The Illegitimate Supreme Court & the 911 Stunt
Mort Zuckerman
lPick...@cdc.gov, Durlan...@yale.edu, Aa...@columbia.edu,
gary_w...@nymc.edu, scientifi...@ostp.gov,
pkru...@princeton.edu, Stanle...@fiu.edu,
emcsw...@niaid.nih.gov, afa...@niaid.nih.gov,
Spin...@yahoogroups.com, kshe...@calea.org, fit...@gmail.com,
patrick.f...@usdoj.gov, model...@sbcglobal.net,
jdr...@nejm.org, let...@courant.com, Jgerb...@cdc.gov,
michae...@po.state.ct.us, con...@po.state.ct.us, executive-
edi...@nytimes.com, managin...@nytimes.com, news-
ti...@nytimes.com, biz...@nytimes.com, for...@nytimes.com,
nati...@nytimes.com, dv...@cdc.gov, brigidc...@optonline.net,
tr...@hotmail.com, illino...@aol.com, jle...@courant.com,
tinaj...@yahoo.com, jhorn...@fff.org, thomas...@usdoj.gov,
thoma...@po.state.ct.us, kur...@washpost.com,
georg...@washpost.com, p...@allegorypress.com,
commissi...@po.state.ct.us, brans...@comcast.net,
vts...@comcast.net, o...@po.state.ct.us, freet...@charter.net,
scott....@po.state.ct.us, govern...@po.state.ct.us,
attorney...@po.state.ct.us, randall...@usdoj.gov,
Robert....@yale.edu, edi...@greenwich-post.com,
harol...@yale.edu, sedm...@nswbc.org, rrmcg...@aol.com,
fr...@nytimes.com, dpr...@stmartin.edu, saint....@sbcglobal.net
Cc: fra...@ucia.gov, dr-ahma...@president.ir,
eugener...@washpost.com, afa...@niaid.nih.gov,
bmi...@newstimes.com, tr...@hotmail.com, rast...@aol.com,
billc...@gmail.com, amcg...@rms-law.com, rjmu...@aol.com,
paulcrai...@yahoo.com, criminal...@usdoj.gov,
karla.d...@usdoj.gov, christophe...@usdoj.gov,
richar...@yale.edu, harol...@yale.edu, james.p...@yale.edu,
inq...@aldf.com, ly...@idsociety.org, meganm...@theatlantic.com
Subject: The Illegitimate Supreme Court & the 911 Stunt
Date: Jun 21, 2010 3:36 PM
http://rawstory.com/rs/2010/0621/supreme-court-upholds-material-support-law/
"Supreme Court ruling makes ‘it a crime to work for peace and human
rights’: CCR"
===================
Well, well. Here's anyone's chance to
bring justice to the 911 stunt (present
scientific evidence that the 911 stunt
was a controlled demolition of WTC7 at
the very least):
http://www.actionlyme.org/070426.htm
Supreme Court says I cannot agree with
Al Quaeda, et al, that the US should get
the hell out of the Middle East, whence,
I bring the argument that we did not vote
for the NeoNAZIs - the Bushies and the
NeoCons who performed the 911 stunt - in
2000, making this Supreme Court not a
legitimate court.
Bring it.
And additionally, what other aspects of
government can we claim? Drugs are qualified
by class action lawsuit rather than the FDA
does their job... NIH says LYMErix is real
http://www.actionlyme.org/The_Fauci_Files.htm
when the truth is that "Lyme Rx" was, in
fact, a case of *giving* (Rx-ing) people the
physiological effects, the New Great Imitator
outcomes, of chronic Lyme.
Whenever the CDC says a single thing, it is
a *guarantee* that its opposite is true.
The Department of Justice thinks it is their
http://www.actionlyme.org/USDOJ_COMPLAINT_RICO.htm
job to protect corporate criminals and Chris
Dodd fired himself over his incompetence in
1) the banking industry and 2) as an "elected
representative" of the people of Corrupticut,
giving the job to the man who did the USDOJ's
and the Senator's job, Richard Blumenthal.
The Military did not attempt to overthrow Bushie
like Von Stauffenberg, et al, because they were
*all* too cowardly.
Let's see. What did I miss:
Fake Bushie Administration, Illegitimate
Supreme Court, the Corrupticourts, the
incompetent USDOJ, FDA, NIH, CDC, the
elected non-representatards, the dot mil
fairies...
