Before Attorney General Eric Holder oversaw a Justice Department that secretly seized AP journalists’ phone records, he was guilty of something even worse, and closely related to the AP scandal. He argued a little-known case before the Supreme Court called Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project, which found that speech (and other forms of nonviolent advocacy) could be construed as material support for terrorist organizations. The case involved a U.S.-based non-profit organization, the Humanitarian Law Project, which, according to its website, is “dedicated to protecting human rights and promoting the peaceful resolution of conflict by using established international human rights laws and humanitarian law.” It also enjoys a consultive status at the UN; so, in other words, hardly a radical organization.
The Humanitarian Law Project advised groups designated by the Secretary of State as “terror organizations” to enter into peace negotiations and the UN process. Holder argued that such advice was the same as material support for terrorist organizations.
~ from Worse Than The AP Phone Scandal by Ken Klippenstein ~
When I read articles of this nature, it leaves me dumbfounded. Though I have been a steadfast critic of the Obama administration, something like this sounds too extreme for them. Yet, here it is smacking us in the face.
How should a person interpret the federal government's argument? It sounds like they do not want designated "terror organizations" to think about olive branches and laying down arms! And, of course, they don't want this because it would put a serious dent in the perpetual war on terror. In order to continue to bleed taxpayers dry, we MUST have enemies. So, the last thing the oligarchs would want is for those "enemies" to wave a white flag!
What astounds me is that they are basically saying just that OUT IN THE OPEN. That is really damn brazen. Unlike previous administrations who have tried to hide this truth, Team Obama basically is thumbing its nose at the rest of us in broad daylight.