Wednesday, June 23, 2010

Soccer Dad

Soccer Dad

I believe that the german word for it lebensraum

Posted: 23 Jun 2010 04:31 AM PDT

I found the title to this analysis amusing:

ANALYSIS - Syria seeks room to manoeuvre in harsh region

One of the reasons the region is "harsh" is because Syria effectively occupies one neighboring country and keeps another neighbor under a terrorist threat. Syria is also allied with the most powerful rogue state in the region.

But still, given Syria's resurgent influence in Lebanon, I believe that that "room to manoeuvre" would translate well as lebensraum.

Wapo editors: we helped hamas

Posted: 23 Jun 2010 04:04 AM PDT

The editors of the Washington Post sounded off about the recent Supreme Court ruling about providing assistance to terror groups:

WHICH OF the following is illegal under the law that bars providing "material support" to terrorists?:

1. Giving money to a terrorist organization.

2. Providing explosives training to terrorists.

3. Urging a terrorist group to put down its arms in favor of using lawful, peaceful means to achieve political goals.

After Monday's Supreme Court ruling in Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project the answer is: all three.

The material support law prohibits U.S. citizens from providing "services," "personnel" or "training, expert advice or assistance" to U.S.-designated terrorist groups. It has long been understood that funding and providing weapons training were off limits. What was less clear was how far the law could reach to punish activities with no link to terrorism.

I understand what's bugging them, but I find it hard to sympathize with the editors' outrage. Here's the final paragraph in the editorial:

Congress was right to criminalize the donation of money and tangible goods to terrorist groups; such resources can be used to further violent ends even if donors mean them for legitimate purposes. The same cannot be said of the kind of services the Humanitarian Law Project intended to provide.

By the Post's own definition then it has been providing material support for terror groups. Four years ago the Post gave an op-ed to Ismail Haniyeh. Apparently to skirt the provisions of the material support law, the article was ghost-written by an American.

At the time, the Post's ombudsman Deborah Howell defended the op-ed:

Good editorial pages and commentators enlighten and provoke readers to broaden their thinking. Cohen's and Haniyeh's pieces indeed were provocative.

Why the Post gave space to someone who has no respect for freedom of the press is beyond me.

By the editor's acknowledgment today, though, giving Haniyeh (even with ghost writers) a chance to promulgate his agenda freed Hamas up to use its resources elsewhere. Now that they are effectively admitting that they abetted a terrorist organization, do you think they'll apologize? Apparently Jimmy Carter won't.

Eugen Volokh has been blogging about this decision.

Crossposted on Yourish.

No comments: