Patterico's Pontifications

6/21/2010

Supreme Court Approves ‘Material Support’ Law

Filed under: Law,Terrorism — DRJ @ 12:35 pm

[Guest post by DRJ]

The Supreme Court today approved a Bush era policy supported by the Obama Administration that criminalizes providing material support to foreign terror groups:

“The Supreme Court has upheld a federal law that bars “material support” to foreign terrorist organizations, rejecting a free speech challenge from humanitarian aid groups.”

Oral argument in this case was held in February 2010 and I posted on it here. In supporting the Bush policy, the Obama Administration pointed out how the law was often used to combat terror.

Justice Breyer read his dissent aloud, something the article describes as unusual.

— DRJ

93 Responses to “Supreme Court Approves ‘Material Support’ Law”

  1. When you’ve lost Stevens, there isn’t much there there.

    AD - RtR/OS! (a2aeeb)

  2. If you are ever arrested as a suspected terrorist, say nothing. Demand a lawyer. Demand to be taken before an impartial magistrate as soon as the courts open. If they put a cellmate in with you say nothing to him. He may be a police informant. If you are a foreign national demand to contact your embassy.

    Have I just provided material support to terrorists?

    nk (db4a41)

  3. Morally and logistically speaking, it’s tantamount to aiding and abetting a fugitive from justice.

    Icy Texan (0eee0e)

  4. If you are ever arrest as a suspected terrorist and are guilty, tell the truth and admit it. Refuse a lawyer and insist you be treated according to what you did. If they put a cellmate in with you, tell him the error of your ways. He may be an aspiring murderer too. If you are a foreign national let your embassy know you are responsible for a serious crime.

    In fact, any terrorist who is aggrieved enough to kill people should be willing to go on the record about their grievance.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  5. Soldiers of Allah are required to celebrate their cause, and to proclaim their mission, for to remain silent is to be shameful, and to be shameful is to denounce the Prophet (Praise be unto Him!).

    AD - RtR/OS! (a2aeeb)

  6. Well said, AD.

    Keeping your mouth shut is a great idea if you’re innocent. And it’s the wrong thing to do if you’re guilty.

    but let’s not let the thread be trolled into whether or not (banal) legal advice is material support. It isn’t and no one claims it is.

    The issue is whether you have the freedom to associate in the form of complicity with murder. Or, stated differently, is the 1st Amendment absolute? No, the constitution is not a suicide pact.

    You’d have to be pretty damn … different to conflate this issue with the 6th Amendment, which should be closer to absolute.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  7. mmm, so three justices basically thought the first amendment repealed the treason clause?

    material support is just a modern version of “aid and comfort.” sheesh.

    Aaron Worthing (e7d72e)

  8. “mmm, so three justices basically thought the first amendment repealed the treason clause?”

    Yeah, I’m surprised it was only three. Sotomayor was one of them, of course, since Obama is not nominating anyone but hard core nutcases.

    It will be four in a few months.

    Conventional wisdom is that Obama’s not really turning the court to the left at all. But he is. Elections have consequences.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  9. What’s that? It’s IN the Constitution? In fact, it is the ONLY crime specifically enumerated within the body of the Constitution?

    Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court. [emphasis mine]

    — Well then, it’s easy to see how Breyer, Ginsburg, and Sotomayor failed to take this into consideration . . . as they were busily consulting international law in deciding how they were going to vote.

    Icy Texan (0eee0e)

  10. But what if you are not a soldier of Allah? What if you’re just a middle-aged guy from a suburb of Detroit who likes guns and playing soldier and the next thing you know an FBI SWAT team has surrounded your house?

    nk (db4a41)

  11. If he’s training members of known terror organizations, he needs to find another hobby.

    DRJ (d43dcd)

  12. I’m sorry if I misread the article, I understood the “training” was in international/UN law.

    nk (db4a41)

  13. Dustin

    my take on Kagan is this.

    There’s a funny line in the Abyss. The woman is trying to get everyone to believe she saw aliens, but she is understandably having trouble. Then “Hippie” pipes up and says, “oh, yeah, man its totally true. Roswell, chariots of the Gods, man!” (That’s going on memory.)

    Well, he manages to make her stuff sound even loonier.

    She looks at “Hippie” and says, “Do me a favor. Stay off my side.”

    Look, we can’t hope for a conservative. So here’s our second best option: a really terrible, not persuasive liberal.

