Should We Prosecute Acting Solicitor General Neal Katyal Now?

The Supreme Court today ruled largely with the government in a case broadly interpreting the material support statute.

At issue was whether human rights groups could work with organizations on the Foreign Terrorist Organization list in pursuit of humanitarian or non-violent goals. More broadly, SCOTUS reviewed whether things like providing expert advice to designated terrorist organizations could be prosecuted under the statute.

The answer of six Justices – everyone but Breyer, Ginsburg, and Sotomayor – was “yes.”

To understand the absurd implications of this, remember that Neal Katyal provided his expert advice to a person alleged to be a member of designated terrorist group when he represented Salim Hamdan.

Here’s what the Center for Constitutional Rights – which argued the case – described the decision.

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.

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. Plaintiffs sought to provide assistance and education on human rights advocacy and peacemaking to the Kurdistan Workers’ Party in Turkey, a designated terrorist organization. Multiple lower court rulings had found the statute unconstitutionally vague.

David Cole had this to say about the decision.

We are deeply disappointed. The Supreme Court has ruled that human rights advocates, providing training and assistance in the nonviolent resolution of disputes, can be prosecuted as terrorists. In the name of fighting terrorism, the Court has said that the First Amendment permits Congress to make human rights advocacy and peacemaking a crime. That is wrong

And Jimmy Carter, who submitted an amicus brief as the Founder of the Carter Center, had to say.

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.

I’ll have more to say about the First Amendment aspects of the decision once I get done reading it.

101 replies
  1. klynn says:

    The truth is revealed.

    Never were peace building, championing human rights or promoting freedom, values of the United States upheld through the rule of law.

    So, are any of us, who stand for freedom and peace building, considered terrorists?

    Are we to conclude, from here on out, any US citizens participating in the Gaza flotillas are terrorists or are at least providing material support to terrorists?

    This sounds more like a law that would have gone through the Israeli court.

    Was there a coup and we missed it?

    • geminorange says:

      Was there a coup and we missed it?

      I doubt that you missed it. It took place in November of the year 2000.

      • Jeff Kaye says:

        IMO, the coup took place in 1947. It was called the National Security Act.

        The National Security Act (passed in 1947) allows US Intelligence to begin any action, at any time, without asking anybody. In addition, US Intelligence may postpone indefinitely any report of such activity simply by claiming that making the report would harm the “national security” of the United States. This is a recipe for absolute power.

        Italics in original.

        • bobschacht says:

          Isn’t the National Security Act of 1947 a companion piece to the Manhattan Project? If so, you are on the same wavelength as Garry Wills in his new book on Bomb Power.

          Bob in AZ

  2. Hmmm says:

    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.

    Does that mean there’s still room for other plaintiffs with different facts to bring challenges?

  3. scribe says:

    Damn thing reads like a Rudy the Thug Giuliani for President campaign speech: subject, verb, DANGER!, roll over to the President!

  4. earlofhuntingdon says:

    Which group of justices would Ms. Kagan join, the one that would empower Congress to criminalize non-violent speech – including legal representation of those accused of a vague but somehow undesirable association with such groups – or the one that finds such attempted criminalization scathingly derisive of the Constitution and of fundamental freedoms the world associates with a credible system of justice and political speech.

    The implications of this decision are profound and reach every soapbox in the country and without, regardless of which drone is flying unseen over it.

    • bmaz says:

      She would have voted exactly as the guy she is replacing, Stevens, voted. The only difference is that it was a somewhat shocking vote for Stevens where, with Kagan, it would be expected.

      • phred says:

        bmaz, I was surprised by the vote tally 6-3 rather than 5-4 — any idea what Stevens was thinking? Did he write a separate opinion or did he just hop on the Roberts bandwagon?

    • emptywheel says:

      Remember that it was Kagan who blurted out (not being an old hand in the court room) that this should extend to lawyers representing clients.

    • Larue says:

      Agreed with all your thoughts, as with others . . .

      And I’m pretty sure we know Kagan sides with majority on this one.

      Centralized powers being what the MOTU demand, and paid to get, from these appointees.

