Supporting Terrorists no longer a criminal offense?

[HankB]

In the last few months, there have been a few stories about people - usually after traveling or attempting to travel to the Middle East - who have been arrested and charged with aiding terrorists.

Now we have this story, about John Kerry admitting that some of the Iran deal money will go to terrorists:

http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/21/politics/john-kerry-money-iran-sanctions-terrorism/index.html

So . . . has the law criminalizing aid to terrorists expired, or is the prosecution decision tree used by the Eric Holder/Loretta Lynch Justice Department set up to exclude from consideration the actions of prominent Democrats?

[TommyGunn]

 
Don't you know supporting terrorists is only criminal when peons do it; when the government does it it is legal-----it's called "international relations".   Come on man, GET WITH THE PROGRAM.

[Blakenzy]

Benghazi, FSA, ISIS...

It's Federal Policy now my friend 

Of course, supporting them doesn't mean you can't also "be against them" to steal more power.
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-01-22/mitch-mcconnell-moves-grant-president-unlimited-war-powers-no-expiration-date

[Firethorn]

Guys, I know you love to rag on the liberals, but I prefer to target them accurately, not make up FUD on them.

To be blunt, I get the idea that he views that some aid money will end up in the hands of terrorists like how it's impossible to eliminate all fraud, waste, and abuse of federal monies. 

We still need a military, after all, and cutting all funding because a little would be lost in FW&A would mean that we wouldn't have a military.

So really, what one needs to do is put enough controls on the money that the amount that leaks to terrorists is small enough that the benefits of the aid still exceeds that of the amount the terrorists get.  Hell, keep track of the money and use any identified terrorist transfers to help with the next wave of drone strikes.

[TommyGunn]

Guys, I know you love to rag on the liberals, but I prefer to target them accurately, not make up FUD on them.

To be blunt, I get the idea that he views that some aid money will end up in the hands of terrorists like how it's impossible to eliminate all fraud, waste, and abuse of federal monies. 

We still need a military, after all, and cutting all funding because a little would be lost in FW&A would mean that we wouldn't have a military.

So really, what one needs to do is put enough controls on the money that the amount that leaks to terrorists is small enough that the benefits of the aid still exceeds that of the amount the terrorists get.  Hell, keep track of the money and use any identified terrorist transfers to help with the next wave of drone strikes.

WHAT?!?!   No room for sarcasm?      That's no fun.

[HankB]

. . . To be blunt, I get the idea that he views that some aid money will end up in the hands of terrorists like how it's impossible to eliminate all fraud, waste, and abuse of federal monies . . .
So really, what one needs to do is put enough controls on the money that the amount that leaks to terrorists is small enough that the benefits of the aid still exceeds that of the amount the terrorists get.

So when funneling 150 billion dollars - plus interest! - to a terrorist state (You equate this to aid money? Really?) if some of it ends up in the hands of terrorists, the benefits exceed what the terrorists get . . . same as waste in our budget process.

How much will the terrorist state funnel to terrorists? Five percent maybe? But 7.5 billion more for terror isn't "providing material aid" to terrorists, since it's only incidental to funding a terrorist state.

OK, fine; that's perfectly reasonable.