The June 21st supreme court decision in the case of Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project, grants the US government the right to CRIMINALIZE POLITICAL SPEECH, by upholding the "material support' provision of this obscene law. The court has legitimized the criminalization of "material support' to those groups or individuals deemed "terrorists' by the Secretary of State, without mandating the government provide any proof or due process procedures. As the Patriot Act is written, "material support'--includes any "service", "training", "expert advice or assistance" or "personnel".
The Obama administration pursued the continuation of these Patriot provisions with exuberance--disregarding the legitimate concerns of civil liberties groups and charities. Neither the State Department nor the Department of Justice is required to provide any proof of wrongdoing, or in the presence of alleged proof, fulfill the due process requirement of a real trial in a court of law, as opposed to this Star Chamber obscenity.
Using the vague "lending material support' provision--anyone, including former President Jimmy Carter could be secretly imprisoned, stripped of their rights, tortured, tried in absentia and executed, with no due process involved. In fact, Jimmy Carter was quoted explaining the insanity of this provision;
"We are disappointed that the Supreme Court has upheld a law that inhibits the work of human rights and conflict resolution groups. The "material support law'--which is aimed at putting an end to terrorism--actually threatens our work and the work of many other peacemaking organizations that must interact directly with groups that have engaged in violence. The VAGUE LANGUAGE of the law leaves us wondering if we will be prosecuted for our work to promote peace and freedom."
(Source: http://www.acrnet.org/Educator.aspx?id=935)
The Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) Defends Bill of Rights Against Obama Administration"
The Center for Constitutional Rights was the defender of our rights in this Supreme Court battle against the Obama administration. According to CCR, the vagueness of the "material support' provision not only CRIMINALIZES SPEECH, BOTH HUMANITARIAN AND POLITICAL, but may include the following activities as newly minted CRIMINAL ACTS:
--publishing an op-ed critical of the US government's position;
--attorneys submitting an amicus brief in court to defend the accused;
--distributing literature;
--attending and/or participating in peace conferences not politically sanctioned by the US government;
--providing training in human rights advocacy;
--and many other pure speech activities that the government refuses to enumerate.
(Source: http://ccrjustice.org/learn-more/faqs/factsheet%3A-material-support)
Since both the Supreme Court and the Justice Department fail to offer any criterion describing examples of "lending material support'--or grant access to the names of "terrorist' groups--a simple expression of political speech , charitable giving, conflict resolution or journalism-- could land anyone in the defendant's chair. The arbitrary and unreasonable nature of this "material support' law more closely resembles the type of censorship prosecuted under the 18th century Sedition laws or the anti-democracy repression in China for the crime of "speech.' Prosecution and incarceration (sometimes secretly), minus due process is criminal on our government's part--but at least these crimes can be remedied. In the case of Anwar al-Awlaki--the 'remedy' for alleged crimes is assassination by cowardly drone attack.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
1
1
1
