Part of Patriot Act ruled unconstitutional

[Ned]

How many people agree that "advocacy" (such as before the UN) and "associational" activities are "expert" "advice or assistance" TO the terrorist group. Association means association with the terrorist organization to further the protected advocacy to the UN, for example.

If they are not even arguably expert advice and assistance TO the terrorist organization, then the court is way off base here.

[Ramo]

Easily. Giving Kurdish freedoms decreases Turkish friendship (potentially greatly).

What does that mean? You mean, giving freedom to people who sympathize with Kurds? Why should it "greatly" decrease Turkish friendship. Does it greatly decrease Israeli friendship when we give freedom to people who peacefully sympathize with Palestinians? Quantitatively, what do we lose because we can't toss these people in prison?

I understand what the plaintiff's CLAIM,

On what basis do you have reason to doubt it?

but giving aid to groups which have terrorist elements against Turkey just isn't a good idea.

Helping them transition into non-terrorist entities is a good idea.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Another problem is how do we determine that certain people are simply advising peaceful solutions? You see this with certain Muslim 'charities', which say they are simply giving money to poor people in Muslim countries, but end up being used for nefarious ends, because the money gets shifted over to terrorist groups for bombings and whatnot. Associating with terrorist groups brings suspicion by itself.

[Ramo]

And besides you have YET to prove the claim was racist, which was the point.

I already have. "There's absolutely no reason to imprison them for 15 years unless you think that Kurdish lives have no value."

I'm waiting for you to provide a justification for doing such a thing that recognizes the value of Kurdish liberty.

[Ramo]

Another problem is how do we determine that certain people are simply advising peaceful solutions?

I don't believe that we ought to be preventing people from advocating violent solutions either. And that's how the law is now. Advising doesn't get you in prison.

You see this with certain Muslim 'charities', which say they are simply giving money to poor people in Muslim countries, but end up being used for nefarious ends, because the money gets shifted over to terrorist groups for bombings and whatnot.

No money is involved.

[Imran Siddiqui]

You mean, giving freedom to people who sympathize with Kurds? Why should it "greatly" decrease Turkish friendship. Does it greatly decrease Israeli friendship when we give freedom to people who peacefully sympathize with Palestinians?

It does when we let people who associate with Hezbollah and Hamas run free. Do you think they'd like it if we allowed people who gave aid to those terrorist nations simply continue to do so?

This isn't about people who 'symphatize' with terrorist groups. It's about those who aid them.

On what basis do you have reason to doubt it?

Because of the history of Muslim advocacy groups who have given a bit more than 'peaceful' aid. It's a nice cover story.

Helping them transition into non-terrorist entities is a good idea.

Yes, because that is what they are doing . That is such a naive statement.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I already have. "There's absolutely no reason to imprison them for 15 years unless you think that Kurdish lives have no value."

I'm waiting for you to provide a justification for doing such a thing that recognizes the value of Kurdish liberty.

Yes, even your strawman is soooo racist.

People that live in that region have less value to those in other regions because of politics. I can't comprehend anyone seeing racism in it.

Who cares about the value of Kurdish liberty?! I'm still waiting for where he said Kurdish people are inherantly lesser people because of their race.

I don't believe that we ought to be preventing people from advocating violent solutions either.

Advocating is one thing. Going over to the terrorist group and advising them on it is another. 15 years is a little much (I'm sure that was just a maximum anyway). A fine would probably be better.

[Ramo]

It does when we let people who associate with Hezbollah and Hamas run free. Do you think they'd like it if we allowed people who gave aid to those terrorist nations simply continue to do so?

I don't think they'd dissolve our alliance if we don't start locking up people who advise Hamas in, say, charity distribution.

This isn't about people who 'symphatize' with terrorist groups. It's about those who aid them.

Not with guns or money. But with advice. It's absurd to lock people up for that.

Because of the history of Muslim advocacy groups who have given a bit more than 'peaceful' aid. It's a nice cover story.

