We may have forgotten in our eight years of Cowboy Diplomacy by the criminal Bush administration but the only real way to end a terrorist group is to bring most of its members into the normal political process. For all that we have been fear-whipped about terrorism it does meet Carl Von Clausewitz' definition of being diplomacy by other, violent, means. No terrorist is a terrorist without a cause, they all start out looking for redress in their issues. That we find their methods unacceptable and (mostly) their desires unjust does not mean they do not feel they have strong reasons for their actions.
Merely killing terrorists does not end the terrorist organization. To truly end a terrorist group or insurgency you have to make it clear how expensive it is for them to continue (in terms of loss of life) as well as find common ground that can convince them their issues can be addressed by political and non-violent means. This is where the Humanitarian Law Project (one of the defendants) comes in.
Their work was in educating all groups about human rights and urging non-violent solutions. By upholding this statute the High Court has made this kind of advocacy illegal and open to criminal prosecution. This is a real problem.
In general the Supreme Court has held over the last century that statutes which were too open to interpretation could not be Constitutional, particularly when we are talking about limiting the right of the people to speak freely. The Court hear seems to saying that any action, even actions which are allowed by our justice system on behalf of a group which is designated as terrorist can be considered material support.
This decision opens the door for the prosecution of anyone who might file an amicus brief on behalf of a litigant who is accused of being in a terrorist group. The chilling affect on our legal system alone should have been enough for the Justices to throw this case out, but sadly it is not.
Other activities which could be considered material support are things like the Carter Center's training of all parties in election law and fair elections in Lebanon. Since Hezbollah is designated a terrorist group, anyone who provides any kind of expertise, can be brought up on charges for doing so, even if that expertise is aimed at ending their terrorist activities.
It is easy and more than a little bit intellectually lazy to say "Well, no one should support terrorism in any fashion". The sad fact is there has to be some contact, some way to bring terrorist out of the use of violence or the only option is to kill them and kill them all. Since that kind of violence has been conclusively show to keep such groups alive by creating new members, it is a losing strategy. By cutting off any kind of moderating voice, by preventing groups who fight for human rights from making the case for other avenues of action we are setting up terrorist groups to be even more intransigent and violent.
Then there is the issue of the way that groups are declared terrorist. On rare occasions, as with the Iranian Kud's Force, Congress makes a legal determination that group is a terrorist organization. Most of the time these groups are designated by the State Department. Our experience with the politicization of every aspect of the Executive Branch by the Bush Administration should make us very leery of this level of power. There is no due process involved in either method. This means it is open to political calculations and considerations. The affirmation of this law makes it nearly impossible for any group to find representation which would challenge their status.
While not everyone is as concerned with slippery slope arguments as I am, this is yet another area that is now quite open for abuse. Another successful major terror attack in the United States could set off a wave of overreaction that could easily see groups which are not friendly to an administration like the Bush administration branded as terrorist. At that point no one could lift a hand to argue against this without being in danger of indictment themselves.
This is, of course, an extreme logical extension, but given our recent history of spying on groups like the Quaker and other peace groups, it is not as far fetched as it might seem at first blush. This is what the Roberts Court has left us with, the risk of a group being declared a terrorist organization for political reasons and having all help in overturning that choked off by the material support law.
I have zero sympathy for terrorists. However I find it very disturbing that we are going down a path where we will make the basis of our justice system the ability to have passionate advocacy open to being prosecuted. Worse in the name of national security we are once again shooting ourselves in the foot by taking away one path to ending the terrorist activities of these groups.
In making this call the Roberts Court has reduced our ability to freely associate and speak freely. It has set back protections that took a century to gain and, potentially, set us on a path that will lead to less and less ability for people to express their opinions for and against the actions of our government. All in all, a sad day.
Benjamin Frankly must be puking in his grave, as the very thing he warned us of comes true. We are trading liberty for a temporary and false sense of security. By doing so we are showing that we deserve neither.
The floor is yours. |