  5. earlofhuntingdon says:

    The necessity of having competent legal representation when confronting government action – any action, let alone gross overreach or criminal behavior – is obvious. Its necessity to a functioning democracy is equally so. Yet this government would make it criminal to provide legal representation to those it deems undesireable by labeling them “terrorist” or providers of “material support” to “terrorists”.

    Those with power today must imagine themselves being invulnerable to its loss or to ever being a minority or on the outside. What hubris. When the right-center corporatist Mr. Obama is falsely depicted as a socialist, the idea that “No one could predict” that government extremists would ever take such a court decision and do great harm to innocents is darkly laughable.

  6. phred says:

    EW, do you know if anyone has gotten a quote from Katyal in response? I’m really curious what he has to say, given he has drunk the Kool-Aid. Breaks my heart that he went from being a hero in Hamdan to joining the anti-rule of law juggernaut.

  7. nomolos says:

    So it is illegal for me to continue to send money to the Save The Children’s Fund as they provide food and other necessities to Palestinians. Well fuck you America I am still going to donate to the needs of children and to hell with you and your fucking fascist rulings.

    And just now another $25.00 to STC. so now I have broken the law. This country has gone to hell.

  8. Mary says:

    God only knows what they can do to the nekkid celebrites in PETA posters now. *sigh*

    Stevens has seen Obama’s handwriting on the wall with Kagan – I’m guessing he just can’t let himself care anymore.

    • phred says:

      Maybe so, but I’m still surprised Stevens went along with such nonsense.

      Is there actually a set of known criteria that must be met to put an organization on the list or does the King just get to roll out of bed in the morning and put anyone he sees fit on the naughty list just for fun?

  9. freepatriot says:

    IANAL, but if I got this straight, the SCOTUS just made it a crime for people to tell terrorist groups to be non-violent

    do I got that right ???

    • Mary says:

      nonononono Freep, they only made it illegal to tell them how to be non-violent.


      Or not.


    • bmaz says:

      Well, in a sense, yes. The more important point is that to reach this decision as they did, the court took the path of effectively holding that a terrorist organization inherently cannot have a non-violent side or purpose. If you are a terrorist organization, you are by definition violent, have no legitimate peaceful interests; all aspects of such an organization are violent.

    • Larue says:

      They also just made it one step closer to you complaining or dissenting with them a crime, of terrorism.

      We’re one step closer (one BIG ass step closer) to all of us little people coming under a legal right to be disappeared anytime the MOTU want to do so.

  10. alinaustex says:

    So if this is right former Senator Mitchell could be indicted for talking to Sein Fein about decommissioning.??!!???
    To either Bmaz or Marcy -this is OT but Main Justice is reporting that Eric Holder said recently that John Durham will very soon be releasing his final work product –

  11. Hmmm says:

    Seriously, this is a major clusterfuck. With so many obvious edge cases and so much room for selective/discriminatory prosecution, how the hell is any future court going to know where to draw the line? Or will courts be obligated to simply honor whatever prosecutions are brought?

  12. Mary says:

    The only positive thing I’ll say is that the more you dangle out there “material support” as a valid criminal charge, the less you can hold out the parallel theory that “material support” makes someone a warrior in a war.

    • bmaz says:

      Um, were that only true; but, alas, it would require a DOJ with a bit of intellectual integrity and consistency. If you happen to see such a DOJ, please let me know.

      • Mary says:

        Last night I dreamt of flying monkies and a DOJ that isn’t complicit in torture and lies to the courts and Congress.

  13. greenwarrior says:

    I just saw this in the New York Times and have been crying ever since. This looks like the worst thing that has happened in the United States since I’ve been an adult – almost 5 decades. Shit.

    • Larue says:

      It’s getting ugly, on all fronts, fast.

      Socially, politically, justice wise, job wise, health care wise, civil rights wise, internet freedom wise.

      Not since Nixon’s No Knock, and this is all a bizillion times worse than No Knock.

      Miranda, Social Security, Roe v Wade, Brown v Board of Ed . . . . . all the landmarks are going out the door.

      Fascism’s ugly head’s reared up and is completely in control. Even the environment’s being hammered, hard, worse than any other event in our country’s history, in The Gulf (which could impact the whole planet and all our species including we hoomans).

      It’s Italy/Germany, all over again . . . cept we’ll all go broke sooner n global war breaks out. Or die from lack of water or food . . . . it’s grim, yes.

