(This is part two of a three-part
series. Click here to read Part One)
In the last ten years we have seen a steady erosion of the fundamental rights and civil liberties, all in the name of national security. Peacemaking and whistleblowing has been virtually criminalized. FBI agents encouraged to search your trash, public databases just to sniff around for crime. Obama administration wants to read your email and search your laptops.
2010, the Supreme Court exposed Americans to jail sentences of up to 15 years
just for giving advice to groups the U.S. government considers
untouchable. In the course of arguing the Holder v Humanitarian Law Project
case in the Supreme Court, Georgetown Law Professor David Cole warned that the
federal law against providing "material support" to U.S.-designated terrorist
groups could be used to improperly target and prosecute a whole range of
humanitarian, human rights and peace advocacy groups based on protected
exercise of speech and other First Amendment rights.
Act has broadened the "material support" concept to encompass "expert
advice and assistance" to "foreign terrorist organizations" as
designated by the Secretary of State. As journalist Courtney Martin noted, "The
definition of material support includes everything from providing aid to
distributing literature to political advocacy."
arguments in February 2010, Solicitor General Elena Kagan, defended the law and
urged a broad interpretation that would allow prosecution of a U.S.
citizen who filed a legal brief on behalf of a terrorist organization.
"What Congress decided," Kagan told the court, "is that when you
help Hezbollah build homes, you are also helping Hezbollah build bombs."
v. Humanitarian Law Project, the court ruled that the USA Patriot Act's
expanded definition of "material support" for "foreign terrorist organizations"
passes Constitutional muster. The broad wording of the statute not only makes
it a crime to support violent activities, but also prohibits Americans from
offering "services" or "training, expert advice or
assistance" to any entity designated as a terrorist group.
In a 6-3
opinion written by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., the court essentially
dismissed a challenge to the material support law brought by the Humanitarian
Law Project. The project wanted to advise the Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK) --
which for years has been on the U.S.
terrorist list -- on filing human rights complaints with the United Nations and
conducting peace negotiations with the Turkish government.
Breyer, who was joined in dissent by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia
Sotomayor, proposed a narrower interpretation of the material support law:
Individuals should not be subject to prosecution unless they knowingly provided
a service they had reason to believe would be used to further violence.
The Supreme Court decision essentially makes advocacy of peace and humanitarian issues illegal with respect to the 40 or so designated groups.
Joshua Holland, the material support law essentially criminalizes promoting
dialogue in conflict zones and undermines efforts to provide nonviolent
solutions to previously violent groups, equating such actions with trafficking
of missionaries, fair-election proponents and humanitarian workers could be
placed in jeopardy. People like Three Cups of Tea author Greg Mortenson could
be in trouble since he has had to meet with a variety of foreign country
nationals in war zones to successfully formulate consensus to build schools for
girls in Pakistan and Afghanistan.
So could former President Jimmy Carter who engages in pro-democracy efforts to
monitor election fraud in many places in the world.
liberties advocates said they also feared repercussions for U.S.-based critics
of the Israeli government, who might be charged with aiding Hamas, which Washington has
designated as a terrorist group. One such critic is former President Jimmy
Carter, whose private Mideast diplomatic
efforts have included contact with Hamas.
"threatens our work and the work of many other peacemaking organizations
that must interact directly with groups that have engaged in violence,"
said Carter, whose organization filed arguments with the court.
Islamic charities have struggled to deal with the uncertainty caused by the
material support provision. According to the Bill of Rights Defense Committee,
"Muslims fulfilling their obligation to contribute to [charity]"risk
inadvertently supporting a current or future [Foreign Terrorist Organization].
In 2004, in order to avoid this, Muslim leaders asked the DOJ for a list of
acceptable charities. The DOJ responded that their request was "impossible to
fulfill' and that it was "not in a position to put out lists of any kind,
particularly of any organizations that are good or bad.'" Several people
have already been jailed in the United
States for their charitable activities in
the Islamic world. 
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).