Supreme Court Take Up PATRIOT ACT On Groups On Terror List

g under p

Supreme Court to Take Up PATRIOT Act with Review of Case on Humanitarian Assistance to Groups on Terror List

Take a look at this interview with David Cole as he speaks about wht is to come before the Supreme Court. It amazes me to the lenghts to where this section of the Patriot Act extends. This is some scary shit if You don't know you should watch this video for sure just to get a better understanding of this current law.

In its first-ever review of the PATRIOT Act, the Supreme Court has announced it will decide the constitutionality of a controversial anti-terrorism law that makes it a crime to give any form of aid, including humanitarian assistance, to groups on the State Department’s list of foreign terrorist organizations. The Supreme Court case centers on a lawsuit filed by the Center for Constitutional Rights on behalf of the Humanitarian Law Project. We speak to David Cole, a Georgetown University law professor and attorney in the case

David Cole, explain the significance of the Supreme Court looking at the PATRIOT Act for the first time and what your case is based on.


DAVID COLE: Well, this is a particularly broad law, made much broader by the PATRIOT Act, and it allows the government to basically put someone in jail for fifteen years on a terrorism conviction without having proved that the individual engaged in any terrorism, conspired to engage in any terrorism, attempted to engage in any terrorism, provided any support to terrorist activities. Instead, what triggers the crime is simply your doing anything of value for any group that has been put on a blacklist by the Secretary of State.


And so, our clients, Humanitarian Law Project, had been providing human rights advocacy training and peacemaking negotiation assistance to the Kurds in Turkey, essentially encouraging them to use lawful, nonviolent means to resolve their disputes with the Turkish government, by going to Geneva and filing human rights claims, by participating in peace talks and the like. Once this law was put in place, it became a crime for this American human rights group to continue to encourage the Kurds to use lawful, nonviolent means to further their dispute, because the group in Turkey, the Kurdistan Workers’ Party, has been labeled a terrorist organization.


JUAN GONZALEZ: And how many people have actually been prosecuted by the federal government in recent years?


DAVID COLE: Well, it’s interesting. This law was passed, as you indicated, in 1996, but it really was left unenforced until September 11th. Since September 11th, however, it’s been a favorite tool of the government. There have been over a hundred prosecutions. And the reason it’s the favorite tool is precisely because it doesn’t require the government to prove up that an individual actually is connected to any kind of terrorist activity. It allows them to paint with a broad brush. And so, you know, they’ve prosecuted a student in Idaho who simply had a website that had links on its website to other websites that had jihadist rhetoric, and they said that was material support. So it’s been used very, very broadly by the administration.

JUAN GONZALEZ: And what’s been the position of the Obama administration so far on the law?


DAVID COLE: Well, they’re the ones who asked the Supreme Court to review the case. We prevailed in the lower courts. The lower courts held that the parts of the material support law that most clearly affect speech—prohibition on expert advice, on training, on services—were unconstitutional and protected our client’s right to provide this kind of a lawful support. It’s the Obama’s administration that sought to have the Supreme Court review the case. So, thus far, they haven’t taken a position that’s any different from their predecessors, or indeed from the Clinton administration, which initially defended this lawsuit when it was filed back in the ’90s.


AMY GOODMAN: David Cole, tell us about the Tamil American doctors.


DAVID COLE: Well, the Tamil—we have a Tamil American doctor, who’s a plaintiff, who really sought to provide aid in the areas of Sri Lanka that were under LTTE control and were hardest hit by the tsunami. And he was barred from providing medical assistance to people in need, because of this law. We also have a number of Tamil organizations, which include doctors and educators, who similarly sought to provide support to the lawful—again, the lawful humanitarian activities of the LTTE, the Liberation Tamil Tigers of Eelam.


And the basic, you know, idea that we’re pushing here is that when Americans are seeking to engage in speech in furtherance of lawful, nonviolent activities, they shouldn’t be called terrorists. It’s one thing to punish someone who’s sending weapons to a terrorist organization or sending people to go fight for a terrorist organization. That should be a crime. But teaching people how to advocate for human rights in the UN or providing people with medical assistance, that is not terrorism and should not be criminalized and should be constitutionally protected.

Peace

VINNY GOOMBA

I don't even know how to respond to this thread... But it'd be nice if some of that CHANGE kicked in right about now.

pandora

this is a very scary law and how did it get by us - oh yes we were all so worried about more terrorist attacks after 911 that we forgot about protecting our own rights. Do we not just eat out of their hands?
and
whats up in hardin montana anyways- empty prison being run by The Black Water group- I wonder who will be filling that space- still need to google that- just heard about that last nite