General may, upon evidence...that any person...is using the mails in violation...of this Act, instruct the postmaster at any post office at which mail is received addressed to such person..to return to the postmaster at the office at which they were originally mailed all letters or other matter so addressed...

Sedition Act of 1918

Ouch. Aren't you glad that act isn't strictly enforced?

 

[MaggieMae]

will obama go to jail for sending money to gaza? will bush go to jail for help hezbollah? will oliver north go to jail for supporting the contras?

Yes, Obama should arrest himself if he was doing his job. But, why start doing his job now???

No, Bush will not go to jail, but Obama will think about arresting him (stopped only because it would be doing his job and showing some kind (any kind) of leadership).

No, Ollie will not go to jail, the Contras weren't a designated terrorist organization by the US State Department. (See Reagan didn't step on his own dick like that).

Oh Reagan was as guilty as Oliver North. Are you kidding? There was a trade and arms embargo specifically against Iran at the time, and yet it was okay to secretly ship arms to Iran anyway? Colonel North admitted in his book that Reagan was fully aware of the shipments and approved of both the Iranian initiative and transfer of money to the Contras.

 

[Tech_Esq]

will obama go to jail for sending money to gaza? will bush go to jail for help hezbollah? will oliver north go to jail for supporting the contras?

Yes, Obama should arrest himself if he was doing his job. But, why start doing his job now???

No, Bush will not go to jail, but Obama will think about arresting him (stopped only because it would be doing his job and showing some kind (any kind) of leadership).

No, Ollie will not go to jail, the Contras weren't a designated terrorist organization by the US State Department. (See Reagan didn't step on his own dick like that).

Oh Reagan was as guilty as Oliver North. Are you kidding? There was a trade and arms embargo specifically against Iran at the time, and yet it was okay to secretly ship arms to Iran anyway? Colonel North admitted in his book that Reagan was fully aware of the shipments and approved of both the Iranian initiative and transfer of money to the Contras.

I don't know if what you claim is true or not, but I'm happy a pig in shit about it.

That was genius policy. Genius. It was only the stupid Dems that stopped the policy and thereby caused all the havoc we are now experiencing in the region. If they had stayed the fuck out of it, Iran and Iraq would have bled themselves white and had no ability to start trouble for anyone else.

Don't worry, I don't expect you to agree or even understand it. Just go on hoping Reagan and Ollie go to jail. (and, gnashing your teeth because they didn't)