Ok, then tell me exactly what these guys were doing.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I don't think they'd dissolve our alliance if we don't start locking up people who advise Hamas in, say, charity distribution.

It isn't all or nothing. Less warm relations results in less things we can do.

Ok, then tell me exactly what these guys were doing.

I don't know and neither don't you. But I have a hard time these groups were simply advising these terrorist groups nonviolent solutions. I'm sure if you heard of an Islamic group going over to advise Al Queda on nonviolent solutions to getting rid of the Americans in the Mid East, you'd scoff.

[Ramo]

Who cares about the value of Kurdish liberty?!

It's fundamental. It comes down to a value judgement. He was saying that the change in relations with the Turks (no doubt infinitesimal - I challenge you to find any significant diplomatic correspondence about this) is worth decreased Kurdish liberty.

I don't know and neither don't you.

AP seems to have a pretty good idea:
"The case before the court involved five groups and two U.S. citizens seeking to provide support for lawful, nonviolent activities on behalf of Kurdish refugees in Turkey."
The US gov't seems to have a pretty good idea also given that they didn't charge these people with anything significant (say, participation in a terrorist act).

[Imran Siddiqui]

He was saying that the change in relations with the Turks (no doubt infinitesimal - I challenge you to find any significant diplomatic correspondence about this) is worth decreased Kurdish liberty.

And I ask again, WHAT is racist about this?

AP seems to have a pretty good idea:
"The case before the court involved five groups and two U.S. citizens seeking to provide support for lawful, nonviolent activities on behalf of Kurdish refugees in Turkey."
The US gov't seems to have a pretty good idea also given that they didn't charge these people with anything significant (say, participation in a terrorist act).

They didn't charge them with anything else because they probably don't have the evidence to prove anything else. The US government doesn't have the resources to just persue everything under the sun. It wants to get these people and the most they can prove is that they met with the terrorist group. I bet there is more there, it is just hard to prove specific acts beyond that. It happens all the time (especially with drug dealers... charge some of them with possession instead, because it is more difficult to charge dealing and they don't have the evidence for the latter charge) And the AP reports what the defense and prosecution says.

[Kuciwalker]

An American leader has NO obligation to place ANY value on the liberty, security, and prosperity of anyone but his constituents. You are elected to represent your constituents, not someone else. If we believe something to be in our self-interest, it is not "racism" to do it.

[Ramo]

And I ask again, WHAT is racist about this?

That the welfare of Kurds is irrelevent compared to the welfare of Americans. Racism might not be an appropriate word, but it certainly indicates extreme chauvinism.

And the AP reports what the defense and prosecution says.

They reported it as fact, not as a viewpoint of the defense. If the prosecution disputed that claim, the AP didn't report it.

[Imran Siddiqui]

That the welfare of Kurds is irrelevent compared to the welfare of Americans. Racism might not be an appropriate word, but it certainly indicates extreme chauvinism.

That ain't racist! And calling it such is, as I contended before, PC McCartheyism.

They reported it as fact, not as a viewpoint of the defense. If the prosecution disputed that claim, the AP didn't report it.

Did you ever read what I wrote? If the prosecution does not have enough evidence to charge them with the greater crime they can't assert it. They can only assert that they are charged with. The prosecution only charged them with going to and advising terrorist groups. Just because the AP reported that doesn't mean nothing else is going on.

Like I said, I don't think the Justice Department would waste the resources if there wasn't something else going on with these 15 under the scenes.

[Ramo]

That ain't racist! And calling it such is, as I contended before, PC McCartheyism.

It could be. It could also be chauvinism, or any number of issues that he has. But it comes down to the lack of value in the lives of others, and it isn't "PC McCarthyism" someone on it.

Just because the AP reported that doesn't mean nothing else is going on.

But the prosecution didn't even say that they suspected anything more.

Like I said, I don't think the Justice Department would waste the resources if there wasn't something else going on with these 15 under the scenes.

I wouldn't put that much faith in the Justice Dept. Particularly not in this administration.