The Supreme Court is extremely busy these days, working diligently to limit your rights and overturn 200 years of legal precedents.
Talk about activist judges (the favorite meme of right wing propaganda specialists on our TV and talk radio).
PBS Newshour, dated June 21, 2010:
In a 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court ruled Monday that a federal law making it a crime to provide "material support" to organizations designated as terrorist groups by the State Department is not unconstitutionally vague.
Lets dig into the specifics.
Writing for the majority, Chief Justice John Roberts rejected those claims.
"Most of the activities in which plaintiffs seek to engage readily fall within the scope of the terms 'training' and 'expert advice or assistance.' Plaintiffs want to 'train members of [the] PKK on how to use humanitarian and international law to peacefully resolve disputes,' and 'teach PKK members how to petition various representative bodies such as the United Nations for relief,'" Roberts wrote.
Pardon my ignorance, but isn't teaching a terrorist organization how to use peaceful means to sway public opinion and how to peacefully resolve disputes a good thing?
This ties in nicely with the article two stories down on this page, entitled US democrats: flottilla terrorists to be denied entry into USA.
Because the American citizens who had loaded and crewed the ships of the Gaza aid flotilla, which had such dangerous contraband as "food, wheelchairs, books, toys, electricity generators, and medicine" (straight from wikipedia), are, according to this ruling, bona fide terrorists.
Raw Story, dated June 21st, 2010:
In a press release sent to RAW STORY, the Center for Constitutional Rights argues that the ruling "criminalizes" free speech, and that even former President Jimmy Carter could face potential prosecution.
Today, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 6-3 to criminalize speech in Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project, the first case to challenge the Patriot Act before the highest court in the land, and the first post-9/11 case to pit free speech guarantees against national security claims. Attorneys say that under the Court’s ruling, many groups and individuals providing peaceful advocacy could be prosecuted, including President Carter for training all parties in fair election practices in Lebanon. President Carter submitted an amicus brief in the case.
This law is insane.
Because Hamas is considered a terrorist organization by the United States government (rightly so in my view), anybody who tries to donate money, their own time and labor, gifts to the Palestinians suffering under both the Israeli blockade and Hamas rule, is immediately branded a terrorist.
This law is crazy, unless, you are an Israeli sympathizer, then it begins to make perfect sense - right?
The Center for Constitutional Rights printed opinion in Raw Story continues:
Chief Justice Roberts wrote for the majority, affirming in part, reversing in part, and remanding the case back to the lower court for review; Justice Breyer dissented, joined by Justices Ginsburg and Sotomayor. The Court held that the statute's prohibitions on "expert advice," "training," "service," and "personnel" were not vague, and did not violate speech or associational rights as applied to plaintiffs' intended activities.
I am not a lawyer, but providing "service" to a terrorist organization is hell-a vague.
Was the Gaza aid flotilla providing "service" to Hamas?
In this country, in this political climate, with our politicians bought and paid for by AIPAC (again, just go to US democrats: flottilla terrorists to be denied entry into USA), and with our TV personalities being openly Israel-first, America a distinct second (Wolf Blitzer from CNN anyone?), obviously so - these American citizens are who tried to break the Gaza blockade and smuggle - horror! - wheelchairs into Gaza should be shot on sight.
On the other hand, do you know who is NOT a terrorist?
The people who did this to Emily Henochowicz are not terrorists (picture is not how she looks now, for background, please peruse JTA: U.S. Jewish student loses eye at roadblock protest, dated June 3, 2010, or AP article with pictures, here).
She is a American citizen who also happens to be a Jew, by the by (which places her in a completely different category than, say, Wolf Blitzer, who is a Jew who happens to be an American citizen).
Please wish her well on her blog, thirstypixels.
This is her, before she lost the eye from an Israeli bullet:
I call this a crime.
Israelis call it acting "according to procedures and there was no deviation from those procedures." (from the AP article).
Or how about the people who drove a bulldozer over an American woman, Rachel Corrie, in 2003.
An article with video in The Guardian, dated 10 March 2010, that contains witnesses statements, including this one:
Purssell described how the bulldozer approached at a fast walking pace, its blade down and gathering a pile of soil in its path. When the bulldozer was 20 metres from the house Corrie, who like the others was wearing an orange fluorescent jacket, climbed on to the soil in front of it and stood "looking into the cab of the bulldozer".
"The bulldozer continued to move forward," Purssell said. "Rachel turned to come back down the slope. The earth is still moving and as she nears the bottom of the pile something happened which causes her to fall forward. The bulldozer continued to move forward and Rachel disappeared from view under the moving earth."
The bulldozer continued forward four metres as the activists began to run forward and shout at the driver.
I call this premeditated murder.
Israelis call this "a driver not paying attention".
America seems very selective with picking its terrorists from its freedom fighters...
But lets go back to free speech.
This wonderful Supreme Court of ours can be, and is, a staunch defender of the principle of free speech.
My article, What the Fuck, Supreme Court?! ... and other assorted shit, dated January 21, 2010,
In a landmark ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday struck down laws that banned corporations from using their own money to support or oppose candidates for public office.
By 5-4 vote, the court overturned federal laws, in effect for decades, that prevented corporations from using their profits to buy political campaign ads.
That's right - a corporation, which is legally just another person, can now pay an American politician as much as it desires.
Bribing politicians in the United States is now a matter of free speech.
It looks like our Supreme Court is very selective in its enforcement of free speech...
The great Naomi Klein has an article about Emily Henochowicz on Huffpo - just fucking go read it now.
The more I see this ditzy, fun, bursting with joy girl, amazed at the beauty of this world, the more I am saddened by this story.