Last week, the US Supreme Court upheld a law that criminalizes giving any advice, including instruction on human rights law or nonviolent conflict resolution, to any group that the State Department classifies as a foreign terrorist organization.
The case was brought by the Humanitarian Law Project, a group that had advised the Kurdish Workers Party (PKK) in Turkey and the Tamil Tigers in Sri Lanka on peacemaking and advocacy before the UN.
In the majority opinion, Chief Justice John Roberts said that even this type of peaceful activity lends legitimacy to terrorist groups and “frees up other resources within the organization that may be put to violent ends.”
“Hezbollah builds bombs. Hezbollah also builds homes,” then Solicitor General Elena Kagan told the court as she argued the government’s case in February. “What Congress decided was when you help Hezbollah build homes, you are also helping Hezbollah build bombs.”
Needless to say, the ruling is seen as a blow to freedom of speech and will further complicate the work of activists with groups like the Free Gaza Movement, who critics argue support Hamas by attempting to break the Israeli blockade of Gaza.
“The ‘material support law’ – which is aimed at putting an end to terrorism – actually threatens our work and the work of many other peacemaking organizations that must interact directly with groups that have engaged in violence,” said former President Jimmy Carter.
In a sharp critique of the decision on the Huffington Post, Kay Guinane writes:
For an obvious example of the fault in the findings, one need look no further than the Good Friday Accords that brought a lasting peace to Northern Ireland for the first time in more than eight centuries. For years, non-governmental organizations (NGOs) had worked to bring violent factions of Catholics and Protestants to the bargaining table. Their work behind the scenes was instrumental in persuading those groups–“terrorists” in the eyes of most of their captive civilian populations, as well as the governments seeking to disarm them–to put down their weapons and negotiate a peaceful resolution to 850 years of violence.
If the “material support” law had been in place, as authorized by the Supreme Court today, those organizations would have been criminals. And the people of Northern Ireland would likely still be victims of sectarian violence that only a very few supported.
“Orwellian” doesn’t begin to describe a law that makes it a crime to promote peaceful conflict resolution. While nobody would argue that Congress and the executive shouldn’t take all necessary and justifiable steps to prevent terrorism and protect the nation from violent extremists, what rational person would argue that turning extremists away from violence runs contrary to that goal?
The British climate movement’s ‘Big One’ brought out record numbers, but ran into a wall of silence. XR’s new strategy could turn this setback into a new lease on life.
Many are celebrating the recent convictions against the Proud Boys, but they will only strengthen the state’s ability to target the left.
A new book explores how Miss Major has persevered over six inspiring decades on the frontlines of the queer and trans liberation movement.
While I have doubt Kagan would vote in the minority once on the court, her argument for the gov’t was compelling:
“Material support meant to ‘promote peaceable, lawful conduct’ can further terrorism by foreign groups in multiple ways. Material support is a valuable resource by definition. Such support frees up other resources within the organization that may be put to violent ends. It also importantly helps lend legitimacy to foreign terrorist groups—legitimacy that makes it easier for those groups to persist, to recruit members, and to raise funds—all of which facilitate more terrorist attacks.”
This is a simple and logical concept to follow.
How we demand that these terrorist organizations renounce and abandon violence? It’s beyond me why non violence advocates coddle these animals.
How does promoting nonviolent conflict transformation free up other resources though?
“[F]oreign organizations that engage in terrorist activity are so tainted by their criminal conduct that any contribution to such an organization facilitates that conduct.”
“Indeed, when Congress enacted §2339B, Congress simultaneously removed an exception that had existed in §2339A(a) (1994ed.) for the provision of material support in the form of“humanitarian assistance to persons not directly involvedin” terrorist activity. AEDPA §323, 110 Stat. 1255; 205F. 3d, at 1136. That repeal demonstrates that Congressconsidered and rejected the view that ostensibly peacefulaid would have no harmful effects.”
“Material support meant to “promot[e] peaceable, lawful conduct,” Brief for Plaintiffs 51, can further terrorism byforeign groups in multiple ways. “Material support” is a valuable resource by definition. Such support frees upother resources within the organization that may be put to violent ends. It also importantly helps lend legitimacy toforeign terrorist groups—legitimacy that makes it easier for those groups to persist, to recruit members, and toraise funds—all of which facilitate more terrorist attacks. “Terrorist organizations do not maintain organizational‘firewalls’ that would prevent or deter . . . sharing and commingling of support and benefits.” McKune Affidavit, App. 135, ¶11. “[I]nvestigators have revealed how terrorist groups systematically conceal their activities behind charitable, social, and political fronts.” M. Levitt, Hamas: Politics, Charity, and Terrorism in the Service of Jihad 2–3 (2006). “Indeed, some designated foreign terrorist organizations use social and political components to recruitpersonnel to carry out terrorist operations, and to provide support to criminal terrorists and their families in aid of such operations.”
By this logic, everyone who donated funds to ease the Ethiopian famine in 1984 was giving ‘material support’ to the mass murder of Eritreans. That would include a huge number of good down-home conservative church folk, I would think.
Exactly right. Thanks for the example.
“Former rebel leaders told the BBC that they posed as merchants in meetings with charity workers to get aid money.
They used the cash to fund attempts to overthrow the government of the time.
One rebel leader estimated $95m (£63m) – from Western governments and charities including Band Aid – was channeled into the rebel fight.”
If you are looking for a lawyer / solicitor in the UK and are struggling to find one with the right specialism to help you with your problem then you could try United Kingdom Lawyers as they have a database of lawyers listed not only by location but also by specialism so you should be able to find the lawyer you need