The only thing we have is feedback
from our site statistics telling us the
world is listening and watching...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tL_RbTWjjE8&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aGjwg5n49Vc&feature=related
What's different this time is that the
United States has no resources with which
to recover. The entire reason for the fake
"terrorist" wars was the status of the petrodollar:
APRIL 20th:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.diseases.lyme/browse_thread/thread/9202e3d9973f62a5?hl=en#
"How the Trilateral Commission Raped Europe and Japan with their 1970s
Oil Ruses"
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=14614
"An article in Foreign Affairs, the journal of the Council on Foreign
Relations, referred to Nixon’s New Economic Policy as “protectionist,”
encouraging a “disastrous isolationist trend,”[21] and that Nixon
shattered “the linchpin of the entire international monetary system—
on whose smooth functioning the world economy depends.”[22] Another
article in Foreign Affairs explained that the Atlanticist, or
internationalist faction of the US elite were in particular, upset
with Nixon’s New Economic Policy, however, they “agreed on the
diagnosis: the relative balance of economic strengths had so changed
that the United States could no longer play the role of economic
leader. But they also argued that further American unilateralism would
fuel a spiral of defensive reactions that would leave all the Western
economies worse off."
Kathleen M. Dickson
http://www.actionlyme.org
http://www.relapsingfever.org
====================================
Group: Former President Carter could be prosecuted for monitoring fair
elections in Lebanon
The US Supreme Court endorsed Monday a broad reading of the law
criminalizing "material support" to terrorism, a statute that critics
argue targets legitimate free speech.
In a six to three vote, the highest US court sided with the government
and found that an NGO could face prosecution for providing non-terror-
related support, including rights training, to US-designated terror
groups.
The case involved the Humanitarian Law Project, a human rights group,
which the court ruled could face prosecution under the material
support statute for providing human rights or conflict resolution
training to groups including the Kurdish PKK or the Tamil Tigers.
"The material-support statute is constitutional as applied to the
particular activities plaintiffs have told us they wish to pursue,"
the court ruling said.
Story continues below...
In a press release sent to RAW STORY, the Center for Constitutional
Rights argues that the ruling "criminalizes" free speech, and that
even former President Jimmy Carter could face potential prosecution.
Today, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 6-3 to criminalize speech in
Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project, the first case to challenge the
Patriot Act before the highest court in the land, and the first
post-9/11 case to pit free speech guarantees against national security
claims. Attorneys say that under the Court’s ruling, many groups and
individuals providing peaceful advocacy could be prosecuted, including
President Carter for training all parties in fair election practices
in Lebanon. President Carter submitted an amicus brief in the case.
Chief Justice Roberts wrote for the majority, affirming in part,
reversing in part, and remanding the case back to the lower court for
review; Justice Breyer dissented, joined by Justices Ginsburg and
Sotomayor. The Court held that the statute's prohibitions on "expert
advice," "training," "service," and "personnel" were not vague, and
did not violate speech or associational rights as applied to
plaintiffs' intended activities. Plaintiffs sought to provide
assistance and education on human rights advocacy and peacemaking to
the Kurdistan Workers' Party in Turkey, a designated terrorist
organization. Multiple lower court rulings had found the statute
unconstitutionally vague.
Created in 1996, the "material support" language was strengthened
under the Patriot Act, which Congress passed in the aftermath of the
September 11, 2001 attacks and reauthorized with some changes in 2004.
It has usually been used to prosecute individuals who have helped
organize or finance terrorist attacks.
The law has become a popular tool for prosecutors, who have prosecuted
some 150 people under the statute in the United States, obtaining
convictions in around 60 cases, and sentences ranging up to life in
prison.
The Associated Press adds,
In his dissent, Breyer recognized the importance of denying money
and other resources to terror groups. "I do not dispute the importance
of this interest," he said. "But I do dispute whether the interest can
justify the statute's criminal prohibition."
Breyer said the aid groups' mission is entirely peaceful and
consists only of political speech, including how to petition the U.N.
"Not even the 'serious and deadly problem' of international
terrorism can require automatic forfeiture of First Amendment rights,"
he said.
The CCR statement adds:
Said CCR Cooperating Attorney David Cole, “We are deeply
disappointed. The Supreme Court has ruled that human rights advocates,
providing training and assistance in the nonviolent resolution of
disputes, can be prosecuted as terrorists. In the name of fighting
terrorism, the Court has said that the First Amendment permits
Congress to make human rights advocacy and peacemaking a crime. That
is wrong.”
