As a result, the arrests and the activities of law enforcement that are directed at these groups is Constitutional. This based on the premise that they are supporting terrorism by: continually ignoring these distinctions that have been made. At which point, they should be subject to arrest and prosecution under the law. Analysis

In this aspect, the decision will have an impact on number of different stakeholders. As far as institutions / groups are concerned, this will have a positive impact for law enforcement and the intelligence community. The reason why is because, they can use the decision as way to effectively target those individuals that are providing any kind of support for terrorist organizations. This is giving the government the power to aggressively tackle the problem at its source. Once this occurs, it means that law enforcement can disrupt the activities of terrorists prior to: the planning, financing and implementing an attack. This is significant, because it is illustrating how the ruling was an affirmation of the powers that the police have in: tracking and monitoring the activities of terrorists.

When it comes to various individuals (i.e. The police, the intelligence community and government officials), this is giving them the power to use more aggressive tactics in going after terrorist organizations. Over the course of time, this will help to effectively monitor and disrupt the activities of terrorist organizations. At which point, their ability to conduct a wide variety of attacks has been severely diminished. This is significant, because it is showing how the ruling will have positive impact on the activities of law enforcement and the intelligence community.

Once you step back and analyze these views, it is obvious that this will help to give the government a number of tools they can utilize to go after terrorist organizations. The precedent that the ruling is setting is that there are clear distinctions, as to the actions of how law abiding citizens are protected by different provisions of the Constitution. While, terrorists and anyone who is supporting them are given these rights, due to the fact that they intend to do harm to the general public and different government institutions. As a result, law enforcement and the intelligence community have a duty to prevent these individuals from achieving their objectives at all costs. This is the point that when they can use the tools, to mitigate any kind of strategic advantages that terrorist groups may have.

The Political, Economic and Biological Factors that Affected the Decision

Depending upon the view that you are taking, the different interpretations of political, economic and biological factors will play a major role in determining how the decision will have an impact. As, each side will make a number of different points about the way the ruling will have an effect these areas.

Views on the Ruling for Nonprofits and Charities

From the view of the defense, this decision is considered to be a major setback. This is because, it placing serve restrictions on the ability of many different charities and nonprofit organizations. To begin introducing some kind of dialogue, in many troubled regions of the world.

Politically speaking, this is troubling because it means that the ability to bring warring sides together in various conflicts are challenging. The reason why, is due to the fact that the law will prosecute any individual or organizations that has contact with these groups. Over the course of time, this will make many nonprofits nervous about becoming involved in civil wars and other troubled regions of the world. This will make it more difficult to bring a peaceful end to the fighting in these regions. As, there is no way of pushing many of these groups to: renounce violence and enter peaceful negotiations. This is significant, because it means that the underlying amounts of violence will continue to increase and become more extreme. As it will be challenging, to establish some form of communication with groups that are given a terrorist designation. (Hun)

The economic factors of the decision for many nonprofit and charities can be more severe. As, they must perform some kind of due diligence to: ensure that they are not providing any kind of support for terrorist groups. This is problematic, because it means that many of nonprofits and charities will have added expenses to ensure that they are incompliance with the law. Then, they must monitor how they are providing financing to a variety of organizations....

To ensure that none of them are front for a terrorist group on the list. At the same time, this will have an effect on the ability of the nonprofits to be able to raise money and explain what kinds of activities they are supporting. Once this begins to take place, it will have consequences on the ability of the nonprofit to address the various challenges that they are facing. This is significant, because it showing how costs will increase dramatically and it will hurt their capacity to raise funds. Over the course of time, this will reduce the effectiveness of the charity to deal with various challenges that are affecting a particular region. (Hun)
In the case of biological factors, this law is designed to target those individual who are from ethnic minorities that are being pursued by repressive governments. The only way that they have the ability to fight back and defend themselves is through joining / supporting terrorist organizations. The reason why, is because there is no other way to effectively address their concerns or issues. As a result, the ruling is directly going after those individuals that are the most vulnerable in many societies (i.e. women, children, the elderly and minorities). As, it is preventing them from: receiving any kind of humanitarian support, which is having an impact on the ability to prevent the crisis from becoming worse. This is significant, because it is showing how the law will have an adverse impact on those individuals who are seeking basic humanitarian support. (Hun)

Views on the Ruling from the Perspective of the Government

From the government's viewpoint, the ruling is a reflection of different factors that are highlighting the overall threats facing the nation. As far as political factors are concerned, this decision is an affirmation for the calls to give law enforcement greater powers in combating terrorism. With many proponents highlighting, how the decision gave them the Constitutional authority and case precedent to pursue anyone who is directly or indirectly supporting terrorism. This is significant, because it is illustrating how the events of September 11th shaped the views of lawmakers and Supreme Court justices. Where, they believed that any person or organization is not entitled to: the same basic protections. This is because of the activities that they are involved in.

In the case of economic factors, this ruling is allowing the government to continue with their anti-terrorism funding. As, they are: providing agencies, cities and states with additional financing to combat terrorism. At the same time, the ruling will allow local officials to protect the different economic interests in an area. This is because many locations will often experience some kind of economic slowdown in the aftermath of a terrorist attack. In order to protect the economic interests of a particular region, law enforcement can use these basic provisions to effectively target terrorists that are focusing on these areas. That being said, this will cause the amounts of spending on security and surveillance to increase.

The biological factors that shaped the decision, is that terrorists are trying to target the nation by any means necessary. This is having an effect on how: they will recruit and train a wide variety of individuals. As a result, the decision is giving law enforcement the power to track and monitor anyone who they believe could be involved in terrorist activities. At the same time, it allowed many government agencies to use controversial tactics such as: racial profiling to identify potential terrorists. ("The Roots of Racial Profiling")

When you step back and analyze the impact of the ruling on the government, it is clear that is giving officials more power to: target, track and detain anyone that is providing material support for terrorism. As law enforcement, can use these provisions to prevent these individuals and organizations from engaging in terrorist related activities. Over the course of time, this is providing them with the tools they need to protect the interest of general public.

The decision has not caused any cities and states to pass their own statues. This is because it is so current, that many communities have not had a chance to enact any kind of legislation that is reflection of these different views. At the same time, there is no public outcry from the decision. The only groups that are in complete opposition to the ruling are human rights organizations and many charities. However, beyond these liberal organizations and stakeholders that are being directly…