RE: US Supreme Court decision issued MONDAY: majority opinion was
written by Roberts; Justice Breyer wrote the dissent in which he was joined
by Justices Ginsberg and Sotomayor; several groups, including the ACLU, had
filed an amicus arguing that the statute's ambiguity renders it
unconstitutionally vague as applied to human rights activity. Look for further updates, an amicus and a Press Release from various rights groups including Center for Constitutional Rights and ACLU dot org
Related News Digest for June 22, 2010 Find the following at nogitmos dot org/news/ or CLICK here Also find related items at nomorecrusades dot blogspot dot com or GO here and/or GO to Bill of Rights Defense Committee or bordc dot org or GO here
And yet more:
Supreme Court ruling barring aid to terrorist groups: why some lament it
Humanitarian and peace organizations say their direct interaction with violent or terrorist groups is vital to intervention efforts. The Supreme Court decision Monday means they do it at their peril.
...“The ‘material support law’ – which is aimed at putting an end to terrorism – actually threatens our work and the work of many other peacemaking organizations that must interact directly with groups that have engaged in violence,” said former President Jimmy Carter, founder of the Carter Center.
“The vague language of the law leaves us wondering if we will be prosecuted for our work to promote peace and freedom,” he said....
[and, other stories on this at Google News]
Also see related posts below -- look for more in Comments Section or Updates...