Supreme Court: peace advocates & humanitarians can be prosecuted as terrorists

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by mkrishnan, Jun 21, 2010.

  1. mkrishnan Moderator emeritus

    mkrishnan

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2004
    Location:
    Grand Rapids, MI, USA
    #1
    http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-court-terror-20100622,0,5090110.story
    EDIT: SCOTUS opinion

    This is deeply disappointing. In essence, peace advocates, scholars, and humanitarians who work with groups engaged in terrorism to get them to stop engaging in terrorism, surrender their weapons, and solve their problems peacefully and legally themselves can be prosecuted for aiding terrorism. :rolleyes: This is the equivalent of saying, that if I'm in a bank during a robbery, and I try to encourage the robber to surrender to the police, I am guilty of bank robbery myself.

    Shame, shame on the Supreme Court. Shame, shame on Eric Holder. Shame, shame, on President Obama, for his continual failure to re-establish the American tradition of civil liberty. :mad:

     
  2. mcrain macrumors 68000

    mcrain

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2002
    Location:
    Illinois
    #3
    Does this ruling encompass attorneys representing the organizations?
     
  3. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
  4. Gelfin macrumors 68020

    Gelfin

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2001
    Location:
    Denver, CO
    #5
    As expressed here, at least, I cannot get behind this at all. More than bank robbers, what about people who do community outreach work with gangs, trying to persuade members to give up that life? Does this imply they should be prosecuted as gang members? The relationship between those workers and this newly-minted category of "terrorists" is so direct it's unclear if it could even be properly called an analogy.

    Of course they should be prosecuted if they take part in the gang's crimes, but that wouldn't have needed to go to the Supreme Court to figure it out. What's special about this case that makes it different?
     
  5. MattSepeta macrumors 65816

    MattSepeta

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2009
    Location:
    375th St. Y
    #6
    Hmmmm

    I am not sure about this. Alot of the wording in the article is questionable. I feel that the law is not as bad as they make it out to be.

    I think they made the ruling for the following reason: How is one to know if a group/person was really just "urging them to settle..." I mean, think about it; You could have a terror group working with another group, and when this other group gets caught up, they claim they were merely working with the terror group to try to dissuade them from using violence.

    I do trust the courts to make the necessary judgment calls though.
     
  6. niuniu macrumors 68020

    niuniu

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2009
    Location:
    A man of the people. The right sort of people.
    #7
    Bizarre decision on the face of it :confused: There's always been certain groups who've been protected under a veil of impartiality. Historically messengers and recently aid workers and medical staff who treat the enemy in a war for example.

    Wonder what the real reason behind a decision like this is.
     
  7. mkrishnan thread starter Moderator emeritus

    mkrishnan

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2004
    Location:
    Grand Rapids, MI, USA
    #8
    Yeah... I'm working my way through the opinion on this.

    A couple of notes I made so far:

    1) The plaintiffs were pressing for a pre-enforcement challenge, meaning that they wanted to block lawsuits from being filed. So the SC decision is that the person can be charged more than that they are definitely guilty. But the thing they can be charged for includes the classes of behavior you and I cited.

    2) With respect to the question of lawyers being charged, the standard that is upheld is that “expert ad-vice or assistance” for any purpose is illegal, if it is not "independent" from the organization. It would seem, to follow my analogy, that it would be legal for me to write an op-ed piece advocating the idea that robbers in standoffs surrender to the police, but if I told an actual robber to do so, that might (in analogy) be prosecutable. Similarly, you could advocate in a general sense for gangs to pursue peace, but (in analogy), if you went and met with a specific gang to convince them to surrender their weapons, that would be a crime.

    It would seem to indicate that a lawyer providing counsel to such an organization on means of pursuing a legal solution to their problems would be committing a crime. That's interesting in itself, since a lawyer defending them in court once they are charged with a crime is presumably still shielded from prosecution for her or his "support" of the terrorist organization.
     
  8. Rodimus Prime macrumors G4

    Rodimus Prime

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2006
    #9
    I have a feeling there are lots of piece of this case that are not report.
    To many people perform crimes and what not and were just hiding behind humanitarian agrument and hoping to get legal protection on those grounds. The Gaza blockaid problem is an example of people who went in on the 6th ship and a few of them were hiding behind humitatin grounds that wanted to start trouble.

    1 person hiding e hiding behind humanitatain agrument to do illegal activities is too many. It just takes one person to make them all look really bad and like crooks. Now that protection is removed so at least they can be charged.

    This ruling makes it easier to go after those people by remove that hiding place from them.
     
  9. Zombie Acorn macrumors 65816

    Zombie Acorn

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2009
    Location:
    Toronto, Ontario
    #10
    Would depend on the advice given to me. If its just "stop killing innocent people" thats fine, if its "stop killing innocent people, followed with actionable data or materials such as food supplies etc." no good, aiding the enemy is aiding the enemy.
     
  10. Gelfin macrumors 68020

    Gelfin

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2001
    Location:
    Denver, CO
    #11
    But advising someone to blow people up was presumably already a crime.
     
