E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
The U.S. Supreme Court today upheld one of the most controversial Bush administration laws in the war on terrorism.
By a vote of 6-3, with Justice John Paul Stevens joining the majority, the court upheld a law that makes it a crime to provide "material support" to organizations designated by the State Department as terrorist groups.
Lawyers in California wanted to provide legal training and help to groups in Turkey and Sri Lanka that were on the State Department's list. The lawyers said their assistance -- teaching international law and consulting on how to petition the U.N. -- would not further any terrorist activities of the groups.
But the court's majority disagreed. "Such support frees up other resources within the organization that may be put to violent ends. It also helps lend legitimacy to foreign terrorist groups," wrote Chief Justice John Roberts for the majority. A group could also "pursue peaceful negotiation as a means of buying time to recover from short-term setbacks, lulling opponents into complacency, and ultimately preparing for renewed attacks," Roberts said.
Justice Stephen Breyer, writing for himself, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and Sonia Sotomayor in dissent, said the decision failed to appreciate the difference between giving a group money, which could be diverted to support violence, and teaching about the law, which could not. Peaceful advocacy is not what Congress intended to criminalize, he said.
The case involved legal help for two groups that want independent states for the Kurds in Pakistan and Tamils in Sri Lanka. Both were described in today's ruling as deadly. The Sri Lankan group, the LTTE, "has engaged in extensive suicide bombings and political assassinations, including killings of the Sri Lankan President, Security Minister, and Deputy Defense Minister," the court said said.
The justices will be back in the courtroom on Thursday, June 24th, for more decisions and again on Monday, June 28th. More decision days could be added as the court speeds toward the end of its term.
Leave a Comment:
So???????
What's to know about petitioning the U.N.????
Offer money
Blame the Jews
Furnish them with women and children to sexually abuse.
pretty simple really
So, why don't we just mind our own damn business?
Our nature changeth not, ye old proverb rings out - birds of a feather, they flock togeather.
Those pesky lawyers. God -- or is that Allah -- forbid they should teach anyone about the law.
But, now that you mention it, maybe those particular lawyers could put their skills to better use teaching Americans how to read the Constitution. Now THERE'S a humanitarian gesture. Or would non-PC righties consider it to be torture?
I've never met you, but then again, I assume you haven't met "Stevie" or "Ruthie," either, so is it okay if I call you "lasty"? "
And, by the way, lasty, what's this all got to do with birds, anyway? I thought we were talking about lawyers. Or is that how we think Osama bin Laden communicates with his lawyers these days? Do the birds charge by the hour?
For heaven's sake, I get so confused around here.
Your confusion is why I'm here, Anna Molly.
John Paul Stevens joining a 6-3 majority...?
C'mon now, Anna Molly.
Justice Stevens?
Time to let this one go.
"independent states for the Kurds in Pakistan" Kurds in Pakistan, wow they get around.
LoL!! Good pick-up, Charles. But who knows, maybe that means cheese Kurds, and it's all part of the master plan to turn northwest Pakistan from a terrorist state into a dairy state.
Why not? The milk of human kindness turned to cottage cheese a long time ago with these turkeys!
LoL Auntie ~ Butter the Taliban involved?
It says this was one of Bush's most controversial terrorism laws but in this description, it seems reasonable to me; I think there were a lot more controversial things than this. The idea of supporting any group, regardless of the virtue of the ultimate goal, that uses violence to achieve its goal would not be a good idea. As a free country, haven't we interfered enough with some pretty bad results. Think Reagan supplying stinger missiles, etc. to Osama bin Laden and the resistance fighters in Afghanistan to defeat the Soviets--only to have them turned against us years later. It might be wiser to let countries and those people fight it out without any American organizations getting involved. No doubt if I'm misinterpreting this, there will be plenty of comments telling me why.
That's the ticket, Jody. No more consiglieri for the Mafia. ;)
Charlie Wilson supplied the stingers, and warned congress about the blow-back if we failed to continue to support "the base" Al c.i.a.d.a, the mujahedin,
Watergate -
Something's not right about Deep Throat. I heard a recording over the weekend where Nixon and someone (I forgot who the second person was) were talking on the telephone during the Watergate cover up days, and do you know who they thought was leaking information to the Post? Mark Felt. Who admitted it a few years ago. As did Bob Woodward. Nixon knew all the time.
However -
Bob Woodward has only turned over something like 5 of the 17 notes of the meetings he had with Felt. And people believe this is because there is another Deep Throat - who was working inside the White House. His notes say in one instance while meeting with Deep Throat - "We have somebody working on this", referring to leaks and attempting to find out who it was. This isn't something Felt would have said. This is something a White House official would have said, is what some people believe. And this line was not included in Woodward's book about Watergate. It was only found in his notes.
Woodward should talk about the missing notes. Is he covering up for someone else? Who is still alive? Does anybody care?
You betcha!
Yes, Nixon suspected Felt but if I recall he suspected a few others, too. I read Woodward's "The Secret Man" and it was interesting. The odd thing is that in his notes and conversations with his boss and Bernstein, Woodward used the initials MF for "my friend"--it was right in front of so many people but for that reason, all those who suspected Mark Felt decided Woodward wouldn't be that obvious--clever man.