    And that is Kagan. She moves the court to the right by being so bad at trying to get them to go left. that’s why i don’t oppose her. not because i think she is actually cut out for the job but because i know she is not, and am very glad for that fact.

    Aaron Worthing (e7d72e)

  14. But what if you use lame non sequiturs to bolster your meaningless arguments?

    Icy Texan (0eee0e)

  15. Aaron, that’s certainly a glass half full attitude.

    The issue isn’t Kagan, but the 2008 election. This damage was done. She doesn’t strike me as persuasive either, but she is extreme.

    I love your analogy and think it’s apt. But this person will be stubbornly extreme for many decades. I would prefer someone who was simply more open minded, but my faction lost the election.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  16. “training” would be providing “aid and comfort”

    don’t imprison them, hang them.

    redc1c4 (fb8750)

  17. Have I just provided material support to terrorists?

    Comment by nk — 6/21/2010 @ 12:54 pm

    No, that’s just legal advice.

    When a dog urinates on your leg, he’s not attacking you personally, he’s just being a dog.

    NavyspyII (df615d)

  18. NK

    You claim to be a lawyer and yet apparently you have not actually read the law. *rolls eyes*

    Aaron Worthing (e7d72e)

  19. But what if you use lame non sequiturs to bolster your meaningless arguments?

    Comment by Icy Texan

    Well said, Icy. The “what if” in this case is completely irrelevant to what the Court was discussing, and even then, it’s a poor argument for the issue it would apply to.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  20. The “conservatives” have already turned their back on Lincoln, it’s no surprise they don’t remember Dr. Samuel Mudd. So typical. As to Judge Stephens, whoever called that twit a liberal is probably on the right of Ivan the Terrible!

    Triumph (b66fe4)

  21. Aaron,

    I think it’s amusing that nk went on a tirade to people who weren’t lawyers, and then weren’t on his short list of ‘good enough’ lawyers, and constantly bemoans how certain people are just not able to hang, but in most threads, he just jumps in and makes a very poor argument. Either he’s nasty to throw people off the scent of stupidity, or he’s not even trying.

    There’s just something about that mystical brew that combines snooty superiority with really stupid points that creates an irresistible troll.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  22. Triumph

    You know, Lincoln wasn’t big on treason, either. In fact he kind of fought a whole war against treason and was shot by one of the worst of the the traitors.

    Aaron Worthing (e7d72e)

  23. As to Judge Stephens, whoever called that twit a liberal is probably on the right of Ivan the Terrible!

    It’s spelled with a V, oh expert.

    And yes, he’s a progressive. The term liberal is pointless these days.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  24. Dustin

    i keep wondering… when the public discovers they hate hate progressivism as much as liberalism, what will they call it next?

    I think we should consider a wager pool for the next rebranding.

    Aaron Worthing (e7d72e)

  25. Stevens is a moderate, not a progressive. Only “conservatives” can mistake one for the other – to them even Sarah Nightingale was a pinko in disguise!

    Triumph (b66fe4)

  26. Gosh, Florence Nightingale. You rightists are blowing my brains out.

    Triumph (b66fe4)

  27. Triumph, this doesn’t matter to me. I think beyond which tribe he’s in. Can you name his most conservative decision? Or a his most ‘moderate’?

    Do you really know what you claim you know?

    What are basing your views on?

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  28. Okay, anybody want to take odds on whether or not this latest ad hominem attack troll will EVER directly respond to a comment challenging his views — that is, if he ever actually posts his views, instead of merely perpetuating stereotypes in response to the posted views of others?

    Icy Texan (0eee0e)

  29. #

    Gosh, Florence Nightingale. You rightists are blowing my brains out.

    Comment by Triumph — 6/21/2010 @ 2:24 pm

    Oh, we all know who your democrats are always freaking out about. Sarah Palin!!!!!! booga booga booga!!!!

    Let me make my point a little more clear, this ruling is obvious. Those who dissented are freaking wacky. Just because Stevens voted in the majority in this case does not make him very moderate at all.

    It’s like defining a moderate Muslim as one who isn’t a terrorist. You’re really just insulting the actual moderates with such faint praise.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  30. I think we should consider a wager pool for the next rebranding.

    “stupidity” would be the most accurate.

    redc1c4 (fb8750)

  31. Dustin —

    You say you think beyond tribes but you can’t see me but as a “democrat” which I am not. I used to be a Republican up to the Adolf Bush years and your flock doesn’t make me feel like coming home again. Obama is a piece of crap, but a less obnoxious one than Nitwit Gingrich, Prick Perry, Rick Sanscrotum or Sarah Tardin.

