http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-court-terror-20100622,0,5090110.story

Quote :

"Congress strengthened the anti-terrorism law in 1996 and made it a crime to provide "material support" to terrorist groups. At first, this measure was understood to prevent Americans from sending money to groups in the Mideast whose activities included both providing education and carrying out terrorist acts. Since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, the U.S. government has used the law to prosecute persons who traveled to Afghanistan and underwent training with Al Qaeda. All the while, Fertig and the Humanitarian Law Project in Los Angeles had been challenging the law. They argued that the words "advice" or "training" should not be read so broadly as to forbid peace advocates from advising foreign groups to steer away from violence and terrorism. They won before federal judges in California who said the Constitution does not allow prosecuting persons for advocating peaceful resolutions of disputes. The Obama administration appealed and won a reversal from the Supreme Court on Monday in Holder vs. Humanitarian Law Project. "We are deeply disappointed," said David Cole, a lawyer who represented Fertig. "The Court said that the 1st Amendment permits Congress to make it a crime to work for peace and human rights. That is wrong." "

[Edited on June 21, 2010 at 12:54 PM. Reason : .]

6/21/2010 12:54:01 PM

Uh, haha

Holy misleading thread titles, batman!

"The U.S. Department of Justice argues for keeping an existing law on the books that was passed in 1996."

[Edited on June 21, 2010 at 12:57 PM. Reason : ]

6/21/2010 12:56:39 PM

Yeah, let's have the Justice Department argue for an interpretation that's blatantly different than adopted law.

Troll thread.

6/21/2010 1:01:46 PM

This ruling reenforces the concept of limiting freedom of speech when it relates to turrists

6/21/2010 1:21:11 PM

Now more precedent. Turrists win.

6/21/2010 1:38:42 PM

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2010/03/using-outdated-quotes-from-colin-powell-obama-justice-department-files-brief-to-support-dont-askdont-tell-policy.html

Quote :

"Justice Department spokeswoman Tracy Schmaler said that the Obama administration is committed to overturning the law, but the Justice Department regularly defends statutes that are currently law, regardless of the president's support for the laws. Said Schmaler in a statement: “In this case the Department is defending the statute, as it traditionally does when acts of Congress are challenged. The Department does not pick and choose which federal laws it will defend based on any one Administration’s policy preferences.”"

The President has campaigned on, spoken about, and pledged to sign repeal of Don't Ask Don't Tell. And yet the United States Department of Justice has defended the law that is on the books. Although I'd must admit there are times when I'd like the President to influence the Justice Department more heavily, I understand their arguments for not wanting to do so.

6/21/2010 1:45:40 PM

Quote :

"Holy misleading thread titles, batman!"

lol at God calling out someone for a misleading thread title

6/21/2010 2:04:21 PM

I'm not a fan off this ruling, but how does this come back to obama?

6/22/2010 8:45:04 AM

Another chisle into the crumbling foundation of our rights as americans in a "free" country.

But But think of the CHILDREN!!! The TURRISTS ARE COMING!

6/22/2010 9:00:27 AM

Quote :

"I'm not a fan off this ruling, but how does this come back to obama?"

did you read what I quoted from the article. I even bolded the part that is in reference to your question.

You guys criticized Bush for not opening up talks with Iran - yet the Obama Administration has effectively taken the same course of action regarding peace advocates and terrorist groups.

6/22/2010 1:04:07 PM

the justice department appealed because it the previous decision found criminalizing “material support” in the form of “service,” ”training,” or “expert advice or assistance" unconstitutional. they felt the decision threw out too many of the 5 points. the "service" and "training" part would have hurt the way we go after terrorists.

6/22/2010 6:50:10 PM

LOL

So Humanitarians appeal the initial ruling because they felt the terminology was too broad.
And Obama Administration appeals the appeal because it's verbage is too broad.

Doesn't seem like it should be so hard to say what you mean. Didn't Obama go to school for this?

6/23/2010 9:26:52 AM

huh? that doesn't even make sense, obama wasn't involved in writing anything here

6/23/2010 9:52:14 PM

Quote :

"Troll thread."

6/23/2010 9:57:09 PM

Quote :

"The 6-3 decision upholds the 1996 law "

No blame for the 1996 legislature and president?

9/17/2010 6:08:45 PM

last i checked it's the legislature that decides on the laws. the justice dept. can't pick and choose which laws to defend in federal court.

9/17/2010 6:22:25 PM