![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
terminator44.livejournal.com posting in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
talkpoliticshttp://www.csmonitor.com/World/Middle-East/2011/0808/Iranian-group-s-big-money-push-to-get-off-US-terrorist-list
First, a bit of background. In 2010 Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project upheld a provision of the USA PATRIOT ACT which prohibited U.S. citizens from providing "material support" to groups designated by the U.S. State Department. "Material support", in this case, included “advocacy [is] performed in coordination with, or at the direction of, a foreign terrorist organization”, making it a explicit restriction on First Amendment rights. Now it seems several former U.S. officials have violated that clause by advocating for MEK, a group which forms a key part of domestic opposition to the Islamic Republic of Iran. What's more, they have been paid to do so:
Former US officials taking part in MEK-linked events told the Monitor or confirmed publicly that they received substantial fees, paid by local Iranian-American groups to speaker bureaus that handle their public appearances.
The State Dept. official, who is familiar with the speech contracts, explains the mechanism: “Your speech agent calls, and says you get $20,000 to speak for 20 minutes. They will send a private jet, you get $25,000 more when you are done, and they will send a team to brief you on what to say.”
Now, I have always opposed the decision made in Holder v. HLP. One reason is that it is a blatant violation of the right to free speech, by making it a crime punishable by 15 years in prison to merely speak out on the behalf of any group designated a "terrorist organization" by the State Department. I can think of many ways that can be abused. Another reason is that "terrorist" is such a broad term that it could apply to those who fight an oppressive government to achieve freedom as easily as it could to the likes of al-Qaeda and Hezbollah. This story is proof of that. Now, I don't know enough about MEK to judge whether or not they should be considered terrorists or how the U.S. government should deal with them, if at all. Regardless, the fact is that people like Fran Townsend (who supported the ruling) and Rudy Giuliani (who made his political career on fighting terrorism) are being paid to advocate for a group the U.S. government designates as a terrorist organization, in defiance of U.S. law. The hypocrisy infuriates me. Those who supported the ruling should call for the arrest of these people, and Fran Townsend should turn herself in to show that she actually does support the law. After all, no right-thinking American would ever support a group that urges for the destruction of the Islamic Republic of Iran, right? Right?
First, a bit of background. In 2010 Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project upheld a provision of the USA PATRIOT ACT which prohibited U.S. citizens from providing "material support" to groups designated by the U.S. State Department. "Material support", in this case, included “advocacy [is] performed in coordination with, or at the direction of, a foreign terrorist organization”, making it a explicit restriction on First Amendment rights. Now it seems several former U.S. officials have violated that clause by advocating for MEK, a group which forms a key part of domestic opposition to the Islamic Republic of Iran. What's more, they have been paid to do so:
Former US officials taking part in MEK-linked events told the Monitor or confirmed publicly that they received substantial fees, paid by local Iranian-American groups to speaker bureaus that handle their public appearances.
The State Dept. official, who is familiar with the speech contracts, explains the mechanism: “Your speech agent calls, and says you get $20,000 to speak for 20 minutes. They will send a private jet, you get $25,000 more when you are done, and they will send a team to brief you on what to say.”
Now, I have always opposed the decision made in Holder v. HLP. One reason is that it is a blatant violation of the right to free speech, by making it a crime punishable by 15 years in prison to merely speak out on the behalf of any group designated a "terrorist organization" by the State Department. I can think of many ways that can be abused. Another reason is that "terrorist" is such a broad term that it could apply to those who fight an oppressive government to achieve freedom as easily as it could to the likes of al-Qaeda and Hezbollah. This story is proof of that. Now, I don't know enough about MEK to judge whether or not they should be considered terrorists or how the U.S. government should deal with them, if at all. Regardless, the fact is that people like Fran Townsend (who supported the ruling) and Rudy Giuliani (who made his political career on fighting terrorism) are being paid to advocate for a group the U.S. government designates as a terrorist organization, in defiance of U.S. law. The hypocrisy infuriates me. Those who supported the ruling should call for the arrest of these people, and Fran Townsend should turn herself in to show that she actually does support the law. After all, no right-thinking American would ever support a group that urges for the destruction of the Islamic Republic of Iran, right? Right?
(no subject)
Date: 13/3/12 06:28 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 13/3/12 06:44 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 13/3/12 12:55 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 13/3/12 15:15 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 13/3/12 12:07 (UTC)This is, definitely, one of the better examples of modern-day legal hypocrisy. Thanks for highlighting it.
(no subject)
Date: 13/3/12 16:43 (UTC)http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/24/nyregion/24cable.html?_r=1
http://www.salon.com/2011/09/04/speech_23/singleton/
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/27/us/computer-student-on-trial-over-muslim-web-site-work.html
http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2011/July/11-nsd-919.html
Also, why would anyone create a law with the intent of displaying favoritism in enforcing it? That creates uncertainty and breeds disrespect for law and order.
Finally, if your stated purpose is what the provision was for, then it is even more disgusting than its stated purpose. It essentially prevents Americans from supporting pro-democracy groups that the government opposes for geopolitical reasons.
(no subject)
Date: 13/3/12 15:18 (UTC)In America, you have the right to be arrested. All other rights are mere illusions.
(no subject)
Date: 14/3/12 02:57 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 14/3/12 15:24 (UTC)I am not as concerned about the reason for mistakes as I am about how they are recognized and corrected. The biggest problem we face are people who insist that mistakes were fully justified and perfectly valid.
(no subject)
Date: 13/3/12 16:08 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 13/3/12 16:43 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 13/3/12 20:20 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 13/3/12 23:24 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 14/3/12 03:02 (UTC)it's all very convenient isn't it?