Originally brought in 1998, the case challenges the
constitutionality of laws that make it a crime to provide “material
support” to groups the administration has designated as “terrorist.”
CCR’s clients sought to engage in speech advocating only nonviolent,
lawful ends, but the government took the position that any such
speech, including even filing an amicus brief in the U.S. Supreme
Court, would be a crime if done in support of a designated “terrorist
group.”
Said CCR Senior Attorney Shayana Kadidal, “The Court’s decision
confirms the extraordinary scope of the material support statute’s
criminalization of speech. But it also notes that the scope of the
prohibitions may not be clear in every application, and that remains
the case for the many difficult questions raised at argument but
dodged by today’s opinion, including whether publishing an op-ed or
submitting an amicus brief in court arguing that a group does not
belong on the list is a criminal act. The onus is now on Congress and
the Obama administration to ensure that humanitarian groups may engage
in human rights advocacy, training in non-violent conflict resolution,
and humanitarian assistance in crisis zones without fearing criminal
prosecution.”
The Court rejected the government’s argument that the statute,
when applied to plaintiffs’ proposed speech, regulated not speech but
conduct, and therefore needed to meet only a low standard –
“intermediate scrutiny” – to survive. Instead, the Court found that
the statute did criminalize speech on the basis of its content, but
then found that the government’s interest in delegitimizing groups on
the designated "terrorist organization" list was sufficiently great to
overcome the heightened level of scrutiny. This is one of a very few
times that the Supreme Court has upheld a criminal prohibition of
speech under strict scrutiny, and the first time it has permitted the
government to make it a crime to advocate lawful, nonviolent activity.
The Constitution Project also blasted the court's decision in a press
release sent to RAW STORY:
Today, the Supreme Court, in Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project,
upheld the extremely broad application of federal laws that prohibit
material support for designated terrorist groups. The lawsuit
challenged the application of the "material support" laws to
organizations and individuals who seek to provide peacebuilding and
human rights training to groups designated as terrorist organizations.
Writing for a total of six justices, Chief Justice Roberts today
rejected this challenge, finding that the application of the material
support statutes to punish these groups' pure speech that seeks to
further lawful, non-violent ends does not run afoul of the
Constitution. Although the Court agreed that the statute's regulation
of speech must be subject to a demanding level of scrutiny, the Court
found that these sweeping restrictions were justified by the
Government's interests in combating terrorism.
"The Constitution Project is thoroughly dismayed by today's
Supreme Court's decision, which will allow for the prosecution of
individuals for constitutionally protected, peaceful, speech and
association activities," said Sharon Bradford Franklin, Constitution
Project Senior Counsel. "As much as our government must have the tools
needed to punish those who work to enable acts of terrorism, it is
essential that these laws respect constitutional freedoms. We regret
that the Court refused to rein in the overbroad sweep of the material
support statutes to ensure that terrorist activities are prohibited
but that free speech and association are still safeguarded by the
First Amendment. Training groups to pursue peaceful resolution of
their disputes should be encouraged, not made criminal."
Last November, the Constitution Project, together with The
Rutherford Institute, filed an amicus brief in the case, urging the
Supreme Court to strike down the provisions of the material support
laws that conflict with First Amendment protections for free speech
and freedom of association. Also in November, the Constitution
Project's Liberty and Security Committee released Reforming the
Material Support Laws: Constitutional Concerns Presented by
Prohibitions on Material Support to "Terrorist Organizations," which
proposed eight reforms to remedy serious First, Fourth and Fifth
Amendment concerns created by existing material support laws.
To view the Constitution Project's amicus brief in Holder v.
Humanitarian Law Project, go to: http://www.constitutionproject.org/manage/file/357.pdf.
A statement sent to RAW STORY by the ACLU adds,
The following can be attributed to former President Jimmy Carter,
founder of the Carter Center:
"We are disappointed that the Supreme Court has upheld a law that
inhibits the work of human rights and conflict resolution groups. 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. The vague language of the law leaves us wondering
if we will be prosecuted for our work to promote peace and freedom."
The following can be attributed to Melissa Goodman, staff attorney
with the ACLU National Security Project:
"Today's decision is disappointing and inconsistent with our First
Amendment position. The government should not be in the business of
criminalizing speech meant to promote peace and human rights."
(with AFP reports)
"[Real] scientists are *fiercely* independent. That's the good
news."-- NIH's Top Fool, Anthony Fauci