    Triumph (b66fe4)

  32. You claim to be a lawyer and yet apparently you have not actually read the law. *rolls eyes*
    Comment by Aaron Worthing — 6/21/2010 @ 2:04 pm

    Knowledge of the law isn’t neccessary to be a lawyer in Cook County, only knowledge of the Combine Rules (pad).

    AD - RtR/OS! (a2aeeb)

  33. Triumph, of course you are a concerned conservative. Who just happens to think Bush is Hitler. I’m so sorry for accusing you of being a democrat (I know I’d be insulted by that).

    Anyway, you didn’t answer my very simple question, and until you do, I’m not going to contiune responding to you.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  34. You rightists are blowing my brains out.
    Comment by Triumph — 6/21/2010 @ 2:24 pm

    A puff of air from a butterfly’s wings is all it would take.

    AD - RtR/OS! (a2aeeb)

  35. If a case makes it all the way to the Supreme Court, and the decision is 6-3, the issues are not cut and dried. And if the State Department’s designation as a terrorist organization being determinative in a U.S. Court does not trouble you, then you should Google Bills of Attainder. And this was not even by Congress but by an executive department.

    nk (db4a41)

  36. “…I used to be a Republican up to the Adolf Bush years…”

    You forgot to tell us how many times a week you went to church services.

    AD - RtR/OS! (a2aeeb)

  37. “Masters” if they get their way.

    Machinist (497786)

  38. Dustin —

    I answered your question (see #31) Go read Paul Campos’ article; he explains quite well why Stevens can be seen as a liberal only by people and a country whose political compass leans to the extreme right.

    P.S.: You can (jokingly) call Bush names and still be a conservative. That’s what we call being a free spirit. Try it once, maybe you’ll enjoy it.

    Triumph (b66fe4)

  39. “…the issues are not cut and dried…”

    Certainly more cut-and-dried than a 5-4 decision!

    AD - RtR/OS! (a2aeeb)

  40. If a case makes it all the way to the Supreme Court, and the decision is 6-3, the issues are not cut and dried.

    What did you expect? 8-1 or an unanimous decision? There are only three decent persons on the Court, deal with it.

    Triumph (b66fe4)

  41. Triumph, you failed to answer my question. And no one cares, least of all me.

    I know why you’re acting like this and it makes me very happy. See you at the ballot box.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  42. I don’t know about the Tamil Tigers, but I don’t see how we designated the PKK as a terrorist organization other than as supplication to Turkey. They’ve never fought against America and as a matter of fact the Kurds are our closest allies in Iraq.

    nk (db4a41)

  43. “… And this was not even by Congress but by an executive department.”

    Which most likely was, under the relevant law, detailed by Congress to make said determination.
    So, your argument is with Congress; certainly not with the Courts, which are charged with settling disputes; and not with State, which was just doing what they were told.

    For someone with a legal education, you certainly have very strange notions as to how the various parts of the Federal Government interact?

    AD - RtR/OS! (a2aeeb)

  44. Comment by nk — 6/21/2010 @ 3:01 pm

    The PKK is not the only Kurdish organization; and, it probably has something to do with the fact that PKK stands for Kurdish Communist Party, and they were just another Communist Liberation Front movement!

    AD - RtR/OS! (a2aeeb)

  45. Dustin —

    I answered your question. You just don’t like the answer. So typical.

    Triumph (b66fe4)

  46. how is the PKK any different from the KKK?

    I realize this is also not relevant to the Court’s ruling, and I also realize that in 2010, an enemy of Turkey seems almost like ‘the good guys’, but the fact is, they are an ethnic secession group that’s killed tens of thousands of people.

    They have suicide bombed tourist targets.

    And if Israel did that (Which they would not), I think we’re see a little more clarity on the fact that this makes ’em terrorists.

    Those are not legitimate tactics, even if they do have monsters for enemies in many cases.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  47. They want to create a Kurdistan. Which is probably the reason Turkey has turned against us in Iraq. We are supporting the Iraqi Kurds as a semi-autonomous region in the North. Even before the war, we were enforcing a no-fly zone against Iraq over their territory.

