Those of us who work in the peacemaking field find ourselves working with people in conflict. Some of these people have done violent things in an effort to press their agenda. Should we refuse to work with anyone who has used violence at some time in the past? The Supreme Court says we had better refuse.
This case was brought to get an interpretation of the terms “knowingly provide material support or resources to a foreign terrorist organization,” something that is illegal under 18 U. S. C. §2339B(a)(1). A group is given the terrorist designation by the Secretary of State. Once you are on the list US citizens are forbidden to give you material support. The Humanitarian Law Project wanted to find out whether its proposed activities would be illegal.
The group wanted to provide training in the use of international law to resolve disputes peacefully; how to petition the United Nations and other representative bodies for relief; and they wanted to engage in political advocacy on behalf of Kurds living in Turkey and Tamils living in Sri Lanka. Chief Justice Roberts writing for the 6-3 majority stated the holding of the court: "The material-support statute, §2339B, is constitutional as appliedto the particular forms of support that plaintiffs seek to provide to foreign terrorist organizations."
Robert Benjamin writing on Mediate.com wonders if this development isn't actually positive. "For the teaching and training of negotiation and mediation to be criminalized must mean the skill sets have become sufficiently recognized as potent and sufficiently effective to be a threat." I suppose that can be seen as a measure of success. When I began working in the field 25 years ago people didn't know what it was. Now it's so good it's dangerous.
Ten years ago I was working in Indonesia with people who weren't on the side of the government, and with people who had been involved in violence of various types as that country moved from dictatorship toward democracy. The focus of the work was helping people learn to effectively use nonviolent conflict resolution techniques. We had considerable success with these efforts and many were able to find ways to work within the emerging system of governance. If those groups had been on the Secretary of State's list I would have been breaking the law.
The Supreme Court doesn't decide whether or not a law is good. It's job is to determine whether or not it is constitutional. Outlawing aid to terrorists seems like a good idea, until the law prevents aid to groups trying to leave terrorism behind. This law is too blunt an instrument for today's asymmetric threats. Congress needs to do the careful work of defining what aids terrorists to do harm and what keeps us safe by helping them find less harmful ways of working toward their goals. After all, what we call founding fathers the British called terrorists.
The group wanted to provide training in the use of international law to resolve disputes peacefully; how to petition the United Nations and other representative bodies for relief; and they wanted to engage in political advocacy on behalf of Kurds living in Turkey and Tamils living in Sri Lanka. Chief Justice Roberts writing for the 6-3 majority stated the holding of the court: "The material-support statute, §2339B, is constitutional as appliedto the particular forms of support that plaintiffs seek to provide to foreign terrorist organizations."
Robert Benjamin writing on Mediate.com wonders if this development isn't actually positive. "For the teaching and training of negotiation and mediation to be criminalized must mean the skill sets have become sufficiently recognized as potent and sufficiently effective to be a threat." I suppose that can be seen as a measure of success. When I began working in the field 25 years ago people didn't know what it was. Now it's so good it's dangerous.
Ten years ago I was working in Indonesia with people who weren't on the side of the government, and with people who had been involved in violence of various types as that country moved from dictatorship toward democracy. The focus of the work was helping people learn to effectively use nonviolent conflict resolution techniques. We had considerable success with these efforts and many were able to find ways to work within the emerging system of governance. If those groups had been on the Secretary of State's list I would have been breaking the law.
The Supreme Court doesn't decide whether or not a law is good. It's job is to determine whether or not it is constitutional. Outlawing aid to terrorists seems like a good idea, until the law prevents aid to groups trying to leave terrorism behind. This law is too blunt an instrument for today's asymmetric threats. Congress needs to do the careful work of defining what aids terrorists to do harm and what keeps us safe by helping them find less harmful ways of working toward their goals. After all, what we call founding fathers the British called terrorists.
