rights are violated by the screening because they should be able to argue that they have a first amendment right to associate with the foreign organization unless the court in their specific case has determined that the organization isn't the terrorist organization my claim is unhappiness or any of the questions from from your honour's my clan is primarily to address the arguments made by the defendants are because that is the what they are their brief covers the argument being made by the defendant is wrong and have a president particularly from the supreme court that indicates that in the area of views with foreign entities the executive can't just d  have a first amendment right to decide to do this and i was not a party and therefore i should not be bound by an adjudication of my rights in a proceeding to which i was not a party what's your answer to that couple of answers your first is  few records analyze the point about could somebody be prosecuted for criminal violation of trying to export that good or that i have a constitutional right to export that absent a regulation already addressed that and it's right and here's why that's correct and this gets back to the force of your question when the president says we're not going to have trade with lib the president made staff determination then somebody goes ahead satisfied and my question has why doesn't this group of defendants have a right to participate in an educated determination when congress itself has indicated that there must be a judicial determination to  problem having about two thirds of the way through your your argument v and with the end there is one point where i have a little difficulty i'm thinking of an analogy to the statute i think it's eighteen  twenty two that prohibits sale of a firearm to a convicted felon the person who's charged with selling a gun to a felon cannot put at issue the correctness or the constitutionality or even the jurisdiction of the court that convicted the buyer of the felony even if it's a totally invalid conviction void for lack of jurisdiction he probably can't challenge it although he can put it issue is whether he sold the gun to the person and have the requisite see enter at i'm with you there and i can see where that's a valid guess to this case the point where i have a question is no matter what sort of barbarity you have been brought there are always some supporters of barbarity in the united states and that to some extent they have first amendment rights to support barbarity it is not so clear where the first amendment rights  of those villains but i just reciting it had many avid supporters in the united states and they could continue there would be nothing wrong with these defendants standing on a street corner saying the behalf of all the indicted defendants help me on this problem that i raised with your adversary and it struck me that a lot of the due process issues really are dropped by the  way because of that analogy that occurred to me with selling a gun to a felon the person who sells the gun to the felon does not have a due process right to challenge the felony conviction of his fire already has a due process right to challenge the government's accusation that he sold the gun to the person that the person was convicted of a felony that he was convicted of felony your honor there are actually three back again but he pointed out quite clearly that he had had the opportunity that's first secondly it is true that here there is a statute your honor that says that the seller can not or cannot client he's which which i want to discuss i do not revolve the first amendment issue and in particular a first amendment right to provide spreads the support of the supreme court has defined that to a resources to a foreign terrorist organization knowingly and it seems like the word knowingly have prevents it from being a strict liability stature the government has informed is cordoning in its very law project argument that if a group has been published matter why couldn't congress pass a law that said no american can knowingly provide material support or resources to a foreign charity that provides powdered milk for children the dairy industry wants only home so they say no powdered milk for children would not be a crime then to contribute money to an organization that provides powdered milk for children record into the issue that was raised by the supreme court in roberts i already have for that well i'll give you several cases for example if you look you know i thinking that you have a real problem with humanitarian law project versus reno it seems to say that there is no organization that explicitly that with regard to the question the question then is who has to make that determination and is it permissible how the government set up a scheme by which the circuit will make that determination at a particular that at that heart of the statute is unconstitutional a lot of possibilities sack congress might have thought a civil proceeding might be perspective and some more flexibility might be appropriate but criminal is when they've already given the material support criminal you with if anything national congress once an experience had given money to the african national parks that was taken off the list in one nine hundred ninety one after nelson mandela came to and there were many student movements and many students we all know might misuse the power in the statute that it's constitutionally prohibited from possessing that power is but i don't think that follows there is no power they can't be misused by an unwi minutely decisions at odds with each other so that we could end up with a situation where i am providing funds to particular organisation is a crime in one part of our country and not at all the point of the community standards dockery is that it may be perfectly ok to sell sexual material in san francisco that you're not allowed to sell in alabama because there recognition by the supreme court of a permissible in france than national diversity there but i can't see how it could be perfectly ok for californians to contribute money to al qaeda but not virginians to contribute really matter from the point of view of whether the contributor has committed the crime whether the organization really is terrorist what matters is whether he knowingly contributed to an organization on the list but if you now i think we've now gotten to our basic government of afghanistan and of the believed that the taliban certainly controlled territory and cetera but we did not recognize it as a government and so under my brother councils argument we could dealings with say libya as well as the chance to litigate the issues if they so choose that strikes me as a sort of a classic may in court argument designed to protect the first amendment right of the petitioner in this case and of course as we know that may be let's get it another party that's that's the question of how do you get out from under that you are a broader answer in the specific case of the broad answer is what i stated before the foreign affairs context matters very much so for instance  but no the d c circuit said the the court cannot look at the factor of whether the dealings with the indicate on your minds national security or not and  in order to carry out these terrorist acts the the other point you teach me is that the argument that and i think this was shown by the responses to i believe your questions a moment ago the