# First Amendment vs. Aid to Terrorists **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [February 24, 2010, 2:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/first-amendment-vs-aid-to-terrorists/530254 "2010-02-24T14:23:58Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2010, 6:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/first-amendment-vs-aid-to-terrorists/530254/21 "2010-02-24T18:58:03Z")
Would Treason cover this? \*Title 18, Part I, Chapter 115, § 2381. Treason Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States. \* Does the US have to be in a declared war for Treason to apply? Otherwise seems you could make the case they these people are giving aid and comfort to the enemy thus bypassing free speech issues. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2010, 6:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/first-amendment-vs-aid-to-terrorists/530254/22 "2010-02-24T18:59:53Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > Would Treason cover this? See posts 17 and 18. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2010, 7:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/first-amendment-vs-aid-to-terrorists/530254/23 "2010-02-24T19:40:21Z")
> [@Hamlet](#): > > Good ol’ Bricker. Well, now, bless his heart, he just can’t help it. Is there some major problem this law must address? Are Americans pouring money into the coffers of people who are trying to kill us? Is there some dreadful calamity bearing down on us, that we need this? My answer would be “No”. This is just the sort of “big government” solution to a theoretical problem that we on the conservative wing of the extreme left oppose. If I want to give a dollar to help a child in a foreign hospital, am I really expected to demand that the child’s father be politically acceptable to whatever administration currently governs? I’m agin it. ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Moto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9de0a6/32.png) [@Mr.Moto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Moto)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2010, 9:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/first-amendment-vs-aid-to-terrorists/530254/24 "2010-02-24T21:03:32Z")
You confuse me, **elucidator**. Back in Iraq War debates you argued that war was unnecessary since sanctions worked just fine, but here you seem to throw up your hands at the notion of sanctions at all. Personally, I’m in agreement with **Bricker**. An overzealous application of these laws isn’t smart, but likely permissible under Article II powers. ---
**Author:** ![villa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/bc79bd/32.png) [@villa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/villa)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2010, 9:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/first-amendment-vs-aid-to-terrorists/530254/25 "2010-02-24T21:06:27Z")
It’s possible to argue that sanctions work against sovereign states, but not against “terrorist” groups. Which puts Hamas in an odd position, because Gaza is hardly a sovereign state, but Hamas is also not your common and garden terrorist organization. It’s also possible to state that sanctions work against some countries (South Africa for example) but are less effective against others (North Korea, say). ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Moto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9de0a6/32.png) [@Mr.Moto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Moto)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2010, 9:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/first-amendment-vs-aid-to-terrorists/530254/26 "2010-02-24T21:15:07Z")
> [@villa](#): > > It’s possible to argue that sanctions work against sovereign states, but not against “terrorist” groups. Which puts Hamas in an odd position, because Gaza is hardly a sovereign state, but Hamas is also not your common and garden terrorist organization. > > It’s also possible to state that sanctions work against some countries (South Africa for example) but are less effective against others (North Korea, say). True. But I’m not reading nuance from **elucidator** , just opportunism. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2010, 9:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/first-amendment-vs-aid-to-terrorists/530254/27 "2010-02-24T21:57:53Z")
Bite me. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2010, 10:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/first-amendment-vs-aid-to-terrorists/530254/28 "2010-02-24T22:00:03Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > Bite me. If he bites you, how do we know you won’t be treated in a clinic that also treats known terrorists? I think \*\*Moto \*\*should not take that chance, lets he be linked to terrorist activities. ---
**Author:** ![Simplicio](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c37758/32.png) [@Simplicio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Simplicio)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2010, 10:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/first-amendment-vs-aid-to-terrorists/530254/29 "2010-02-24T22:58:39Z")
> [@Mr.Moto](#): > > You confuse me, **elucidator**. Back in Iraq War debates you argued that war was unnecessary since sanctions worked just fine, but here you seem to throw up your hands at the notion of sanctions at all. > > Personally, I’m in agreement with **Bricker**. An overzealous application of these laws isn’t smart, but likely permissible under Article II powers. I don’t see how sanctions or Article II has anything to do with the current case. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2010, 11:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/first-amendment-vs-aid-to-terrorists/530254/30 "2010-02-24T23:07:24Z")
> [@Mr.Moto](#): > > You confuse me, **elucidator**. Back in Iraq War debates you argued that war was unnecessary since sanctions worked just fine, but here you seem to throw up your hands at the notion of sanctions at all. Sanctions are for governments, not amorphous, undefined “terrorist groups.” Actually these aren’t even sanctions on terrorist groups. They’re attempts to sanction American citizens. ---
**Author:** ![Oakminster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/77aa72/32.png) [@Oakminster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Oakminster)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2010, 11:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/first-amendment-vs-aid-to-terrorists/530254/31 "2010-02-24T23:23:47Z")
As a former criminal defense guy, I don’t like it one little bit. If I represent clients accused of terrorist acts, or even of belonging to designated terrorist organizations, have I violated the act? And, for the record, I’d like to jerk my knee swiftly and with vigor into the groins of everybody that voted for the Patriot Act. Even the name of the thing gives me the creeps. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [February 25, 2010, 1:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/first-amendment-vs-aid-to-terrorists/530254/32 "2010-02-25T01:47:02Z")
I find myself in complete and total accord with your opinion on this matter. Got a nickel says I’m more surprised than you are. ---
