http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2010/06/21/96286/report-finds-us-tax-money-may.html
Looks like our government might be in a little trouble here.
The Supreme Court did actually just say that it is a crime to provide "material support" to foreign terrorist organizations, even if the help takes the form of training for peacefully resolving conflicts.
So that makes it not OK to bribe the Taliban for safe passage, no matter what it's for.
And actually the taxpayer is actually getting stuck paying for private security contractors who are committing illegal acts by funding the enemy?
Only in America folks
By the way I'd watch that first amendment stipulation, it's kinda dicey
WASHINGTON — Private security contractors protecting the convoys that supply U.S. military bases in Afghanistan are paying millions of dollars a week in "passage bribes" to the Taliban and other insurgent groups to travel along Afghan roads, a congressional investigation released Monday has found.
The payments, which are reimbursed by the U.S. government, help fund the very enemy the U.S. is attempting to defeat and renew questions about the U.S. dependence on private contractors, who outnumber American troops in Afghanistan, 130,000 to 93,000.
Court Affirms Ban on Aiding Groups Tied to Terror
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/22/us/politics/22scotus.html?hp
In a case pitting free speech against national security, the Supreme Court on Monday upheld a federal law that makes it a crime to provide “material support” to foreign terrorist organizations, even if the help takes the form of training for peacefully resolving conflicts.
What does the Supreme Court ruling on the federal terrorism law mean for free speech rights?
.Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., writing for the majority in the 6-to-3 decision, said the law’s prohibition of providing some types of intangible assistance to groups the State Department says engage in terrorism did not violate the First Amendment
