Supreme Court upholds U.S. government's anti-terror law
The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.
JAPAN NEWS AND DISCUSSION
-
British woman held for smuggling cocaine into Bali
( 2 )
-
Millions in global aid for Iraq remain unspent
( 1 )
-
U.N. Security Council blames Syrian gov't for Houla killings
( 6 )
-
U.S. drones kill 5 militants in Pakistan
( 10 )
-
NATO has fight on its hands in Afghanistan - Panetta
( 7 )
-
- 秘書及び業務サポート
- 加治金属工業株式会社, Tokyo
- Salary: ¥4.0M / Year
-
- English Instructor (Osaka, Kyoto, Kobe)
- Berlitz Japan, Inc. (ベルリッツ・ジャパン株式会社), Kansai
- Salary: ¥125,000 ~ ¥250,000 / Month
-
- ALT - Mie Prefecture - Yokkaichi City - June start
- NPO法人グローバル教育推進機構（GLAD), Mie
- Salary: ¥230,000 / Month For a full working month. Some months differ.
Order by Time Order by Popularity
22 Comments
Login to comment
0
Eyeblack
The USA is the biggest violator of human rights. Disgusting, and the courts are a disgrace. Now we know why Iran needs nukes...The USA is the most hypocritical violent society of the modern age.
0
TheQuestion
Give me a comprehensive human rights violation comparison of all countries and then we'll talk, until that point it's just a nation that you don't like.
Oh dear, denying funding to terrorist organizations? How barbaric.
To bomb a likeness of their president into the moon's surface?
0
SuperLib
Well, now we know how they anti-Americans feel about the ruling...heh.
0
sabiwabi
Blocking funding to terrorists is a good thing. The problem is who they label as terrorists. Seeing who the US government calls terrorists and who it calls friends gives us a pretty good idea of what kind of people they are. Its time to get rid of them.
0
jruaustralia
The SC decision is a landmark decision, and the ruling upholds the common rationale that when it comes to act of terrorism-- the court will not make any distinction.
I doubt SuperLib that the ruling only affects your usual suspect of anti-American terrorists.
The saying 'guilty by association' has finally been enshrined into the US court system!
I'll guarantee that this ruling will only bolster claims from governments tainted with secessionist and pro-independent groups-- from Iraq to China to the Balkans-- for the Americans to include MORE to their list of designated terrorists/affiliate.
0
jruaustralia
More on this landmark 'guilty by association' ruling:
The prohibition extends beyond knowingly facilitating illegal operations. The law – part of the USA Patriot Act – makes it a federal crime to provide any help or support to a terror group – even support designed to teach a violent group how to use legal and peaceful means to achieve political change. Violators will face up to 15 years in prison.
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice/2010/0621/Supreme-Court-ruling-barring-aid-to-terrorist-groups-why-some-lament-it
By preserving an extremely vague prohibition on aiding and associating with terrorist groups, the court reduced the First Amendment rights of American citizens. The case was not about sending money to terrorist organizations or serving as their liaison, activities that are clearly and properly illegal. And it did not stop people from simply saying they support the goals of groups like Hamas or Al Qaeda, as long as they are not actually working with those groups. But it could have a serious impact on lawyers, journalists or academics who represent or study terrorist groups.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/22/opinion/22tue1.html?hp
WHICH OF the following is illegal under the law that bars providing "material support" to terrorists?:
Giving money to a terrorist organization.
Providing explosives training to terrorists.
Urging a terrorist group to put down its arms in favor of using lawful, peaceful means to achieve political goals.
After Monday's Supreme Court ruling in Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project the answer is: all three.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06/21/AR2010062104267.html
0
Sarge
"ban aid to designated terrorist groups, even when that support is intended to steer the groups toward peaceful and legal activities"
Human rights organization to terrorist group: We'll give you x dollars if you promise not to use it to buy weapons or carry out terrorist activities.
Terrorist group: We promise!
0
Klein2
jruaustralia:
I don't know how anyone could possibly believe your cogent, well reasoned argument that is backed up by in depth articles from those sketchy fly by night journalism crews at the Christian Science Monitor, New York Times, and the Washington Post.