I would not be surprised if there was a second Deep Throat, one in the WH and the rest of those notes won't be out until that person passes away or admits it. Maybe John Dean or one of his staff; I'll have to look at Blind Ambition again--there was a guy who was given the job of finding the dollars to keep Liddy and pals quiet. There were quite a few Nixon WH folks who had good reason to pass along information.
Pat, now you've got me wondering some more. But guessing who Deep Throat might have been was part of the Watergate mystery.
You're right. We should never have helped the Russians fight and defeat the Nazis and save the lives of millions. That little conflict occur to you? Do you think we should have interfered in the genocidal wars in Africa in the last few years? The answer to that question is always tough because libs will jump down your throat no matter how you answer.
If you say no, it's because you don't care about Black people in Africa and , because there's no oil there, you won't be able to make any $$$ with your evil, corporate war.
If you say yes? a) you're a warmonger. b) if there IS some sort of mineral there that might cost a few bucks they can accuse you of going after that. c) The people you have to kill to stop the genocide will then suddenly achieve "most favored victim of the US" status among lefty "humanitarian" groups.
Not sure if you're asking me but YES, there are times when the US Govt intervention is justified and I support those times from WWI and II, Korea and against genocide. There are times when it is not necessary--the Soviets were already in decline and their economy a mess, all Reagan had to do was watch the collapse. The resistance in Afghanistan was doing a good job messing with the Soviets without our help. But as a country, we need to choose our wars and involvement wisely because too often, our interference in overthrowing existing governments and our choices in replacement leaders for those countries has been disastrous--like picking Saddam Hussein.
This decision was a no-brainer.
If I give a compulsive gambler regular donations because I think I am helping his family, all I am doing is freeing up more of his earnings for-gambling.
Since when is it okay to subsidize the 'benevolent' activities of a terrorist organization, since that aspect does not involve killing people?
Only a liberal would think there was any merit to that argument.
Chris Matthews doesn't think much of his viewers Major Mistakes
Chris used the Ex-CEO of EXXON who caused the second largest Oil Spill in our History to Critize BP when EXXON failed to pay for the EXXON Valdes Castastrhoph, the SUpreme Court Cut a $2-Billion Dollar Damage to $500,000,000 (MILLION DOLLARS) So you and I the TAXPAYERS paid for Exxon's mess.
High court reduces Exxon oil spill damages"
The Supreme Court on Wednesday reduced a $2.5 billion punitive damages award against energy giant Exxon for its role in an infamous 1989 maritime oil spill off the coast of Alaska.
The high court concluded that punitive damages should roughly match actual damages from the environmental disaster, which were about $507 million. Lower courts were asked to reassess the jury verdict, extending the years-long litigation in the case.
"The award here should be limited to an amount equal to compensatory damages," wrote Justice David Souter.
Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, John Paul Stevens and Stephen Breyer agreed in part and disagreed in part with the majority ruling. In such cases, it is left open to interpretation whether their dissent is strong enough to be considered a vote against the majority.
Big business wins in Exxon Valdez case
In the incident, commonly known as the Exxon Valdez spill, 11 million gallons of crude oil spilled in pristine waters off the southern end of the state when a supertanker - the Exxon Valdez - ran aground on an offshore reef. Petroleum soaked some 1,200 miles of coastline, killing countless birds and marine life.
Much of the initial blame for the accident was placed on Capt. Joseph Hazelwood, who was cited by various courts for relapsed alcoholism that contributed to mistakes, leaving his vessel helplessly stuck on Bligh Reef.
Witnesses said he had been drinking heavily before the Exxon Valdez left port that night, and had left the ship's bridge when it left the normal shipping channels to avoid ice. Both actions violated Coast Guard and company policies.
A class-action lawsuit was brought against Exxon by nearly 33,000 plaintiffs - including fishermen, landowners, local governments and Native Americans - who claimed private economic harm from the spill.
The company, now known as Exxon Mobil (XOM, Fortune 500), has already paid $3.4 billion in cleanup costs and millions in government fines and it argues it should not be forced to continue to pay for the spill.
A jury in 1994 awarded $5 billion in the class-action suit. A federal court later cut that amount in half, but it was still believed to be the largest punitive-damages judgment of its kind in U.S. courts. Punitive damages are designed to punish a wrongdoer, while compensatory damages compensate a wronged party for the loss they suffered.
The issue before the justices was whether the judgment was too high, based on past high court precedents limiting punitive awards.
Lawyers for the plaintiffs claimed the company has deep financial pockets, and noted in their appeal that even a multibillion-dollar judgment amounts only to "barely more than three weeks of Exxon's net profits."
Alaska residents who attended oral arguments in April held signs noting the Texas-based company reported an annual profit last year of $40.6 billion, a record for a U.S. firm.
Exxon Mobil claimed the federal Clean Water Act does not allow for punitive damages for oil spills and other open-water environmental incidents similar to the Exxon Valdez. And they said federal maritime law prevents company owners from being held liable for personally negligent conduct by the captain or crew.
