The Supreme Court heard arguments on whether an antiterror law violates the Constitution. The US solicitor general calls it 'a vital weapon.' A lawyer for international peace activists argues it will send his clients to prison. The case, Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project, exists at a crossroads between efforts to protect US national security by isolating certain designated terrorist groups and long-established American protections of the rights of free speech and association. Is it aiding and giving support to terrorists? Maurice Carver of BMSTV has a conversation with guest Lorie Jones of Village Circle Inc.
These are crooked and counter productive motions being asserted through political channel's so as to 'tie up', legitimate channel's of question's of our identity as a country defined on the basis of "freedom, liberty and justice" for all. The Gov't is not the 'save all', the 'people', are.
untomatchi 1 year ago
Because of Israel's piracy against Gaza Freedom Flotilla at international water, our supreme court should order tracking history and investigating AIPAC and CIA? Good! We support it. Do it!
The Supreme Court upheld the government's authority Monday to ban aid to designated terrorist groups, even when that support is intended to steer the groups toward peaceful and legal activities.
The court left intact a federal law that the Obama administration considers an important tool against terrorism.
beancube2010 1 year ago