      This system’s unsustainable,

      • Larue says:

        And GW, sorry for goin all dark and stuff . . . there’s gotta be hope, I just don’t have it to hold yet.

        My hope is it’s unsustainable, and once it crashes, it HAS to get better, if not simpler.

        But I doubt that’s in my remaining 30 years or so, so for ME it’s brutal cuz I won’t be here for the final improvements.

        • hotflashcarol says:

          Sometimes I think about the novel The Road and how (spoiler alert) even in the darkest days, the father ultimately chooses to be hopeful for his son. I have a son who is almost 30 and my most realistic hope for him (and for me) is that the crash comes sooner rather than later. The reason I come to FDL is that most people here are hip to the truth and are no longer pretending that we can somehow reverse this slide into fascism by, oh, electing better Democrats or making just one more phone call to the White House.

  14. ondelette says:

    So now what? Humanitarian organizations which disseminate international humanitarian law need to vet their audiences before instructing on humanitarian law? What a farce. Does the ICRC now have to vet the parties to a conflict before instructing them? Does a protecting power? Humanitarian organizations instruct the Taliban, are they now material supporters of terrorism? John Roberts has his head up his ass. It’s frightening that he was joined by so many.

    This ruling is in contradiction to the Geneva Conventions and the Additional Protocols, and to common Article 3 in particular, as well as Articles 81-85 of the 1st AP, and several articles of the 4th GC. It’s in contradiction of the interpretations of the 1st GC on the requirements that parties to the conflict treat the sick and wounded (because that implies that the ICRC may train them to be able to do so).

    • Larue says:

      Humanitarian orgs are being eliminated, period.

      Vetting is not an issue at hand. Elimination, is the game.

      Pretty obvious now, with SCOTUS decision, coming after Citizens . . . .

      Corps will rule, dominate, and determine who lives and dies.

        • Larue says:

          Always wanted to see how a guillotine works . . .

          May have to take up knitting and sit in the front row, now that I think about it.

          Frankly, and to GW again cuz I hate to think I bummed her out any more than she was, I find a little hope in my 2 x 12 patch of three huge mater bushes, one chili serrano, one yellow bell, and countless little wild flowers, clover and basil. N then, there’s 20 5-7 gallon buckets of herbs, and tomatoes, and about 40 one gallon and smaller pots of wild flowers, flowers, basil galore (lemon, thai purple, sweet and Genovese), thyme, lemon thyme, sage, purple sage, oregano, italian flat parsley, and three yellow squash plants in the 2 x 12 . . . . it greens up the view, makes the place smell better, shields us from prying eyes, gets us huge compliments and smiles, and helps to kewl with the shades of the maters gone huge tall and bushy.

          So, there, I’m not all about the Barry McGuire. But yeah, it’s there in my head, all the time . . .

    • PJEvans says:

      Clearly the MOTU think the Geneva conventions are ‘quaint’ or something else that makes them only apply to others.

      When is it time for the pitchforks and torches, because this isn’t even the country I thought it was ten effing years ago.

      • Hmmm says:

        Maybe more precisely: It’s about the Empire acquiring the ability to neutralize, at will, any and all effective domestic opposition to any given policy, whether at home or away.

    • bobschacht says:

      Does the ICRC now have to vet the parties to a conflict before instructing them? …

      This ruling is in contradiction to the Geneva Conventions and the Additional Protocols, and to common Article 3 in particular, as well as Articles 81-85 of the 1st AP, and several articles of the 4th GC. It’s in contradiction of the interpretations of the 1st GC on the requirements that parties to the conflict treat the sick and wounded (because that implies that the ICRC may train them to be able to do so).

      Thanks for pointing this out, ondelette.
      Do any of the opinions address these points?
      So, is the Administration now going to treat the ICRC as a terrorist organization?

      What a farce. The Roberts Court truly has its head up its collective ass.

      Bob in AZ

    • klynn says:

      The Carter Center pretty much addressed the points you have made. Thanks for bringing them to the post. Furthermore, any conflict mediation efforts to build government systems that have the desire to effect a democratic foundation for a nation would also be considered material aid.