Souter wrote, "The common sense of justice would surely bar penalties that reasonable people would think excessive for the harm caused in the circumstances."
The ruling was applauded by organizations such as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the world's largest business federation.
"This is good news for companies concerned about reining in excessive punitive damages," said Tom Donohue, the chamber's president and CEO, in a written statement. "For years, the chamber has argued that punitive damages are too unpredictable and unfair, and today the court agreed."
The high court has generally tried to limit punitive damages that are deemed "excessive." Last term, it threw out a $79 million award to an Oregon smoker's family who claimed tobacco giant Philip Morris contributed to his death by cancer. The justices, in their divided ruling in that case, said punitive damages almost always should match "actual," or compensatory, damages.
Justice Samuel Alito withdrew from deciding the case. Although no reason was given, financial disclosure reports indicated the newest justice had owned substantial amounts of Exxon stock.
Meanwhile, the long-running case has made it hard for residents of the community to move on, Travis Vlasoff, a native Chugach fisherman from Tatitlek, told CNN after oral arguments in the case. Vlasoff said the long legal fight has taken a financial and emotional toll among his family and friends.
"It's very difficult to advance the healing process without any sort of finality," he said. "Each turn has reopened long, deep wounds within the community and with individuals."
By using the EX-CEO of EXXON Matthews supports "BIG BUSINESS" right to not pay for their damages, in this person's opinion.
Chris was also told by the Ex-EXXON CEO that the reason the U.S. cannot accept other Oil Tankers or Foreign Tankers is because of the "Jones Act of 1917"
The Chris comes back the next night as if he was never told that the CEO said it's against the law for foreign tankers to enter into Domestic Waters and keeps asking the next night's guy, WHY why, why, why?
Having looked up the Jones Act it is not clear that the EX-EXXOn CEO was correct, the laws says
Jones Act
On March 2, 1917, President Woodrow Wilson signed the Jones-Shafroth Act. This law gave Puerto Ricans U.S. citizenship. The Jones Act separated the Executive, Judicial, and Legislative branches of Puerto Rican government, provided civil rights to the individual, and created a locally elected bicameral legislature. The two houses were a Senate consisting of 19 members and a 39-member House of Representatives. However, the Governor and the President of the United States had the power to veto any law passed by the legislature. Also, the United States Congress had the power to stop any action taken by the legislature in Puerto Rico. The U.S. maintained control over fiscal and economic matters and exercised authority over mail services, immigration, defense and other basic governmental matters.
This explanation seems to support it however, So Chris stop asking the same question that you have been given the ANSWER thinking that you will get a different result, It seems he keeps making this statement in an attempt to place the President in a bad light. It's not working, that why the President knew about the law while Chris was trying to make news by asking the question over and over and over again. Chris was in CONGRESS so this is very embrassing one would think for Mr. Matthews.
Aspects of the topic Jones Act are discussed in the following places at Britannica.
history of
...World War I the U.S. Congress responded to these pressures—and to the threat of German submarines prowling Caribbean waters—by passing the Jones Act, which came into effect in March 1917. Under its terms U.S. citizenship was conferred collectively on Puerto Ricans. However, the act failed to grant the measure of self-determination that...
...by Congress on July 7, 1898, were made a territory in 1900 and were hence, technically, only briefly part of the American empire. Puerto Rico was given limited self-government in 1900; and the Jones Act of 1917 conferred full territorial status on the island, gave U.S. citizenship to its inhabitants, and limited its self-government only by the veto of a governor appointed by the president...
That Supreme Court decision is exactly why President Obama got dollars upfront for the Gulf residents.
BTW, good post. You do realize Chris Matthews was only a staff member and speech writer for Tip O'Neil, he was not a legislator.
An employee at the Getty owned Pierre Hotel in New York City wondered why there were so many Germans being hired and staying at The Pierre during World War II. He called the FBI and the FBI charged J.P. Getty with Espionage; FBI File 100.1202, June 26, 1940. 2003 documents declassified by UK Warfare Ministry reveal that in Oct. 1941 the pro-Nazi Jean Paul Getty employed and lodged Nazis at his Pierre Hotel in New York City; Nazis who were involved in spying on and sabotaging Allied Forces’ war production plants. 43,000 people were killed in the UK while J. Paul Getty was in Berlin still shipping oil to Hitler five months before Pearl Harbor; December 7, 1941. As aristocrats with treasures of art were executed -- beginning in 1933 -- with the outbreak of war; Getty assiduously added to his vast collection with the Nazis. The Rembrandt of Marten Looten hangs in the Los Angeles County Museum of Art. The Gainsborough of Christie purchased in 1938 is at The Getty.
http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=getty+and+hitler&x=0&y=0
This entire Supreme Court has been making unconstitutional decisions for a long time. What does this mean for UN Sponsored Elections Overseen by US American President elected Hamas to govern Gaza.
IMMEDIATELY the US and Israel declared the election invalid and kept Hamas as "Terrorists".
Israel were the "terrorists" sent to Palestine by the British end of WWII.
We are INDEED not "free" when our capititalists, politicians, bureaucrats and corrupt courts determine our "truth".
Bob
http://mycommonsensepolitics.net/