Clearly, whenever an American citizen or anyone else chooses to associate with someone, they should be checking a list to see who is a terrorist THIS week or risk imprisonment. If I had a time machine could I associate with Manuel Noriega? Osama Bin Laden? Francisco Franco? Joseph Stalin? the Ayatollah Khomeini? Aw heck, throw Menachem Begin in there too... well, funny thing is, it really depends on which way the wind blows in America. Every single one of them has been America's best bud and worst enemy. The law is not anti-terror, it is anti-whoevercrossedswordswiththepowersthatbeinWashington.
And Sarge. You sound so smart until you realize that what you describe is exactly how things got settled with Egypt, Sinn Fein, Muammar Khadafy, and at least five or six terrorist groups I could wiki up with ease.
What if I send a million bucks to Israel and the US puts them on the terror list tomorrow? Do I go to prison for 15 years? Sea Shepherd anyone? Does that meet someone's definition of terrorism? WIll it someday?
Americans do not care about what the Supreme Court is doing. Every loose interpretation is going in favor of the state. Last week we learned that American citizens do not have the right to remain silent unless they STATE THAT THEY DO! Inalienable rights? What? Self evident? What? Land of the free? Home of the Brave? Go fight for your country citizen. Kill and do not make peace.
Matthew 5:9 will have to be cut out of Bibles in the US.
0
Klein2
Just for fun:
There is no international definition of terrorism or what constitutes a terrorist group. If you think about it, that makes sense, right? But check this out. The list below shows a mixed bag of bad actors and who regards them as terrorists. The differences are greater than the similarities. Have a look.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Listofdesignatedterroristorganizations
If a Japanese person gives money to Aum Shinrikyou, they can ask for a receipt. An Aussie can too. An American can ask for a ticket to prison.
However, an American can put money into THE IRA, not an IRA, anytime they want to (severe penalty for early withdrawal).
Shining Path is a no no for Americans, but ok if you are from the EU. If you write a letter to the African National Congress or the Taliban, you go to jail if you are an American.
Just to be safe, if you are an American citizen, you are better off not communicating with anyone. You never know when HUAC will make a comeback.
0
SuperLib
We're all just terrified of the new ruling.
0
Taka313
I wonder how the folk at the Peace Corps feel about this new law. This could affect Peace Corps operations.
Taka
0
Triumvere
Only, you aren't "urging", are you? You are paying them off. I'd perfer to leave any bribery attempts to the government, who I can hold responsible if the money/support supplied results in more terrorism.
Terrorist Orginizations are, by definition, illegal - they exist for the purpose of commiting illegal acts, and therefor membership in them is also illegal, much like any organized crime group (think mafia and racketeering). That they proport to have political objectives (even ones you may sympathize with) is immaterial.
Now, if you take issue with the groups which have been designated terrorist and the manner in which they are classified as such, then you may have a legitimate issue, but I am not down with the idea of funneling money and support to terrorist groups in the vauge hope that they will abandon the very activities they were formed to carry out. That is extortion at best and self-destructive at worst.
0
jruaustralia
Triumvere ,
I agree, but the ruling in fact isn't foggy over the act (terrorism), but who's in and who's not. To make sense-- and in something I fully understand-- in business law if you have been negligent and precarious you can be sued. Your low-level employee however, cannot be sued as this person doesn't have what they call duty of care, etc.
Translating this SC ruling onto business law would mean that you only need to be a part of the group/ entity, responsible with negligence, to be liable-- and hence be convicted (guilty by association).
I doubt a simple 'blog' of support is substantial for one to qualify himself to be 'part of' or 'in' with the conduct of terrorism. But recurring correspondences will-- and here's the dilemma of folks pointing the First Amendment.
On the 'vagueness part' here's what the Court said:
The Court distinguished the statutory terms in PATRIOT Act - - - "training," "expert advice or assistance," "service" and "personnel" - - - from previously adjudged vague terms such as "annoying," "indecent," and "vagrants."
Your objective (and why and how you became part) is now immaterial. The degree of involvement is the most contentious part-- and one that only future proceedings can answer for us. A journalist with recurring 'contact' with a designated terrorist organization (AQ, Tamil Tigers, etc), under the so-called 'conduct' test of Holder, can be convicted under this ruling.
A blog is covered by 'pure political speech'-- regardless of the degree of sympathy or awe conferred to terror groups and its conducts. Corresponding won't.
I agree that funneling money to designated terrorist groups is WRONG and should be made illegal. But you're mistaken to claim that simply taking up an issue with/ or on behalf (material support) of designated terror groups is rightful under this new anti-terror law.
Holder isn't just about financial support... it's the gray part that's making people furious.
Read More:
http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/conlaw/2010/06/holder-v-humanitarian-law-project-opinion-analysis-material-support-statute-upheld-.html
0
SuperLib
It's just really that big of a deal. No, journalists aren't going to be arrested for giving interviews or having contacts with terrorist groups. It's just common sense. It's counterproductive in the end and I'm sure they know that regardless of how you want to read the law.
Honestly, I don't see why you ever care.
0
jruaustralia
Klein2,
The State of Israel is not a US-designated terrorist group. The Sea Shepard (good grip!) isn't as well. Your questions are irrelevant to say the least.
If however you've committed what you (and us) may deem fitting the conduct test of Holder--and happen to live in the US-- I'll assume that the court will still decide whether some sort of sufficient 'reason' had been employed. Otherwise your case should fall under the "annoying," "indecent," and "vagrants" categories.
0
jruaustralia
Ho-hohoho
Judging from your hasty reply I'm not too sure.... is it suppose to be "not big of a deal" or the other way around-- just as you wrote it?
If I'm a journalist reading your response, I probably should double-check....
0
Triumvere
jruaustralia,
Thanks for the informative and measured response. Just to be clear, I'm no saying that this decision isn't problematic, but rather reacting to the idea that "encouraging" terrorist groups toward non-violence by means of material support is an activity that NGOs or private citizens should be engaged in. Obviously, depending on the interpretation otherwise well-intentioned groups seeking to provide aid in war-torn areas may find themselves run afoul of the law by unintentionally assossiating with banned groups. I too, would like to see a bit more definition here, though you could argue that such groups should have a duty to vet their contacts (to a reasonable extent). If humanitarian aid is not possible in a region without sanction from banned groups (thinking now of sticky situations like Gaza were Hamas is both "terrorist organization" and "legitimate government") then things get really sticky, but I don't think that humanitarian efforts necessarily win by default. There are plenty of areas in the law where "we didn't know" or "we couldn't help it" is insufficient to excuse illegal behavior.
I'm curious as to the issue of "contact" or "association". As I said before, membership in a criminal organization by default makes you a criminal, whether or not you are actively participating in any individual crime. But where do you draw the line between association and membership? Obviously, this is the issue that you and so many others are interested in. More definition, again, would have been ideal. I have trouble beleiving, however, that journalists (who are generally afforded a lot of protection) would be at risk for arrest for having contacts with terroritst groups. Clearly you know more about this than I, so feel free to correct me if you feel I am off the mark.
0
grafton
I get the impression that the Supreme Court has put the US government in a win win situation here by the degree of vagueness of the ruling. The ruling should have left us all clear as to where American citizens now stand, but in fact the opposite is now the case. As Triumvere points out Gaza represents a very difficult situation where a terrorist organisation is also the legitimate democratic government. What then happens when an organisation like the Red Cross try collecting money to send to Gaza? How can an American representative in the UN vote to support money being sent to Gaza? It could also be argued that google is facilitating terrorists by allowing it’s search engine to list their sites. The contradictions this ruling throws up could end up with a night mare court case and verdicts being given based on the feelings of the time. That is not law.
I also wouldn’t be so quick to say that journalists are safe, that might well depend on what they write or say and if that is the case we are getting into a controlled media that is close to being censored.
0
jruaustralia
Adventurous journalists (mostly freelance) would just have to be more careful now.
It will be contentious of course, as you know, given most journalists (as oppose to shills) are humans. It'll be hard I can imagine for these people to be just nonchalant to their emotions and politics--but SC have spoken and as I said before only future proceedings can answer for us the questions of "contact" or "association" in relations to Holder.
0
jruaustralia
I wish I said it but you did. Well put.
0
goodDonkey
Freedom of association is not literally spelled out in our Constitution/Bill of Rights; it should be. In many countries it is literally spelled out. However:
How true that is. Just because the Supreme Court chooses the easy way out does not mean it is justice. By "easy way out" I mean all discernment to be conducted by the government and all individual freedoms are subjective; specifically freedom of speech.
I am not against freezing assets and going after the money for terrorist groups like al-Qa'ida. I believe cutting off the money supply is a very effective means of reducing the power of terrorist organizations.
I really don't expect some people to get the value of freedom of association. In reality it is one of the greatest freedoms we can have. I wish it were in the Bill of Rights explicitly as well as the right to privacy being explicit.
Back to top