Washington (CNN) - A divided Supreme Court has ruled the government's power to criminalize "material support" of a terrorist organization is constitutionally permissible.
The 6-3 ruling preserves a key provision of the 2001 Patriot Act, amid claims it threatens the free-speech rights of Americans who would assist non-violent activities of certain militant and terror groups.
At issue was whether the federal law allows prosecution of those with knowledge of "any service, training, expert advice or assistance" to a foreign terrorist organization, as designated by the U.S. government.
Any support of any kind to a terroristic group should be illegal. Including aid sent to people who are in an area controlled by a known terrorist group.
either the government does or let the citizenry
we can punish, and we are cost effective
What the chances that the "Wise Latina" and the ACLU "Sociaist" Ginzberg were two of the opposing votes? Another GREAT reason to fillibuster Kagen.
Now we are free of those Democrat's and the liberal Progressives' idealouge-based restrictions re: those helping and siding w/Terrorists.
Free to punish them all-at last.
Bring 'em in Sheriff...
What about the Red Cross? Can they "assist" terrorist groups?
This is what happens when you let Republicans pack the Supreme Court with right-wing conservatives. So much for our civil rights under this court!
common sense 1......left wing crazies 0
What is so divided about a 6-3 ruling, sounds like a fair majority to me. I would like to hear the minority's opinion, it may shead more light on Justices like Sotomayor's "Feelings" about the law or if they apply their own "Personal Experience" that they gleaned by growing up as "Oppressed" minoritie's in our flawed society.
So, let me guess, the three far left liberals on the court thinks it is okay for some one to donate guns, ammo, and millions of dollars to Hamas or Al Queda because it is part of their "freedom of speech".
It would be funny if it wasn't so scary that the left actually thinks this way.
It sounds like the Supreme Court has ruled to dry up any contributions to Sarah Palin, an anti-American terrorist.
Is it any surprise that 3 of the 4 democrats on the S.C. put protecting terrorists' rights above protecting the safety of Americans?
I am quite surprised at this by the current Administration as they seem to have some real difficulty in determining what constitutes criminal behavior in accordance to our established laws, take ILLEGAL Immigration for an example.... I guess there aren't enough Islamic terrorists in the US to establish a block vote, could that be the difference, huh?
You can't fight a war with your hands tied.
Remember Viet Nam ?
Obama=Bush. Nothing changes, nothing ever will.
Patriot act was never needed to begin with, the times today are not any more dangerous than they have ever been, it just seems so because WE are living in it now. Future generations will think that the times they live in are the most dangerous times, it is just a way we as humans like to feel important, in reality we are just a flash in the pan.
Still think Obama is weak on terrorism? He halted the closing of Gitmo, his attorneys successfully defended the Patriot Act, they defended military tribunals as well as imprisoning of enemy combatants in foreign countries, AND on top of that, unlike his predecessor, Obama has finally paid attention to Afghanistan to hugely increase our troop levels there.
Well, there you go. The Supreme Court is hand-in-hand with the unlawful Patriot Act, too. This country has just about cooked its goose. It's all down hill from here.