Something is afoot at the SCOTUS. I don't know what it is...but it is causing great confusion. Unless you lived under a rock, you would've heard by now of the decision in Citizens United v. F.E.C., where the SCOTUS held that corporations were entitled to the same free speech rights human individuals are entitled to, and therefore there should be no limits to corporate contributions to political campaigns (as money is the primary way corporations communicate). Everyone from the far right to the far left was outraged and only foreign interests and big corporations were overjoyed. We will likely not see much of the consequences of this decision until the Fall of this year.
Today the SCOTUS decides in Holden v Humanitarian Law Project that it is constitutional to criminally prosecute individuals who provide material support to organizations designated as terrorist organizations by the State Department. What does one case have to do with the other? Hear me out. I go off on tangents sometimes. The Supreme Court determined that "material support" not only included the person who sends money to...let's say Hamas so they could bomb us, but that material support also includes giving money to...let's say Hamas, so they could continue to run their clinic for the destitute. "Material support" also includes advising Hamas NOT TO BOMB US! They did carve out an exception for domestic terrorist organizations.
Okay, so here's my point...or actually my question. If you put these two cases together, it sounds something like this. Hamas could make political campaign contributions to anyone of my legislators and that would be lawful. I, on the other hand, could be prosecuted for advising Hamas not to bomb us or for contributing to their clinic for the destitute (and let's assume it's the clinic in the region where Hamas are the only ones providing services, which apparently is the case in much of the Palestinian territories)...but I couldn't be prosecuted for contributing money to the Keystone State Skinheads, money which they use to bomb a federal building (unless I had specific knowledge they were going to bomb that specific federal building) even though I had a pretty good hunch that's what they might do and that's what they are known for. Am I reading these cases incorrectly? Can someone give some additional insight?
It seems as though fundamentally the SCOTUS is saying that as long as people or organizations are rich, we don't care what influence they have on our government; as long as Americans die in the hands of other Americans we are fine, it's just when foreigners kill Americans that we get angry...and if there's a way to stop terrorism, slow it down or even use those organizations to keep a few poor people alive, that's where we'll draw the line. Does this makes sense to anyone? Please write if you interpret the cases differently than I do.
Today the SCOTUS decides in Holden v Humanitarian Law Project that it is constitutional to criminally prosecute individuals who provide material support to organizations designated as terrorist organizations by the State Department. What does one case have to do with the other? Hear me out. I go off on tangents sometimes. The Supreme Court determined that "material support" not only included the person who sends money to...let's say Hamas so they could bomb us, but that material support also includes giving money to...let's say Hamas, so they could continue to run their clinic for the destitute. "Material support" also includes advising Hamas NOT TO BOMB US! They did carve out an exception for domestic terrorist organizations.
Okay, so here's my point...or actually my question. If you put these two cases together, it sounds something like this. Hamas could make political campaign contributions to anyone of my legislators and that would be lawful. I, on the other hand, could be prosecuted for advising Hamas not to bomb us or for contributing to their clinic for the destitute (and let's assume it's the clinic in the region where Hamas are the only ones providing services, which apparently is the case in much of the Palestinian territories)...but I couldn't be prosecuted for contributing money to the Keystone State Skinheads, money which they use to bomb a federal building (unless I had specific knowledge they were going to bomb that specific federal building) even though I had a pretty good hunch that's what they might do and that's what they are known for. Am I reading these cases incorrectly? Can someone give some additional insight?
It seems as though fundamentally the SCOTUS is saying that as long as people or organizations are rich, we don't care what influence they have on our government; as long as Americans die in the hands of other Americans we are fine, it's just when foreigners kill Americans that we get angry...and if there's a way to stop terrorism, slow it down or even use those organizations to keep a few poor people alive, that's where we'll draw the line. Does this makes sense to anyone? Please write if you interpret the cases differently than I do.
Comments