On first glance, I say WTF?
Has anyone else seen anything about Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project?
A group trying to work with US representatives of terrorist groups to advise them on peaceful negotiation tactics and violence reduction ran into the Patriot Act's provision against giving "expert advice or assistance" (which it classifies as "material support") to terrorists. The supreme court (Excepting Breyer, who is really quite underrated, Ginsburg, and Sotomayor) said such speech and association can be criminalized, for a number of reasons including 'lending legitimacy' to terrorists.
I haven't had a chance to read a lot on it, let alone get into the opinion itself, it may be narrower than it looks (I mean, they got Stevens on board) but I'm guessing I'm with the NYT on thinking this is seriously fucking uncool.
A group trying to work with US representatives of terrorist groups to advise them on peaceful negotiation tactics and violence reduction ran into the Patriot Act's provision against giving "expert advice or assistance" (which it classifies as "material support") to terrorists. The supreme court (Excepting Breyer, who is really quite underrated, Ginsburg, and Sotomayor) said such speech and association can be criminalized, for a number of reasons including 'lending legitimacy' to terrorists.
I haven't had a chance to read a lot on it, let alone get into the opinion itself, it may be narrower than it looks (I mean, they got Stevens on board) but I'm guessing I'm with the NYT on thinking this is seriously fucking uncool.