Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 234
Results 31 to 36 of 36

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

  1. #31
    Outer space potato man

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:19 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    51,709

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

    The source of the dissent is probably this:

    The court ruled 6-3 Monday that the government may prohibit all forms of aid to designated terrorist groups, even if the support consists of training and advice about entirely peaceful and legal activities.

    Material support intended even for benign purposes can help a terrorist group in other ways, Chief Justice John Roberts said in his majority opinion.
    I still do some flight instructing here and there. If one of my students turns out to be a member of one of these groups, am I going to jail or is there a "knowingly and willingly" requirement? Edit: Saw the "knowingly" clause. That seems reasonable.
    I'm on the fence on this one. Offering advice on plumbing doesn't strike me as something that should be worthy of jail time. Then again, who offers advice on plumbing to Al-Qaida?
    Last edited by Deuce; 06-22-10 at 10:29 AM.
    He touched her over her bra and underpants, she says, and guided her hand to touch him over his underwear
    Quote Originally Posted by Lutherf View Post
    We’ll say what? Something like “nothing happened” ... Yeah, we might say something like that.

  2. #32
    free market communist
    Gardener's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Last Seen
    09-30-17 @ 12:27 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    26,661

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Guy Incognito View Post



    Ok, I am only one page into reading the case right now and I can already see that it is exceedingly incorrect to refer to the groups at issue (the Tamil Tigers and the PKK) as "jihadist." You should at least get your slurs straight, Gardener.
    Odd, how you read right past the statement "Nearly four dozen organizations are on the State Department list, including al-Qaida, Hamas, Hezbollah, Basque separatists in Spain and Maoist rebels in Peru." in such a way as to completely excise any Islamist organization from consideration.

    While you may feel some compulsion to defend these Islamist terrorist organizations through this intentional act of editing them out like you did, I do not. I stand quite firmly against them, and so I feel no need to apologize for my remark simply because you have decided to support them by calling my reaction a "slur".
    "you're better off on Stormfront discussing how evil brown men are taking innocent white flowers." Infinite Chaos

  3. #33
    Sage
    apdst's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Bagdad, La.
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:46 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    76,219

    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.
    Did Obama break the law by giving Hamas $400 million?
    Quote Originally Posted by Top Cat View Post
    At least Bill saved his transgressions for grown women. Not suggesting what he did was OK. But he didn't chase 14 year olds.

  4. #34
    Cheese
    Aunt Spiker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Sasnakra
    Last Seen
    09-10-16 @ 06:10 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    28,433

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

    Quote Originally Posted by jamesrage View Post
    This is good news.


    FOXNews.com - Supreme Court upholds law barring "material support" to terrorist groups
    WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court has upheld a federal law that bars "material support" to foreign terrorist organizations, rejecting a free speech challenge from humanitarian aid groups.
    But people can still burn the flag and use hate-speech at a fallen soldier's funeral in protest.

    well - I guess they're stepping more in the right direction.
    A screaming comes across the sky.
    It has happened before, but there is nothing to compare it to now.
    Pynchon - Gravity's Rainbow

  5. #35
    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 Gardener View Post
    I stand quite firmly against them, and so I feel no need to apologize for my remark simply because you have decided to support them by calling my reaction a "slur".
    "Jihadist" is a slur, because it unfairly associates the Islamic concept of holy jihad (a nonviolent concept) with criminals and terrorists. You can label people "Islamist" or "Jihadist" all you like but it doesn't change the fact that criminals are not representative of Islam and using such broad and offensive terminology to lump criminals together with a world religion is the very definition of a slur.

  6. #36
    Cheese
    Aunt Spiker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Sasnakra
    Last Seen
    09-10-16 @ 06:10 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    28,433

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Guy Incognito View Post
    "Jihadist" is a slur, because it unfairly associates the Islamic concept of holy jihad (a nonviolent concept) with criminals and terrorists. You can label people "Islamist" or "Jihadist" all you like but it doesn't change the fact that criminals are not representative of Islam and using such broad and offensive terminology to lump criminals together with a world religion is the very definition of a slur.
    Muslims even dabate what exactly is permitted, encouraged or accepted as "jihad" . . . so obviously your view differs from the view of someone else.

    However, I read this some time ago when I was trying to understand it - and it might not touch on everything, but it seems to be respectful and reasonably accurate. http://www.scu.edu/ethics/publicatio...atisjihad.html
    Last edited by Aunt Spiker; 06-22-10 at 03:54 PM.
    A screaming comes across the sky.
    It has happened before, but there is nothing to compare it to now.
    Pynchon - Gravity's Rainbow

Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 234

Posting Permissions

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