  11. Zombie Acorn macrumors 65816

    Zombie Acorn

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2009
    Location:
    Toronto, Ontario
    #12
    I explained a bit further what I meant, I was fairly vague in my first post.
     
  12. Peterkro macrumors 68020

    Peterkro

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2004
    Location:
    Communard de Londres
    #13
    In what way is trying to defend yourself against a armed invasion in international waters "wanting to start trouble"

    Presumably the legal decision above means anybody giving medical aid to a wounded "terrorist" could be charged.
     
  13. niuniu macrumors 68020

    niuniu

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2009
    Location:
    A man of the people. The right sort of people.
    #14
    When you have a choice between allowing an inspection you had prior knowledge of and physically mauling soldiers, and you choose the latter.. I'd say that was unequivocally 'wanting to start trouble'.

    Now that the Gaza blockade situation has been brought up - this vote is starting to make more sense. It's not an attempt to criminalise humanitarians. It's removing a shield that makes it easy for troublemakers to hide under.

    It's no doubt been weighed on intelligence on particular groups who have terrorist connections but masquerade as peace workers. I can think of a church in Pakistan that was in the news recently that would fall under this category.

    There could be a lot of this stuff going on.
     
  14. Peterkro macrumors 68020

    Peterkro

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2004
    Location:
    Communard de Londres
    #15
    Are you suggesting if attacked by heavily armed thugs firing at random you wouldn't resist?
     
  15. Eraserhead macrumors G4

    Eraserhead

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    Location:
    UK
    #16
    What's a terrorist?

    One mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter.
     
  16. niuniu macrumors 68020

    niuniu

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2009
    Location:
    A man of the people. The right sort of people.
    #17
    That wasn't the situation.
     
  17. Eraserhead macrumors G4

    Eraserhead

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    Location:
    UK
    #18
    It basically was.
     
  18. niuniu macrumors 68020

    niuniu

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2009
    Location:
    A man of the people. The right sort of people.
    #19
    It wasn't for ship 6 in the same way it wasn't for ships 1 to 5.
     
  19. #20
    This is great news! And it's long overdue.

    Some of the most vile and disgusting people on the face of this planet are peace activists, humanitarians and charity organizations.

    Their game is up, and just because somebody claims that they are a "peace-activist" or a "humanitarian", that does not mean that it is necessarily true. Often, the complete opposite is true.

    Terrorists have used humanitarian organizations to funnel money to terrorists in the past. If you'e a terrorist, then I guess it's better to give your group a name like "Peaceful Humanitarians for a Better World" instead of saying the truth like "Cold-blooded Terrorists and Killers for a more Violent World".

    Many peace activists and humanitarians belong in places like Guantanamo. I fully support the expansion of Guantanamo in order to accommodate more inmates who are sorely in need of a tropical vacation.

    My favorite kind of peace activists are "human shields". No consideration at all should be given to targets where there are willing "human shields". They are willing participants in a conflict and they are protecting and aiding the enemy and they should be bombed and killed without any second thoughts.

    I place "peace-activists" right up there with Al-Qaeda, Hamas, Hezbollah, Nazis, the KKK, and other like-minded groups. Truly disgusting people.
     
  20. Eraserhead macrumors G4

    Eraserhead

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    Location:
    UK
    #21
    :eek:

    Jesus Christ.
     
  21. niuniu macrumors 68020

    niuniu

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2009
    Location:
    A man of the people. The right sort of people.
    #22

    Alright, easy on. There may be some people abusing the shield that humanitarians enjoy. But a lot of humanitarians do bridge divides and help with foreign relations as well as aid work and what have you. Those right-thinking folk are going to possibly get screwed by this decision..
     
  22. #23
    A good example of a bunch of terrorists pretending to be running a charity was the "Holy Land Foundation" here in the USA.

    It was the largest Islamic charity in the entire USA, and the group was basically a front for the degenerate terrorists in Hamas.

    Its assets were frozen by the European Union[3] and U.S., and it was shut down by the U.S. government following the discovery that it was funding Hamas. The 2008 trial of the charity leaders was dubbed the "largest terrorism financing prosecution in American history."[4] In 2009, the founders of the organization were given life sentences for "funneling $12 million to Hamas."[5]

    :)

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holy_Land_Foundation_for_Relief_and_Development
     
  23. mcrain macrumors 68000

    mcrain

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2002
    Location:
    Illinois
    #24
    Jesus Christ was a "peace-activist!" He ranks right up there with Al-Qaeda, Hamas, Hezbollah, Nazis and the KKK!

    Jesus, hated himself, tried to get his fellow jews to "walk on water" *wink wink nudge nudge*, wore a white hood and a swastika while he designed improvised explosive devices!
     
  24. yg17 macrumors G5

    yg17

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2004
    Location:
    St. Louis, MO
    #25
    Indeed. He's perhaps the biggest peace activist who ever lived. He must've been a Nazi.
     

Share This Page