**Author:** ![SteveG1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bb73d2/32.png) [@SteveG1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SteveG1)\ **Post date:** [February 25, 2010, 1:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/first-amendment-vs-aid-to-terrorists/530254/33 "2010-02-25T01:52:36Z")
> [@Oakminster](#): > > As a former criminal defense guy, I don’t like it one little bit. If I represent clients accused of terrorist acts, or even of belonging to designated terrorist organizations, have I violated the act? > > And, for the record, I’d like to jerk my knee swiftly and with vigor into the groins of everybody that voted for the Patriot Act. Even the name of the thing gives me the creeps. Ditto number one. The way the thing is written is too broad. What if I donate to some charity, which then “sub delegates” money down and it gets into terrorist hands? Am I guilty of aiding and abetting? Maybe. Ditto number two. The Patriot Act was and is a bad idea. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [February 25, 2010, 1:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/first-amendment-vs-aid-to-terrorists/530254/34 "2010-02-25T01:59:50Z")
If this were in place and rigorously enforced thirty years ago, how many Americans of Irish extraction might be slammed up for supporting the IRA? They’d be calling Leavenworth County Clare West! ---
**Author:** ![Sevastopol](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/cdc98d/32.png) [@Sevastopol](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sevastopol)\ **Post date:** [February 25, 2010, 3:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/first-amendment-vs-aid-to-terrorists/530254/35 "2010-02-25T03:21:16Z")
> [@villa](#): > > Out of interest, which 2 ideologues are these? Scalia & Thomas > [@Bricker](#): > > (I don’t know if she’s an ideologue - **Sevastopol**?) Agree, too early to tell * * * As generally noted, making a crime of a person’s associations is an irregular practice. It is outside the general shape of criminal law. The topic here is whether the court will accept a multiple of that irregularity. That is, can we accept that criminal conduct is found in a nebulous association with a group defined as ‘terrorist’ by an unreviewable administrative decision? This does not pass the smell test. ---
**Author:** ![guizot](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/guizot/32/3636_2.png) [@guizot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/guizot)\ **Post date:** [February 25, 2010, 3:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/first-amendment-vs-aid-to-terrorists/530254/36 "2010-02-25T03:54:11Z")
> [@Sevastopol](#): > > As generally noted, making a crime of a person’s associations is an irregular practice. It is outside the general shape of criminal law… How irregular is “irregular”? Don’t police forces use it often to effectively criminalize association with known gang-bangers–e.g., congregating on the street with them? ---
**Author:** ![Sevastopol](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/cdc98d/32.png) [@Sevastopol](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sevastopol)\ **Post date:** [February 25, 2010, 4:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/first-amendment-vs-aid-to-terrorists/530254/37 "2010-02-25T04:01:40Z")
Crimes are usually actions. Generally actions against persons or property. An ‘association’ does not fit either of these and absent something incriminating, is presumed to be innocent and an exercise of civil liberty. Police may use ‘move-on’ powers or address loitering, but you will not see many actual prosecutions for simple ‘association’. Edit: Whereas if Hamas sought political advice on how to challenge or revoke ‘terrorist’ status, the Government contends it would a crime for a US citizen to provide that advice. Is that acceptable to you? ---
**Author:** ![CoolHandCox](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/coolhandcox/32/16233_2.png) [@CoolHandCox](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CoolHandCox)\ **Post date:** [February 25, 2010, 4:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/first-amendment-vs-aid-to-terrorists/530254/38 "2010-02-25T04:16:29Z")
I was unaware of the “expert advice or assistance” (ie, counsel) aspect of material support. Weird. Is that what this SC case is going to interpret specifically, or rather how broad material support can go in general? I’ve followed some previous appellate cases, and they have been strictly construing how far material support can go and a specific intent to commit the crime (although Congress may have amended the law to reverse the rulings at this point, I really don’t know). For the record here’s the [FTO List](http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/other/des/123085.htm). If the organization is not on the list, you can provide “material support” to a group unless you know they are involved in terrorist activity. Luckily my favorite terrorist organization, the Moro Islamic Liberation Front, is not on the list. The FTO can challenge their designation in US court. Ironically, the US Gov’t can provide support to anyone (say, Hamas, they do), and it is not illegal because the presumption is the Gov does not support terrorism. ha! ---
**Author:** ![Sevastopol](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/cdc98d/32.png) [@Sevastopol](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sevastopol)\ **Post date:** [February 25, 2010, 4:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/first-amendment-vs-aid-to-terrorists/530254/39 "2010-02-25T04:17:55Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Well, [the transcript](http://www.supremecourtus.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/08-1498.pdf) from the oral argument is here. I don’t know what the court will do, but as I read the questions posed from the bench, I can’t really say that I got the feeling there were only two justices leaning against limitation. Around 47 - 52 the govt attorney Kagan is vigorously questioned. His reply does not adequately meet the concern. That said, the action seeks declaratory relief against prosecution, which is uncommon and unpredictable for me. ---
**Author:** ![Sevastopol](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/cdc98d/32.png) [@Sevastopol](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sevastopol)\ **Post date:** [February 25, 2010, 4:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/first-amendment-vs-aid-to-terrorists/530254/40 "2010-02-25T04:22:24Z")
> [@CoolHandCox](#): > > … > For the record here’s the [FTO List](http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/other/des/123085.htm). If the organization is not on the list, you can provide “material support” to a group unless you know they are involved in terrorist activity. Luckily my favorite terrorist organization, the Moro Islamic Liberation Front, is not on the list. > > The FTO can challenge their designation in US court… Providing they do not use a US attorney in court, apparently. See transcript 47 - 52 Limits the right rather and the court seems to believe, impermissibly. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/first-amendment-vs-aid-to-terrorists/530254.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/first-amendment-vs-aid-to-terrorists/530254.md?page=3)