Friday, April 06, 2012

One law for Us, one for Them

If we ever needed proof that "terrorism" laws are used as cudgels against Muslims and only Muslims, there's this:
Eight former U.S. officials will appear at a Washington, D.C. event on Friday in support of an Iranian opposition group labeled a terrorist organization by the United States, all in the midst of a federal investigation into speaking fees paid for appearances at previous conferences.

An unknown number of former officials who have spoken at events in support of the People’s Muhajedin Organization of Iran, or MEK, have been subpoenaed by the Treasury Department. Former Attorney General Michael Mukasey and former FBI Director Louis Freeh have hired former Clinton Solicitor General Seth P. Waxman in response to the probe.

Friday’s event, held at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, D.C., will feature Mukasey, Freeh, former Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell, Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz, former U.N. Ambassador John Bolton, former Marine Corps Commandant James Conway, Former U.S. Ambassador to Morocco Marc Ginsberg and former U.S. Ambassador Stuart Holliday. Mitchell Reiss, former State Department Policy Planning Director, will moderate.
Now, once a group is placed by the State Department on the list, whether justifiably or not, it is a felony to provide material support to it. Granted, MEK is a tricky group, since the US loves it and trains it, and Israel finances it, and its terror is against people we don't like. Nevertheless, it is on the State Department list. Aiding it is a felony.

So. Are they going to be arrested? You know, like the Staten Island satellite TV salesman in 2009 who was sentenced to five years in federal prison merely for including a Hezbollah TV channel as part of the satellite package he sold to customers, or the Muslims prosecuted and sometimes convicted for having a website with links to a "terrorist" group?

I'm not holding my breath. You?

Please note: I'm not up for arguments that MEK isn't really a "terrorist" group. It's on the list. And most of these people have been wildly supportive of the law when it's applied to others. That's my point here.

Labels: ,

2 Comments:

At 9:47 AM, April 17, 2012 Blogger Barry Leiba had this to say...

Regardless of whether any group is a "terrorist group", how is such a list and such a law not a blatant first-amendment violation? We've long made the point that unpopular speech is also protected, and that, while specific prohibitions can be acceptable, blanket prohibitions are clearly unconstitutional.

And now... ?

 
At 3:10 PM, April 17, 2012 Blogger The Ridger, FCD had this to say...

And since SCOTUS says money is speech, clearly this is free speech.

But the Constitution doesn't mean that much anymore.

 

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

Links to this post

Links to this post:

Create a Link

     <-- Older Post                     ^ Home                    Newer Post -->