In a major decision yesterday, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the "material support" laws designed to criminalize aid to designated terrorist organizations.
In a 6-3 opinion announced by Chief Justice John Roberts, the court affirmed that the Constitution is not a suicide pact and that speech, fundraising and other kinds of advocacy in support of designated terrorist groups is illegal, even if it's supposedly for the group's 'humanitarian' efforts or its 'political' wing.
Needless to say, the three dissenters consisted of Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and a certain Wise Latina newly elevated to the Court by President Obama.
The case was brought by a far Left ACLU clone known as the Humanitarian Law Project and involved aid and advice they wanted to give to the Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK) and the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) both of whom have been on the US terrorist groups list for years.
The Court decided that the law forbids any type of aid to terrorist groups because it could help to legitimize them and because the terrorist organization can then conserve its resources for terrorist activities. Roberts said Congress had made it clear that the intent of the support was irrelevant, and that only the end result - support for the known terrorist organizations mattered when it came to criminal charges.
"Congress chose knowledge about the organization's connection to terrorism, not specific intent to further its terrorist activities, as the necessary mental state for a violation," Roberts wrote.
Well, duh!
Now that we have this matter straightened out, I wonder - can anyone bring the Obama Administration up on charges for its material support of Hamas or of the Lebanese government, which is basically aid to Hezbollah?
No comments:
Post a Comment