    This is a complex issue which involves, among others, water rights. The nationalist Kurds claim the sources of the Tigris and Euphrates as part of the nation they want to establish.

    nk (db4a41)

  48. “And if the State Department’s designation as a terrorist organization being determinative in a U.S. Court does not trouble you, then you should Google Bills of Attainder.”

    Why would you google that?

    The two things aren’t even remotely related.

    Now, if our Congress passed a bill condemning someone to death and seizing their property because they were providing material aid to a terrorist organization, without giving the accused recourse to the courts…then you would want to start googling Bills of Attainder.

    Dave Surls (c47b0f)

  49. For someone with a legal education, you certainly have very strange notions as to how the various parts of the Federal Government interact?

    Comment by AD – RtR/OS! — 6/21/2010 @ 3:01 pm

    Well, that wasn’t my point. My point was Bills of Attainder. Even Congress cannot declare “commenters of Patterico’s are guilty of sedition”.

    nk (db4a41)

  50. “I answered your question. You just don’t like the answer. So typical.

    Comment by Triumph — 6/21/2010 @ 3:04 pm ”

    I asked you to specify a couple of cases that you personally knew to be Steven’s most conservative and moderate. Your response was to lie that you already had by linking some apologia from a leftist outfit. Where people sit on the political spectrum is subjective.

    You have to show us what you mean by moderate. Otherwise you’re just a troll who thinks its funny to say Bush is Hitler and the Palin family is retarded. That, to me, is brain dead democrat jingle.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  51. Again, there are three (or more) different Kurdish Independence groups, and the U.S. has varying relations with most of them.
    Just why would Turkey resent us for enforcing a no-fly zone over Iraqi Kurdish territory that was imposed by the UN circa 1994?
    Turkey did not allow the 4th-ID to transit because that would have meant that any Turkish incursion into Northern Iraq might bump up against elements of the U.S.Army – not something they wanted to do. So, the obvious solution, is to make the Americans bring everyone in from the South, leaving the Iraq-Turkey border in the hands of the Turkish Army, which proceeded to kill Kurds as they had been for a hundred years or more.

    AD - RtR/OS! (a2aeeb)

  52. A brief primer (if the link works). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_of_attainder#Cases

    nk (db4a41)

  53. Your point is pointless; for, as Dave Surls points out, anyone so designated has recourse to the courts, where the case may be proven, or not.

    AD - RtR/OS! (a2aeeb)

  54. Sigh. With a bill of attainder the only thing the court may consider is whether you fall within that group.

    nk (db4a41)

  55. Or, in America (see my link above), whether the law is an unconstitutional Bill of Attainder.

    nk (db4a41)

  56. If triumph is a conservative, then the Cubs are about to win the World Series.

    JD (34dffe)

  57. “Why would you google that?”

    – Dave Surls

    Because if a State Department designation of “terrorist” is consistently upheld by the courts, then the State Department has the power to effectively outlaw certain groups, and bring legal punishment to them. Which is a bill of attainder. Which is unconstitutional. Which is bad.

    Leviticus (30ac20)

  58. Ah, Triumph the puppet troll shows up. Quoting Paul Campos? My ribs hurt from laughing at that. Campos blew all his credibility long ago and is a joke around here.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  59. Bill Attainder
    make nk sigh weak in knees
    new Frank Sinatra?

    ColonelHaiku (2ce3dc)

  60. A bill of attainder, is a legislative act which inflicts punishment without judicial trial and includes any legislative act which takes away the life, liberty or property of a particular named or easily ascertainable person or group of persons because the legislature thinks them guilty of conduct which deserves punishment.

    It should be noted that today’s opinion doesn’t even address this issue; the claims raised by the people challenging the law had to do with (a) vagueness and (b) infringement of the first amendment rights of those accused of providing aid.

    I think the named groups themselves would have to bring a bill of attainder claim in order for a court to hear it.

    aphrael (e0cdc9)

  61. “Which is a bill of attainder.”

    No, it isn’t a Bill of Attainder.

    But, I’m not going to waste my time arguing with you about it, Clarence Darrow.

    I just explained to you what a Bill of Attainder is. If you don’t want to learn…that’s your headache.

