U.S. law prohibits Americans from providing money and other support to foreign terrorist groups. But some say gray areas in the law have harmful consequences -- like preventing engagement with moderates and reformers inside militant movements, and barring advice or legal training from outside experts. We explore a recent Supreme Court case involving "material support" for terrorist groups.
http://thekojonnamdishow.org/shows/2010-03-04/material-support-terrorist-groups
"Material Support" for Terrorist Groups
Listen Thursday, Mar. 4, 2010 at 1:32 p.m.Guests
Adam Liptak
Reporter, The New York Times
Anthony S. Barkow
Executive Director, Center on the Administration of Criminal Law, New York University School of Law
Robert Malley
Middle East and North Africa Program Director, International Crisis Group; Former Special Advisor to President Clinton for Arab-Israeli Affairs (1998-2000)
David D. Cole
Professor of Law, Georgetown University Law Center
Jonathan Winer
Senior Vice President, APCO Worldwide; former Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for International Law Enforcement
Comments
Even more troubling than the issues raised by the broadness of the material support law are the underlying issues relating to designation. The process, and the even more troubling system operated by the Treasury Department, does not provide an organization with any meaningful right to defend itself or to see the evidence on which the designation is based.
In addition to Hamas, there have been many other less well known organizations that have been designated with no clear basis.
Tony Barlow's comment that this is a balancing issue that requires us to give up speech rights to gain security presents a false choice. There is no reason we cannot protect national security AND allow speech that attempts to turn terrorist groups away from violence. It just takes better, more careful crafting of laws. If the Supreme Court does not fix this problem then Congress will have to.