There's going to be a great deal of confusion regarding Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project, the 6-3 Supreme Court ruling handed down this morning.
You're going to hear that the case deals with a Bush-era War on Terror doctrine. This is incorrect. It actually deals with a 1996 revision to U.S. Code 18 Section 2339B.
You're going to hear that it is a general referendum on the constitutionality of the bill. This is incorrect. It deals with two hypothetical scenarios in which members of the Humanitarian Law Project might specifically offer to coordinate training seminars with terrorist organizations. Specifically, the ruling deals with the question of whether knowingly coordinating training seminars with terrorist organizations would be classified as constitutionally protected forms of speech if the training seminars, though coordinated with terrorist organizations to a sufficient degree as to constitute "material support," do not directly relate to a terrorist organization's illegal or violent activities.
You're going to hear that the ruling restricts independent political speech. It does not. The ruling deals specifically with expert training coordinated with terrorist organizations that is of a suitably substantial and valuable nature as to knowingly constitute material support of the organization.
None of the above makes this morning's ruling a good ruling. Specifically, it makes it impossible for any American to attempt to reform a designated terrorist organization from within by actively participating in it in an otherwise lawful way, and trying to steer it towards lawful means. This would obviously be a waste of time with the likes of Al-Qaeda, but some designated terrorist groups have large mandates that include both lawful and unlawful activities. Under section 2339B, Americans can't productively steer these organizations towards the former and away from the latter; they have to keep their hands off entirely, or risk prosecution.
One of the strongest arguments in favor of a free market has historically been that closed societies can become open societies through commerce. Completely closing off large, diverse organizations that have committed terrorist acts from any and all American participation is a strategic blunder that, in the long run, may do more harm than good. And it could result in the prosecution of some very courageous individuals who do more good than harm.
Related: Timeline of Civil Liberties and the War on Terror
You're going to hear that the case deals with a Bush-era War on Terror doctrine. This is incorrect. It actually deals with a 1996 revision to U.S. Code 18 Section 2339B.
You're going to hear that it is a general referendum on the constitutionality of the bill. This is incorrect. It deals with two hypothetical scenarios in which members of the Humanitarian Law Project might specifically offer to coordinate training seminars with terrorist organizations. Specifically, the ruling deals with the question of whether knowingly coordinating training seminars with terrorist organizations would be classified as constitutionally protected forms of speech if the training seminars, though coordinated with terrorist organizations to a sufficient degree as to constitute "material support," do not directly relate to a terrorist organization's illegal or violent activities.
You're going to hear that the ruling restricts independent political speech. It does not. The ruling deals specifically with expert training coordinated with terrorist organizations that is of a suitably substantial and valuable nature as to knowingly constitute material support of the organization.
None of the above makes this morning's ruling a good ruling. Specifically, it makes it impossible for any American to attempt to reform a designated terrorist organization from within by actively participating in it in an otherwise lawful way, and trying to steer it towards lawful means. This would obviously be a waste of time with the likes of Al-Qaeda, but some designated terrorist groups have large mandates that include both lawful and unlawful activities. Under section 2339B, Americans can't productively steer these organizations towards the former and away from the latter; they have to keep their hands off entirely, or risk prosecution.
One of the strongest arguments in favor of a free market has historically been that closed societies can become open societies through commerce. Completely closing off large, diverse organizations that have committed terrorist acts from any and all American participation is a strategic blunder that, in the long run, may do more harm than good. And it could result in the prosecution of some very courageous individuals who do more good than harm.
Related: Timeline of Civil Liberties and the War on Terror
Comments
The Supreme Court upheld the government’s authority Monday to ban aid to designated terrorist groups, even when that support is intended to steer the groups toward peaceful and legal activities.
The court left intact a federal law that the Obama administration considers an important tool against terrorism.
Because of Israel’s piracy against Gaza Freedom Flotilla at international water, our supreme court should order tracking history and investigating AIPAC and CIA? Good! We support it. Do it!
Specifically my point…this rulling is madness