    Dave Surls (c47b0f)

  62. I just explained to you what a Bill of Attainder is. If you don’t want to learn…that’s your headache.

    Comment by Dave Surls — 6/21/2010 @ 4:12 pm

    Bills of attainder are enforced by, or challenged in, the courts, Johnnie Cochran, and they do not necessarily death and forfeiture of property. I gave you links to cases and acts and you gave us your one sentence “explanation”.

    nk (db4a41)

  63. *necessarily involve*

    nk (db4a41)

  64. Colonel Haiku
    Write nonsense in hot weather
    Need get life or girlie magazine.

    nk (db4a41)

  65. It may not be a “Bill of Attainder”, but it’s a bill of attainder. It’s the government singling out a named group for punishment. bill. of. attainder.

    Leviticus (30ac20)

  66. Poor choice of words on my part: it’s the government indirectly singling out persons or groups for punishment.

    Leviticus (30ac20)

  67. Dave, I don’t think it’s clear.

    Certainly material support laws as applied to individuals supporting named terrorist organizations are not bills of attainder.

    However, insofar as they deprive specific, named entities of liberty by making it illegal for third parties to provide them with material support, they might be.

    I doubt very much there is any precedent on the subejct, and it’s not clear to me that the entities would have an actionable claim that their liberty is reduced when others are prohibited from doing things for them. And, additionally, it seems like the line of reasoning would also undermine boycotts by state agencies.

    But it seems like a legitimate, and interesting, argument to me.

    aphrael (e0cdc9)

  68. And, regardless of their legal status, it seems to me that a law that grants the executive the power to prohibit “material support” for specific entities chosen by the executive is objectionable, on a theoretical level, for the same reason that traditional bills of attainder are: the state is picking specific groups of citizens and declaring them to be persona non grata without a judicial determination of guilt.

    aphrael (e0cdc9)

  69. Emphasis on “the executive”. At least, in war as some here have mentioned, the declaration is made by the Congress and not by some political appointee who got the job as a consolation prize for losing her run for the Presidency.

    nk (db4a41)

  70. nk protest much
    too tight sweater bobbie sox?
    nk swoon in june

    ColonelHaiku (2ce3dc)

  71. There was once a troll Col. Haiku,
    Who at ladies’ feet he would coo:
    I love your heels and your toes,
    But as only my boyfriend knows,
    What I like most up my *** is your shoe.

    Any moron can write the crap you do, Colonel. Get serious.

    nk (db4a41)

  72. aiding abetting
    lawyer client privilege
    help sheikh mohammed

    ColonelHaiku (2ce3dc)

  73. haiku need shoe shine
    back that rig over here nk
    shave haircut two bits

    ColonelHaiku (2ce3dc)

  74. Ok, then.

    nk (db4a41)

  75. So, as long as it is vague and not very specific, it is not a bill of attainder?

    Isn’t treason actually spelled out in the Constitution?

    Nevermind me, I am not a lawyer.

    JD (41e5f8)

  76. Let Breyer bray. Why should providing assistance to groups that foment evil be protected by the constitution?

    GeneralMalaise (2ce3dc)

  77. “…declaring them to be persona non grata without a judicial determination of guilt…”

    So, then the SecState, acting in the name of the President, would not be allowed to declare the entire Russian delegation to the United States as Persona Non Grata, since it would be done absent a judicial determination of guilt?

    AD - RtR/OS! (a2aeeb)

  78. “Certainly material support laws as applied to individuals supporting named terrorist organizations are not bills of attainder.”

    Well, you’re certainly correct about that.

    First of all no one has been attained, period.

    And second of all, no one has been judged attained by an Act of Congress.

    And, that’s about as clear as it gets.

    Whether or not you, or the silly nk wants to see it or not…that’s up to you.

    But, there is no question about it. It isn’t a Bill of Attainder.

    Dave Surls (c47b0f)

  79. Triumph

    > I used to be a Republican up to the Adolf Bush years

    Dude, you should warn me before you make a joke like that. My soda almost went up my nose.

    Man I haven’t seen the fake-republican-who-converted-to-democrat-over-Bush troll in years.

    By the way, here is the dead giveway: when you give a hysterical hyperbolic criticism of bush that reduces him to one liberal talking point. Double points if it’s one that is wholly disproven by history. Which the claim that Bush is Hitler is. I mean let’s see here. Hitler was a genocidal dictator, who put millions under his jackboot. By comparison Bush liberated 50 million people, genocided none at all, not only was elected to office (twice) but gave page power willingly when he finished serving in office. But aside from all that, HE WAS JUST LIKE HITLER.

    By the way, if you want to go the full metal wingnut, call him “Chimpy McHitlerburton.”

    NK

    > If a case makes it all the way to the Supreme Court, and the decision is 6-3, the issues are not cut and dried.

