Are you, like me, now an illegal supporter of terrorism?

[Bragi]

As of yesterday's Supreme Court ruling, were I an American (I'm actually a Canadian), I could now be charged for giving "material supporter" to terrorism because I have attended demonstrations where Hamas supporters, among others, have called for peace talks between Israel and the elected government of Palestine.

(See http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iyoQvMNadtonx9sFU0beOI7UMaUgD9GFNGBO0

Similarly, if this kind of law had been in place in the 1980's, I could have been charged with giving material support to terrorism because I worked to organize demonstrations supporting the rebels (who would now be called "terrorists") who were then fighting to topple the Reagan-supported fascist government in El Salvador.

I suspect there were many other instances in my life where what I took to be an expression of free political speech would now be illegal under current U.S. anti-terrorism laws.

Which raises the question: Has America actually reached the point where the public is prepared to quietly accept the criminalization of political dissent?

[Oregone]

1. "Has America actually reached the point..."

Yes. As long as it comes paired with an inspirational speech.

[jgraz]

15. And a prayer... don't forget the prayer

Preferably delivered by Rick Warren.

[tekisui]

2. Jimmy Carter and the Red Cross could now be charged as

terrorist supporters.

[Bragi]

8. Quite so

But I expect that the Israel lobby will initially focus on getting law enforcement officials to silence and arrest less prominent critics, and to scare ordinary people from expressing any support for them.

[loudsue]

16. That's the key. It's a matter of who is pulling the strings to begin with.

It's as if the bush government was still in charge.

[indepat]

27. When most of your predecessor's major actions and initiatives are continued/ratified and

goodly numbers of his embedded ideologues are left in place to muck up their agencies, it's tantamount to a rose by any other name would smell the same. :P

[mikelgb]

3. I prefer the title Enemy Combatant

[Ikonoklast]

4. That Roberts Court ruling will destroy Free Speech in this country

for individuals.

Yes, under this ruling, I could be considered a criminal.


I really wonder if it will be upheld for giving support of any kind to our own, home-grown, right-wing militias whose stated intent is to combat and overthrow the Federal Government?

Oh, wait, those people are *white*.

That ruling will only apply to suppporting organizations made up of darker-skinned peoples that live overseas.

[joeybee12]

5. Not to worry...just incorporate yourself...you can find forms on line...

...then you can do any fucking thing you want to with no consequences!

[stray cat]

6. You are not even allowed to send food aid and medical supplies to Bin Laden

I have to say I'm not crazy about aiding terrorist groups - however, you can help palestinians all you want or Iranians just not Hamas or Hezballah or Al qaeda

[Bragi]

7. It is now illegal to even advise the elected govt of Palestine

If the elected government of Palestine called you up and asked what you thought they could do to promote peace talks with Israel, it would now be illegal for you to give them your advice.

Does a country with laws such as this sound to you like a country that supports free speech?

[NNN0LHI]

11. Was it OK when our government armed bin Laden and the other Afghan Mujahideen to fight the Soviets?

How did you feel about when our own government was aiding terrorist groups back then?

And if you were against it were you a Communist sympathizer back then?

Don

[Bragi]

13. Great example!

Instead of "Charlie Wilson's War" we would have had "Charlie Wilson's Trial."

[Spazito]

17. Great question!

Gets to the nub of it for sure.

[Forkboy]

26. Great question. I'll be amazed if it gets answered.

[Newest Reality]

9. It is consistent

with the prevailing trends we have been seeing.

It is easy to extrapolate that, for the people, corporations will expand and make more obvious their intent to rule as fictive fronts for those who control the shares.

Increasingly, the government(s) will accede to and facilitate this process until a corporate technocracy is firmly established and it will be designed to be both impenetrable and inescapable. If you currently work within the corporate mono-culture structure, then all you need to do is overlay that on everyday and personal life and you can get a sense of where it is going to go if left to its own devices.

It seems that the implementation of turning the planet into a prison panopticon is variable, but has tended to be gradual unless a certain set of circumstances allow for rather large steps towards this rather unsettling and disagreeable paradigm.

There are many factors that could mitigate this predominant theme, and, in answer to the OP's question, quiet acceptance, ignorance and inculcated fear are our enemies in this most serious game.

[Scuba]

10. Stamping out free speech, nurturing poverty.

[NightWatcher]

12. I am Big Time. (PETA, AIM, Sea Shepherd, _a few others I'm not listing_)

Remember the recent Admin's push to list peaceful environmentalists and anti war supporters as "terrorists"?

Please see:
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/one_day_well_all_be_terrorists_20091228/
One Day We'll All Be Terrorists

[Bragi]

14. Nightwatcher wrote:

One Day We'll All Be Terrorists

For many political activists, that "one day" turned out to be yesterday.

[Unvanguard]

25. I believe the law in question specifies foreign terrorist groups.

For what it's worth. :shrug:

[cascadiance]

18. Can we finally put away Ollie North then, or is he "protected" by the rules...

for being part of the "ruling class".

[Bragi]

19. It gets a bit complicated here

Ollie was working to help the Nicaraguan "rebels" overthrow the Sandinista "government".

In this case, the the rebels were deemed by the U.S to be, ah, freedom fighters. So that means the government must have necessarily been, ah, terrorist.

So Ollie's actions would therefore have been totally okay under the new SC interpretation of the terrorism law.

[cascadiance]

20. But wasn't he also "negotiating" with a "terrorist" Iranian government...

... to give them weapons for money that he used to fund the Contras?

[Bragi]

22. It IS complicated...

Iran had oil that still could have ended up in the U.S. back then, so they weren't really terrorists, they were just confused.

[Unvanguard]

21. Attending or organizing demonstrations is not providing material support.

The majority opinion was clear that independent advocacy--i.e speech that is not coordinated with the terrorist group, that is not a service provided for the terrorist group, but is simply an expression of opinion about some political issue--is not covered.

[Bragi]

23. Really?

So it's okay to organize a demo to support negotiations between Israel and the elected govt of Palestine as long as any speech expressed at the demo is not coordinated with the elected government of Palestine?

Yeah, right.

[Unvanguard]

24. I think it requires even more than coordination, actually.

The persons who were prosecuted in the case brought before the Supreme Court were not engaged in issue advocacy; they were actively training members of terrorist groups, albeit in peaceful activities. That was the issue.

[The Old Creak]

28. Canada

doesn't have discussion boards?