One constitutional authority, law professor Francis Boyle of the University of Illinois law school, told IPS that the decision upheld the government's position as set out by the solicitor general, Elena Kagan, who has been nominated by President Barack Obama to be the next associate justice of the Supreme Court.
Boyle said that Kagan "argued this case as solicitor general and maintained during oral argument that any lawyer who filed an amicus brief in a U.S. Court on behalf of a designated terrorist organisation would be violating the material support statute and thus risk criminal prosecution."
Boyle said Kagan's arguments in this case "demonstrate emphatically why she must not be confirmed for the U.S. Supreme Court. She has driven yet another nail into the coffin of the First Amendment and the U.S. Bill of Rights that was originally constructed by the [George W.] Bush administration with the USA Patriot Act."
The Supreme Court has decided that some groups of foreigners are so dangerous to our nation that even teaching these groups to be non-violent is, in effect, an act of war against our own nation.
Kagan [...] maintained during oral argument that any lawyer who filed an amicus brief in a U.S. Court on behalf of a designated terrorist organisation would be violating the material support statute and thus risk criminal prosecution.
My own take is, Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project is not about limiting free speech—it’s about the state expanding it power to repress. The decision limits free speech in passing, because what it is really doing is expanding the state’s power to repress whomever it unilaterally determines is a terrorist.--Is the U.S. a Fascist Police-State?
« Older What do you do when your 40 year old, 1 of 377 351... | Pac-Man's creator, Toru Iwatan... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
Buy a Shirt