Talkin' to teh terroristsFollow

Yesterday the Supreme Court upheld the material support law. This was an add-on to the patriots act making it illegal to provide material support to any foreign terrorist group that's on the US list.

There is a huge amount of wiggle room in the current law as the definitions of terrorist groups and material support are very loose.

The ruling came in a lawsuit filed on behalf of the Humanitarian Law Project. The group provides nonviolent dispute resolution and human rights advocacy training to the Kurdistan Workers’ Party and several groups of Tamil Americans who sought to provide humanitarian relief in war-torn areas of Sri Lanka once controlled by the Tamil Tigers. The non-profit org has not been charged with a crime.

It's a bit of a slippery slope argument at this point. I don't think the US has gone after any humanitarian peace-making orgs, but it seems like civil rights have been hacked away. Reportedly, journalists are fearful of even writing op-ed pieces about anyone on the 'list'.

I'm not sure what right you're referring to. The right to provide resources to enemies of the state?

The right to free speech.

There are any number of things you can't say and hide behind free speech. Giving aid to an enemy of the state just happens to be one of them. I suppose you think inciting a riot should be just fine, too. Is banning yelling "FIRE!" in a crowded movie theatre a hacking of our civil rights as well?

Fine, hyperbole aside a terrorist organization seeks, as a stated goal, to infringe on the rights of others. Aiding them, in any way, assists in that goal and, as such, the exercise of a right infringes on the rights of others. It is an active act of harm, thus limitable.

It makes no mention of funding directly or indirectly. That's kinda my point. A doc giving std advice and condoms to the wrong person could get 15 years.

FYI, many doctors believe that they have an ethical obligation to assist regardless of who the person is.

Doubly funny.

Now you're just being silly. I get what you're trying to accomplish, and it's ok, but let's be grown-ups for a minute. There's a small difference between an enemy of the state and a criminal. The United States Congress, a President of the United States and now the Supreme Court of the United States have all now determined that there are special circumstances associated to giving aid and comfort to an enemy of the state. They have taken the stance that this causes harm to the greater citizenry. I'm on board with that.

Don't get me wrong, I think 90% of the things done since 2001 have been pure window dressing that haven't remotely begun to address fundamental inadequacies in our national security. I'm not a big believer in window dressing when it comes to things like that. The problem, as I see it, is that there are "black & white" issues, where you're either right or your wrong and regardless of your motivation you should be prosecuted if you're wrong. We miss the idea that there are consequences for our choices and we must accept them if we make poor choices.

The other problem with pinpoint approaches, with individual legislative solutions to exceptions as the arise, is that loopholes are the inevitable outcome. It is no different in criminal law than it is in tax code or defense policies. "Wiggle room" leads to equivocation and that's just not an effective method of securing from harm.

The wording problems you perceive come from your belief that motivation matters, that a good intention makes things ok. Whether you can acknowledge it or not, it comes from the pacifist belief that somehow conflict is bad. That falls apart when you view it in the real world context of people who genuinely have no interest in peaceful coexistence. Unless, and until, you can resolve your beliefs with reality you will always find issues with laws and rulings like this because you are delusional.

And it has nothing to do with where you like to put your *****.

I get it. I can see the point of view, I just happen to believe that the line in the sand has to be drawn somewhere, and I am all for casting as wide a net as possible and apologizing to the inconvenienced.

And as I said above, I think that's just a failure to resolve your fundamental premise with the real world. I'm going to be a sorry as anyone for the personal pain caused to an individual who is truly innocent and caused harm by the law (by harm I mean deprivation of life, liberty or property). I will be all for compensating that person to the extent he or she can be made whole. But I will apologetically defend the practice that led to that harm should it result from a measure that will, in the end, keep the country safer.

Criminalizing the act of giving aid to an enemy of the United States of America will, in the end, keep this country safer. It will go a hell of a lot farther to accomplishing that goal than telling me I can't bring a Zippo on a plane in my carry-on.

I still don't really have a problem with this.

I can understand where you're coming from, but I find it hard to let people help someone who would kill me if given the chance... regardless of the type of help.