    If we lived in a reality where all 9 justices believed in following the law instead of just making sh-t up, you would be right.

    > And if the State Department’s designation as a terrorist organization being determinative in a U.S. Court does not trouble you, then you should Google Bills of Attainder.

    Sigh, the Bill of Attainder clause has never applied to international organizations.

    Leviticus

    > Because if a State Department designation of “terrorist” is consistently upheld by the courts, then the State Department has the power to effectively outlaw certain groups, and bring legal punishment to them.

    Well, seeing that they have no feelings, I suppose those groups will get over it.

    I mean seriously, what do you propose? A right to trial for Hizbollah to determine if they are in fact our enemy? And what is the standard by which we decide?

    Like why are we siding against the kurds in turkey? Maybe its nothing more than horse trading for support for Iraqi curds. And guess what? That is our right as a country. We can go and bomb the everloving crud out of them. We can declare them our enemy and to support them materially to be treason.

    And if you don’t like it? then elect someone with enough character not to abuse that power.

    Aaron Worthing (A.W.) (f97997)

  80. And what is the standard by which we decide?

    For Hizbollah(sic), I propose Trial by Firing Squad:
    If the bullets miss, they’re innocent.

    AD - RtR/OS! (a2aeeb)

  81. AD

    Mmm, well, more like making them play russian roulette with an automatic pistol. 😉

    Aaron Worthing (A.W.) (f97997)

  82. “Certainly material support laws as applied to individuals supporting named terrorist organizations are not bills of attainder.”

    Would Hamas even have any standing to challenge their designation as a terrorist organization in court in this country?

    daleyrocks (1d0d98)

  83. I don’t think so. Hamas could challenge it through diplomatic channels with the Secretary of State. But I think it would have to be individuals in the United States, adversely affected by the Secretary of State’s determination that they are consorting with terrorists, who would need to bring such a challenge in the courts.

    nk (db4a41)

  84. Comment by Aaron Worthing (A.W.) — 6/21/2010 @ 6:38 pm

    Not too keen on many things Russian.
    M-1’s or M-14’s should be up to the task.

    AD - RtR/OS! (a2aeeb)

  85. Let’s see. There is a law now upheld by SCOTUS that it is illegal to offer material aid to terrorist organizations.

    Hamas is a terrorist organization.

    Our State Department sends aid to Hamas. Are they in direct violation of this law and as such who has standing to sue? And, more importantly, will they?

    {^_^}

    JD (9ac83d)

  86. “That’s Different”

    AD - RtR/OS! (a2aeeb)

  87. “Our State Department sends aid to Hamas. Are they in direct violation of this law…”

    Depends on what kind of aid.

    The statute in question has an exception for folks who are carrying out certain actions on behalf of legitimate authority.

    To whit…

    ‘(j) Exception.— No person may be prosecuted under this section in connection with the term “personnel”, “training”, or “expert advice or assistance” if the provision of that material support or resources to a foreign terrorist organization was approved by the Secretary of State with the concurrence of the Attorney General. The Secretary of State may not approve the provision of any material support that may be used to carry out terrorist activity (as defined in section 212(a)(3)(B)(iii) of the Immigration and Nationality Act).’

    http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00002339—B000-.html

    IOW, you can provide expert legal advice to designated terrorist groups (but not guns) if the Secretary of State and Attorney General authorize it…otherwise, no way.

    Dave Surls (defabb)

  88. Aaron Worthing —

    “Man I haven’t seen the fake-republican-who-converted-to-democrat-over-Bush troll in years.”

    I’m a lapsed Republican but I am not a Democrat and never will be. Obama’s stance on abortion, gay rights and immigration make sure that I’ll never join the bandwagon. Gimme an old Eisenhower Republican and I’m home to stay. Not gonna happen anytime soon, you folks are too rabid even to contemplate such a move. The GOP is dead and you are the guilty party.

    Triumph (b66fe4)

  89. you are the guilty party
    — Drop the “guil” and you will be on the right track.

    Icy Texan (b17d15)

  90. “Bill of Attainder”? Jeez! Talk about grasping at straws! (or straw-men).

    Icy Texan (b17d15)

  91. Triumph,

    > I’m a lapsed Republican but I am not a Democrat and never will be.

    Sorry, you have mistaken me for someone who believes anything you write.

    Aaron Worthing (e7d72e)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.8668 secs.