Dissent and “Material Support of Terrorism” Laws

Material support was first outlawed by the Clinton-era Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, but has been amended, clarified and expanded several times since, including in the USA Patriot Act. Material support laws impact our rights in two important ways: hindering U.S. charities from providing humanitarian releif in war-torn areas of the world; and they provide a useful tool for the government to go after activists protesting U.S. foreign policy. In Terrorism and the Constitution, David Cole and his co-author, DDF Vice President Jim Dempsey, explain what happened:

… after lying virtually dormant for its first six years of existence, the material support law has since 9/11 become the Justice Department’s most popular charge in antiterrorism cases. The allure is easy to see: convictions under the law require no proof that the defendant engaged in terrorism, aided or abetted terrorism, or conspired to commit terrorism. But what makes the law attractive to prosecutors – its sweeping ambit – is precisely what makes it so dangerous to civil liberties.

In a devastating blow for free speech and association, a recent Supreme Court decision (Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project, June 21, 2010), the Court upheld material support provisions that prohibit otherwise protected free speech. The Court said that congress could prohibit conflict resolution, humanitarian aid and other groups from providing training or expert advice to terrorist groups, even when that assistance is aimed at preventing violence.