News The Constitution isn’t for Peace Activists
posted by on August 14 at 13:15 PM
According to a federal court ruling today, the Constitution “does not guarantee an unrestrained right to gather information” —especially, in this case—when you’re gathering information about the Iraq war.
Read the 2nd Circuit Court (New York) ruling here.
The ruling goes against minister Judith Karpova who had appealed her $6,700 fine for traveling to Iraq in 2003 as part of the “Human Shield” mission—a group of peace activists that tried to prevent U.S. bombings.
The Constitution also wasn't for peace activists during the Civil War, the Spanish American War, WWI, WWII, or the Vietnam war.
The Constitution is not for anyone who needs its protection. If you're guilty, no Bill of Rights for you. If you're not guilty, you have no need of rights. How do you tell if you are guilty? Talking about the Bill of Rights is all the proof we need.
What about freedom of association? Judith Karpova is free to travel to any country and associate with the citizens therein. I really don't understand how a free country can prohibit its citizens from traveling to any country they wish.
And people really believe any of this will change no matter who gets elected? If history shows us anything that is once a people give up their rights and give power to the government they never get it back. (Paraphrase from Thomas Jefferson BTW)
I am surprised they let the minister back into the United States to be honest.
Reading the posts it is like Christmas morning and all the kiddies are waking up realizing that Santa isn't for real. LOL!! Wake up people, the Bill of Rights is DEAD! Just deal with it!! And I am not hearing what the Democrats are going to do to bring it back either!
The issue isn't that she was a peace activist, but rather that she was violating the terms of the sanctions in place against Iraq at the time. It was right of the court to dismiss her case as her constitutional rights were not violated.
That said, it is petty and small for her to be punished in this way. She technically broke the law, but going after her on these grounds is an embarrassment.
I have no problem with this ruling. It's within the Constitutional purview of the Congress to forbid travel to certain countries. I don't think it's a wise policy, but it's legal.
Comments Closed
In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 14 days old).