Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 36

Thread: Supreme Court upholds law barring "material support" to terrorist groups

  1. #21
    Sage
    Guy Incognito's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Last Seen
    12-02-17 @ 07:43 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    11,216

    Re: Supreme Court upholds law barring "material support" to terrorist groups

    Quote Originally Posted by joergan View Post
    Neither the TT or PKK are terrorists, both are freedom fighters trying to liberate their homeland.
    Is that sarcasm?

  2. #22
    Hippie Hater
    texmaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Dallas TEXAS
    Last Seen
    08-20-15 @ 01:17 AM
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    3,969

    Re: Supreme Court upholds law barring "material support" to terrorist groups

    Quote Originally Posted by American View Post
    You mean there was ever a question?
    6-3 so 3 of the liberal judges thought it was A-ok

    Thats what's so frightening about liberals in the court system.
    Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.

    John Adams

  3. #23
    Sage
    Erod's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    North Texas
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 03:30 PM
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    13,071

    Re: Supreme Court upholds law barring "material support" to terrorist groups

    Quote Originally Posted by texmaster View Post
    6-3 so 3 of the liberal judges thought it was A-ok

    Thats what's so frightening about liberals in the court system.
    Yep, which three of our esteemed judges sided with terrorists on this issue? Hmmm?

    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.
    Breyer, Ginsburg, and SOTOMAYOR. Nice appointment there, Obama. Thanks a ton.
    Last edited by Erod; 06-21-10 at 06:19 PM.

  4. #24
    Girthless
    RightinNYC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    New York, NY
    Last Seen
    01-23-11 @ 11:56 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    25,894

    Re: Supreme Court upholds law barring "material support" to terrorist groups

    Quote Originally Posted by Guy Incognito View Post
    Not to get in the way of your reactionary diatribe, but this case has nothing to do with Gaza, Hezbollah, or anything of the sort. If you read the case you'll see that the plaintiffs were seeking to provide support to the nonviolent programs of two organizations, that also commit acts of terrorism. These two groups are not Islamic, they are the primarily Hindu group the Tamil Tigers and the communist Kurdish group the PPK. The case is 12 years old (read: prior to 9/11) and has nothing to do with post-9/11 anti-Islamic xenophobia. As much as you might want to politicize it, it is purely a first amendment issue, nothing to do with Palestine or Islam generally. But hey, why let facts get in the way of a good rant?
    FWIW, the fact that this particular case dealt with those groups has no bearing on the application of the material support statute more generally. It's frequently been used to target individuals providing support for groups like Hezbollah and Hamas.
    People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.

  5. #25
    Sage
    Guy Incognito's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Last Seen
    12-02-17 @ 07:43 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    11,216

    Re: Supreme Court upholds law barring "material support" to terrorist groups

    Quote Originally Posted by RightinNYC View Post
    FWIW, the fact that this particular case dealt with those groups has no bearing on the application of the material support statute more generally. It's frequently been used to target individuals providing support for groups like Hezbollah and Hamas.
    That's fair, I can certainly see how the law would apply to such groups. But that isn't really relevant to this case any more than providing support for the IRA. I still haven't finished reading the case so I still can't say whether I think it was rightly decided, but my point is simply that this is a first amendment issue. To suggest that the justices who dissented in this case did so because they support Hezbollah and Hamas is nonsense. Rather, they support the first amendment rights to freedom of speech and association.

  6. #26
    Professor
    Groucho's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Pocono Mountains, PA
    Last Seen
    05-24-11 @ 03:37 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    1,363

    Re: Supreme Court upholds law barring "material support" to terrorist groups

    Quote Originally Posted by jamesrage View Post
    Material support is not speech. Look it up in the dictionary. The most basic definition of speech is the expression of thoughts, feelings and other things through the articulation of words.

    I agree with you.

    Wait a minute -- isn't this the same Supreme Court that said that money WAS speech when it applies to candidates running for office?

    Now I'm really confused.

  7. #27
    Girthless
    RightinNYC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    New York, NY
    Last Seen
    01-23-11 @ 11:56 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    25,894

    Re: Supreme Court upholds law barring "material support" to terrorist groups

    Quote Originally Posted by Guy Incognito View Post
    To suggest that the justices who dissented in this case did so because they support Hezbollah and Hamas is nonsense.
    Absolutely true, though I think that saying they dissented because "they support the first amendment rights to freedom of speech and association" creates the unwarranted implication that those in the majority don't support those same rights. All the justices believe in those rights, they simply have a disagreement about the type of things they protect and how to balance them with the government's authority to enact laws.
    People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.

  8. #28
    Professor
    Groucho's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Pocono Mountains, PA
    Last Seen
    05-24-11 @ 03:37 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    1,363

    Re: Supreme Court upholds law barring "material support" to terrorist groups

    Not having read the decision, this looks like one of those "We have to support the 1st amendment for everyone or else it's meaningless" cases -- kind of like the Nazis marching case.

  9. #29
    Sage
    jamesrage's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    A place where common sense exists
    Last Seen
    12-10-17 @ 09:23 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    31,067

    Re: Supreme Court upholds law barring "material support" to terrorist groups

    Quote Originally Posted by Groucho View Post
    I agree with you.

    Wait a minute -- isn't this the same Supreme Court that said that money WAS speech when it applies to candidates running for office?

    Now I'm really confused.
    That supreme court rulling did not say that money itself is speech. I do not believe money is speech seeing how speech is the expressions of thoughts,emotions and other things through the articulation of words. Money in case of political spending is used to facilitate speech, whether it is written,verbal,printed,sign languaged.video and so on. It is the intentions of what the limitations on money is used for,which is why McCain-Feingold was struck down.. McCain-Feingold was basically saying you can have a cheeseburger, but we will ban hamburger meat,sliced processed cheese and hamburger buns.
    Last edited by jamesrage; 06-22-10 at 03:08 AM.
    "A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murder is less to fear"

    Cicero Marcus Tullius

  10. #30
    Equal Opportunity Hater
    obvious Child's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    0.0, -2.3 on the Political Compass
    Last Seen
    12-09-14 @ 11:36 PM
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    19,883

    Re: Supreme Court upholds law barring "material support" to terrorist groups

    Quote Originally Posted by rathi View Post
    Will this same ruling apply to the government? We have supported various groups currently labeled terrorists today as part of our past cold war policy. I agree that giving money is not the same thing as speech, but I wonder how consistent this ruling is going to be applied.
    You know, I agree with you most of the time and I think pretty poorly of the government, but I don't think they are that evil as to go about declaring any group they wish to be terrorists. I can see you concern, I just don't see it as being a real impact.
    "If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him." - Sun Tzu

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •