Under fire at the Supreme Court: Material Support Statute.

This week, Tuesady to be more specific, the SCOTUS will hear arguments against this statute from Human rights organizations who are seeking to have it struck down, arguing that it is infringing on their ability to provide support to groups designated as Foreign Terrorist Organizations. Even if the group is known to support terrorist activities, these dullards and rocket scientists still want to be able to be able to provide other support to these groups—typically because they want to support the non-violent activities of the group. Duh, what is wrong with this picture? I am sure the mullah obamaham and his Islamosypathizing administration would love to see the SCOTUS strike this down. That way it would be so much easier to get benevolent aid to the likes of Hizbollah, Hamas, the Taliban, Jamaat ul-Fuqra, and other terrorist groups. Isn't the United Nations of Islam already doing this? The article is quite long but I encourage you to read as much of it as possible.
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Material Support at the Supreme Court


by Stephen I. Landman

IPT News


As we reported late last year, the Supreme Court has recently agreed to hear a challenge to a critical national security tool—the material support statute. As we draw closer to Tuesday's oral arguments, the Investigative Project on Terrorism (IPT) has been closely following the legal proceedings. In particular, we have focused our analysis on the practical effect that the eventual ruling may have on America's fight against international terrorist organizations.

It has long been thought axiomatic that, as Arizona U.S. Sen. Jon Kyl once explained during Congressional hearings:

"Foreign organizations that engage in terrorist activity are so tainted by their criminal conduct that any contributions to such an organization facilitates that conduct."

U.S. law enforcement took this principle as a green light, using the material support statute in over 150 cases, with a conviction rate nearing 70 percent. Indeed, this statute has become an incredible tool in the hands of federal prosecutors seeking to shut down the support network of terrorist groups. However, it has not been without controversy.

Despite its effectiveness, the material support provision has been attacked numerous times since its enactment, resulting in a multitude of legal challenges and legislative amendments, all aimed at producing a statute that could be used to destroy the terrorist support structure while not infringing on Constitutional rights.

Now, with the Supreme Court set to rule on the validity of certain provisions of the statute, we finally have an opportunity to shut the door to frivolous litigation from individuals who simply want to provide support to groups that they sympathize with, regardless of their status as Foreign Terrorist Organizations.

The petitioners in this case—a retired judge, a doctor, a human rights organization, and several nonprofit groups—were engaged in advocacy and support for the Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK) and the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE). Although the petitioners were engaged in these activities for quite some time, they were forced to cease on October 8, 1997, once the U.S. State Department designated the PKK and LTTE as "Foreign Terrorist Organizations" (FTO). Realizing that U.S. law now proscribed their efforts on behalf of the PKK and LTTE, on March 18, 1998 petitioners filed a complaint in federal court to bar the government from enforcing the statute against them. Now, after more than a decade of legal wrangling, the case has made its way to the Supreme Court. While a more detailed analysis of the policy arguments involved can be found in IPT's report, we briefly summarize the primary arguments.

Opponents of the law are seeking to have it struck down, arguing that it is infringing on their ability to provide support to groups designated as Foreign Terrorist Organizations. While there are few people who would argue that they should be able to provide "safe houses," "false documentation or identification," "communications equipment," "facilities," "weapons," "lethal substances," or "explosives" to terrorist groups, there are plenty of people who continue to believe that they should be able to provide other support to these groups—typically because they want to support the non-violent activities of the group.

Those in support of a broad ban on support to terrorist groups recognize, as Congress did when it passed the material support law, that the designation process was intended to make FTOs "radioactive." While providing an exception for legitimate First Amendment protected activities, the law is intended to ban practically all other support, whether violent or non-violent, to designated FTOs. Continue reading


The opening brief of the Humanitarian Law Project can be found here


The Government's brief can be found here


Investgative Project on Terrorism