Quote:
Originally Posted by hi_im_god
All the justices in that ruling agreed that money in fungible and supported the portion of the bill that outlawed cash contributions to any organization on the state departments list of terrorist organizations. the vote was 9-0 on that.
what the 3 justices in the minority stated in their dissent was that non-monetary aid in the form of education (i.e.- how to resolve conflicts non-violently) shouldn't be outlawed.
this is exactly the kind of aid that was provided to both the a.n.c. and i.r.a. by non-government groups in the past. it will now be denied to groups like the pkk, which remains on the list of terrorist organizations because of it's activities in turkey. what that means is that while u.s. soldiers fought side by side with the pkk early in the iraq war, it's now illegal for u.s. citizens to offer educational assistance to that same party.
your facts are wrong. and there's legitimate reasons why the 3 justices voted as they did. i know your side hates to hear this but it's a lot more complicated than you suggest.
|
Fair enough. I stand corrected about the money part. But I still agree with the majority ruling that no "material support" should be given to terrorist groups. The dissenters (Sotomayor, Ginsburg, and Breyer) think that some types of non-monetary support is ok. I don't think any support is ok.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/22/us...scotus.html?hp