by on FEBRUARY 23, 2010
Shayana Kadidal, a senior managing attorney at the Center for Constitutional Rights, lays out the issues in fron of the Supreme Court today in a case that asks whether political speech – writing an op-ed for, or teaching nonviolent conflict resolution to a group on the government’s blacklists – can constitute a crime of terrorism carrying a fifteen year prison sentence.
Read MoreThe law at issue is the “material support” statute. Created in 1996 and modified several times by Congress (including in the Patriot Act) after parts of it were struck down by earlier rounds of this lawsuit, the statute allows the State Department to create a blacklist of “foreign terrorist organizations” – defined very broadly to include groups that engage in violence against property that hurts U.S. economic interests. Once a group is on the blacklist, virtually any form of association with the group becomes a crime.Once obscure, the law is becoming more familiar as it is invoked in almost every terrorism prosecution brought since 9/11. People hear the term “material support” and, because the word “material” connotes “tangible,” assume it must mean things akin to weapons or money. But in fact the statute specifically says that various intangibles – “training,” “expert advice or assistance,” “personnel” or “services” – all are included within the ban.