      So, the supreme court is against building democracies in terrorists areas of the world.

      geminorange and Larue: should have put a snark tag on my comment! Silly me.

      • ondelette says:

        Glad to hear the Carter Center addressed them. They impact me personally, so in my case they were hard to miss.

  15. eblair says:

    “The desideratum of clarity represents one of the most essential ingredients of legality” – Lon Fuller

    While certainly in anybody’s top ten, Fuller is to my mind the greatest legal philosopher. His eight ways to make law fail should be required reading for all lawyers and especially for all lawmakers. Making unclear laws has become routine for our lawmakers. Take the Americans with Disabilities Act. While the purpose was laudable, how much litigation has resulted from its lack of clarity? How many lawyers make their living off that lack of clarity? That was a dereliction of legislative responsibility.

    Does anybody know how often a law is thrown out for lack of clarity?

    Now we get to these much more troubling cases where what we are seeing is not just unconstitutionality, but really a level vagueness that is, as Fuller would say, such a transgression of the inner morality of law as to be a failure of legality, in short, a failure of the rule of law, a failure to make law at all.

    • phred says:

      At least New Coke actually required changing the substance of Coke.

      Here, the WH thinks they only have an image problem, not a substance problem… as long as everyone from Blackwater to MMS just renames themselves, everyone will suddenly think things have changed for the better!

      Just once, I would like Obama to not insult my intelligence. Best not hold my breath though.

  16. phred says:

    Oh, this is good…

    I wonder if SCOTUS thinks we should prosecute the contractors who are funding the Taliban. From McClatchy…

    Private security contractors protecting the convoys that supply U.S. military bases in Afghanistan are paying millions of dollars a week in “passage bribes” to the Taliban and other insurgent groups to travel along Afghan roads, a congressional investigation released Monday has found.

    The payments, which are reimbursed by the U.S. government, help fund the very enemy the U.S. is attempting to defeat and renew questions about the U.S. dependence on private contractors, who outnumber American troops in Afghanistan, 130,000 to 93,000.

    What was SCOTUS thinking?

      • ondelette says:

        Probably because when the international community wrote the definition of mercenary, they never envisioned that a country would be so stupid as to allow private corporations to raise militias on its territory, so they wrote in that mercenaries have to come from a different country. The “private contractors” skirt that definition.

    • spanishinquisition says:

      What about prosecuting the WH and senior members of the Pentagon. The senior members of the Excutive Branch are well aware they are doing precisely what violates the Patriot Act. Doesn’t this also mean that the UN is violating the Patriot Act whenever they provide aid to some war-torn country and couldn’t the same be said for NATO Peacekeepers.

      • phred says:

        Suits me. I keep picturing a snake swallowing its tail, there is simply no way out of the circular argument they have created for themselves.

      • phred says:

        It’s shocking the ramifications that SCOTUS didn’t consider with this shortsighted decision.

        • Larue says:

          Yer kidding me, right?

          SCOTUS considered this to the nth degree!!!

          After Citizens? We are witnessing the full on full out and total domination of people by corporations.

          And there will be drastic population reductions in the process . . . .

          But it’s unsustainable, all of it. We have that to smile about.

          But SCOTUS knows exactly what it’s doing, and has known, since it was stacked by BushCo and Clinton.

          • phred says:

            I dunno, maybe, but it’s possible they didn’t think it through.

            I’m not sure which is worse really. A SCOTUS that did think it through and did it anyway. That suggests they fully expect DOJ’s selective prosecutions to continue ad infinitum rendering the whole rule of law thing a bit of a joke. Or they didn’t. Either way, not a banner day for the court.

            • Larue says:

              As I said in my #67, those contractors will never see the light of real justice, they are protected, as are the policies and policy makers who put them there . . . .

        • bobschacht says:

          It’s shocking the ramifications that SCOTUS didn’t consider with this shortsighted decision.

          Usually, when something like this happens, doesn’t the minority point out these shocking ramifications? Is this the case with the Minority Opinion(s) in this case?

          Is it then up to some worthy organization to fashion a suit against, say, an Army contractor who crosses the line drawn by the Majority in a way that draws attention to this absurdity?

          What are they saying about this over at SCOTUS-blog?

