So what will be done about it? Shall we guess?

This is one of those "do as I say, not as I do" typical DC, political "I make the rules, I don't have to live by them....but you do!" pieces of OweBummer WH legislation.

http://www.salon.com/2012/03/12/washingtons_high_powered_terrorist_supporters/singleton/

hmmm, not the first time I have read 'professional' editorials which either didnt follow logic or werent proofread for errors

this is a case of the former

in the first paragraph (which, without reading, Im going to guess will set up the following argument posed throughout the piece)

The five-judge conservative bloc (along with Justice Stevens) held that pure political speech could be permissibly criminalized as “material support for Terrorism” consistent with the First Amendment if the “advocacy [is] performed in coordination with, or at the direction of, a foreign terrorist organization” (emphasis added). In other words, pure political advocacy in support of a designated Terrorist group could be prosecuted as a felony

includes a false conclusion

it is a felony with SPECIFIC conditions (as opposed to pure political advocacy)

condition ONE: involves COORDINATING WITH a 'foreign' terrorist organization

OR

condition TWO: involves being DIRECTED BY a 'foreign' terrorist organization


both conditions imply a more DIRECT association/cooperation with the 'foreign' terrorist group to advocate and not just the run of the mill personal opinion that may support what the group does,,,,,

he does correct it here:

Whatever one’s views are on this ruling, it is now binding law. To advocate on behalf of a designated Terrorist group constitutes the felony of “providing material support” if that advocacy is coordinated with the group.




how is this different than the 'guilt by association' that occurs with any other crimes,,,,

people are guilty by association when caught cavorting with anyone who has drugs

I see this as not very different, because without a formal register of members (which I doubt most terrorist groups hold publicly), who is to say that someone involved in/with a terrorist group isnt also a MEMBER of that group,,,,?


I do think the law should allow for (and probably does) a suspect to present a case to explain the 'reasonable' explanation for such an association/meeting,,,whatever,,,,