The NYTimes today reported on the Supreme Court’s decision that advising about peaceful or humane alternatives with groups that the State Department has designated as terrorist is the equivalent of aiding and abetting the enemy. I guess the U.S. follows the “shoot first, talk later” approach – oops, we can’t be doing that, that’s terrorist. So what IS the Supreme Court thinking?
One of my NYTimes Comments in response to their articles was the following: The Supreme Court seems incapable of making distinctions in this case. Did they think carefully about the various issues involved? To quote today’s headline NYTimes article “This decision basically says the First Amendment allows making peacemaking and human rights advocacy a crime.” It’s a sad commentary on this country. I support appropriate peaceful civil disobedience when laws work against the appeals of conscience for peace and justice. So I will do what I feel I have to do, for conscience’ sake. http://community.nytimes.com/comments/www.nytimes.com/2010/06/22/opinion/22tue1.html?permid=124#comment124)