          Bob in AZ

    • Larue says:

      Enforcement and prosecution is 9/10th’s of a law, don’t let yer self be distracted by desirable baubles that sparkle.

      Those contractors and that policy will never see the light of a DOJ day . . .

      • phred says:

        Exactly. The US government is playing fizzbin (i.e., making up the rules as they go). It’s disreputable.

    • Jeff Kaye says:

      Nice catch. But, of course, the U.S. will never prosecute itself. This is all about selective prosecution, and paralyzing those who would even give support to those who would oppose U.S. policy. For every Taliban case, there’s an ANC. The Supreme Court has ruled just as the oligarchy that runs this country would have wished. Bravo to Sotomayor, Ginsberg, and Breyer, for bucking the trend.

      This is another move toward an overt totalitarian government. It is also a clear sign of where we are headed if the U.S. imperialistic policy of endless war abroad is not opposed at home.

  17. DWBartoo says:

    So, now the courts operate on the basis of assumption?

    And, it is not the “assumption” of innocence nor even the “assumption” of shared humanity.

    Simply, arbitrary and capricious assumption.

    Cheney has not a thing to fear, here … in America, for clearly, the view that “… 9-11, changed everything …” has found convenient, and apparently, “safe” mooring within the the harboring arms of the American legal system, as well as the total support of the entire political class.

    Who could have imagined?

    (And so many “other” things as well …)

    One wonders when the lawyers who populate that legal “system” will revolt or … simply recoil in horror?

    The silence is deafening.

    My appreciation to all those attorneys, here, at FDL, who have the courage to dare to educate the rest of us.


  18. bmaz says:

    Marcy, what the hell is wrong with you??? You know that questions such as that posed in your title must be cleared through the singular authority of David Margolis. Jeez, come on now.

    • phred says:

      I used to hold out hope that SCOTUS would be the last line of defense against various abuses by government and corporate actors. Clearly my cock-eyed optimism was misplaced.

      • eCAHNomics says:

        Read Yves Smith’s book, Econed, which includes a chapter about how judges have been coopted from the right. Law & Economics, Chicago school, is the cover story.

        • phred says:

          Thanks for the recommendation, I’ll be sure to pick up a copy.

          The thing that fries me most about the genetically engineered crops is the patent enforcement. Funny how the only regulations that get enforced these days are the ones that protect mega-corporations patents, eh?

          Anyway, if a farmer has the temerity to save their own seeds and their neighbor uses genetically modified seeds and through the magic of pollination the original seeds get contaminated? Well, too bad for you Joe Farmer, you have to destroy your own seed strain due to patent infringement.

          I hate Monsanto as much, if not more, than BP.

          • eCAHNomics says:

            It’s all the same model. Corps have completely captured USG.

            Gonna turn in. Night all.

                • phred says:

                  Sounds lovely — from a Monday night point of view, Friday night can’t come soon enough ; ) Besides, maybe there will be a docu dump — gotta love Fridays around here…

          • hotflashcarol says:

            Hard to say which one is fucking up the planet at a faster pace, but at least they each have their niche. Monsanto is killing everything on land and BP is annihilating everything in the water.

            • MarkH says:

              If the quote about Bush (speaking to Kirchner (sp)) is right, then they must believe that tearing America to pieces will lead to war and that will be good for the economy…if you survive.

              What I’d like to know is how anyone can utter a word which might relate to …over there, without it potentially ‘helping’ some terrorist group.

              And, I’d like to know precisely what it means to “help” a terrorist group.

              And, I’d like to know if it’s possible, in the strange convoluted Conservative think, to ‘harm’ a terrorist group by enlightening them to the way of peace and harmony.

              Conceivably anything put into print or on the television or radio or Internet could somehow “help” a terrorist group. How are we to know?

              What if the Dalai Lama or the Pope said something which converted them away from Islam, would that be “helping”. It’s all very unclear and murky.

              I think we have to protect ourselves from these rogue justices by either …

              Well, I’d better not say. It might “help” a terrorist group.

  19. SouthernDragon says:

    On today’s Democracy Now! Oliver Stone talks about his new documentary South of the Border. In an interview with Argentina’s former President Kirchner, Kirchner relates a discussion he had with Bush, who said “…the best way to revitalize the economy was war.” Sounds as if the Roberts court is just trying to make it easier to conduct endless war. The clip re Kirchner starts at minute 29.

