1 year, 11 months ago
Should ex-President Jimmy Carter be prosecuted for providing peaceful solutions to terrorists?
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/06/21/MN4A1E2MJ3.DTL
How about someone who writes articles about peace on the internet and a terrorist organization accesses that information?
Right to free speech is quoted to only apply to individuals who speak on their own behalf, not on behalf of others. Interesting, huh. Did you know that?
The interpretation of the new law is very broad and from what I heard it was written that way intentionally to keep people from entering the "gray zone" of the law.
Would you risk 15 years in prison for writing a blog on peaceful resolution that you know COULD be read by a terrorist organization?
How about someone who writes articles about peace on the internet and a terrorist organization accesses that information?
Right to free speech is quoted to only apply to individuals who speak on their own behalf, not on behalf of others. Interesting, huh. Did you know that?
The interpretation of the new law is very broad and from what I heard it was written that way intentionally to keep people from entering the "gray zone" of the law.
Would you risk 15 years in prison for writing a blog on peaceful resolution that you know COULD be read by a terrorist organization?
You can leave an optional "tip" with Mahalo's virtual currency, Mahalo Dollars. If you are asking a difficult question that might require some research, or if you'd like a wide variety of feedback, a higher tip often leads to more answers to your question.
M$1 Answer
I don't know if it's a question of "Should he?" as much as it is of "could he?"...
I think that you just need to look at the sfgate link you provided, and consider that The Supreme Court is the say-all, end-all, barring a Presidential Pardon. They interpret federal law. So to quote:
Under Monday's decision, "human rights advocates, providing training and assistance in the nonviolent resolution of disputes, can be prosecuted as terrorists," said David Cole, lawyer for organizations and individuals who challenged the law.
Seemingly, if Justice or another organization wants Jimmy Carter picked up, it's legal.
Don't hold your breath, though.
I think that you just need to look at the sfgate link you provided, and consider that The Supreme Court is the say-all, end-all, barring a Presidential Pardon. They interpret federal law. So to quote:
Under Monday's decision, "human rights advocates, providing training and assistance in the nonviolent resolution of disputes, can be prosecuted as terrorists," said David Cole, lawyer for organizations and individuals who challenged the law.
Seemingly, if Justice or another organization wants Jimmy Carter picked up, it's legal.
Don't hold your breath, though.
source(s):
Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/06/21/MN4A1E2MJ3.DTL#...
Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/06/21/MN4A1E2MJ3.DTL#...
You can leave an optional "tip" with Mahalo's virtual currency, Mahalo Dollars. If you are asking a difficult question that might require some research, or if you'd like a wide variety of feedback, a higher tip often leads to more answers to your question.
M$Report Abuse