    Tariq Ali’s blunt analysis of Obama’s continuing Bush’s policies is refreshing. The Ali segment alone is worth watching.

  20. eCAHNomics says:

    Sotomayor voted with the minority. Guess she has been given cover until, when, 2012 midelections?

  21. Larue says:

    Sadly, EW, this comes after Citizens v United, and Lieberman’s efforts to create an internet kill switch.

    My point is this is leading up to ANYone who dissents or criticizes or complains about government, elected offals, or corporations can be labeled a terrorist, and disappeared.

    At this pace, we’ll be there, in this all global fascist state, within ten years or less.

    Thanks for all you do . . . ma’am.

    • SouthernDragon says:

      I couldn’t be called a Silber fan by any stretch of the imagination but he’s pretty much spot on in this piece, if ya ignore the “liberal” and “progressive” bash.

      Thanks for the hit, CT

    • Larue says:

      That was so good I had a hard time trying to ‘file’ it into a bookmark folder as it covers so much truth and turf.

      Great read, and thanks so much for sharing it.

      And welcome to LLN hoss!


  22. Jeff Kaye says:

    You know, the more I think about this, the more steamed I become. The United States has not hesitated — not hesitated! — to back terrorist groups when they felt it in their interest over the years.

    They certainly had no problem when the muhajadeen used terrorist attacks against Soviet troops, or even against the legitimate pre-Soviet intervention Afghan government.

    Anyone who cares to research the subject can see the U.S. has supported right-wing death squads in various countries, supported the Contras in Nicaragua, who used terror tactics (and furthermore supported them even after Congress forbid it), organized right-wing stay-behind armies that engaged in terror bombings and assassinations and coup attempts in Europe (the Gladio organizations), supported numerous terror attacks against “Red” China since 1949, were involved in coup attempts outright (Chile), etc.

    It is the height of hypocrisy for the U.S. state to go after Jimmy Carter-like do-gooders who believe they can “reform” various groups who use “violence.” In actuality, this means the national security state continues to reject the old subversion model where the U.S. uses aid organizations, foreign labor union backing, the purchase of intelligensia, etc. abroad, in favor of the naked use of military force, both overt and covert.

    Is writing an article giving any credence to the position of a purported “terrorist” group, or trying to explain the reasons for why a group might turn to “terror” tactics, giving “material support”? I wonder.

    I’m sad for Stevens (though this is the most minor of points) for ending his career by spitting on the Constitution on his way out. Maybe he knew he was losing it, and couldn’t resist pressure anymore when he announced his retirement.

  23. Jeff Kaye says:

    The U.S. designation of “terrorist” organizations, as explained by the State Department, includes this proviso:

    3. The organization’s terrorist activity or terrorism must threaten the security of U.S. nationals or the national security (national defense, foreign relations, or the economic interests) of the United States.

    In other words, if the “terrorist activity or terrorism” does not threaten the national security of the United States, indeed, one can extrapolate, if it furthers the (perceived) national security of the United States, then such organization cannot meet the criteria of a Foreign Terrorist Organization (FTO). Hence, this is no “war on terrorism,” per se, and never was. It’s about the extension of U.S. influence abroad. The U.S. press for the most part, for instance, ignores Iranian complaints of U.S. backing of terrorist attacks within that country (although the MEK is on the U.S. FTO list).

  24. klynn says:


    I find this court ruling an interesting pair with this coming out of Congress.

    Call it tin foil, I do not think they are separate acts. Some digging will probably reveal a point of same origin (either people, organization or other body). The cowinkydinky of these happening at the same time are eyebrow raising.

  25. EdwardTeller says:

    So, should I just report to the Anchorage FBI office and turn my self in for having raised money for the treatment of kids with PTSD in Gaza (since 2005) and for raising money for the rebuilding of the Anglican Hospital in Gaza (since 2009)? My read of the court decision makes it likely that, since both the PTSD clinic and the Anglican Hospital’s staff have liaisons with Hamas, I have committed criminal acts under the law reviewed and upheld by the USSC.

    I might just as well spare them the effort of hunting me down, eh?

Comments are closed.