On Tuesday, the Supreme Court will examine the constitutionality of an antiterrorist law which "prohibits American citizens from knowingly providing 'material support or resources' to designated terrorist groups." The law in question was first passed in 1996 and later amended by the Patriot Act of 2001. The plaintiff, Humanitarian Law Project, filed suit based on the claim that the antiterrorist law violates their First Amendment rights to freedom of speech and association. Other organizations have spoken out in support of Humanitarian Law Project, including the Carter Center. Both Humanitarian Law Project and the Carter Center have said that the problem with the law is that it is too vague. The law infringes on their ability to provide aide and work towards the "peaceful resolution of conflict."
The Obama administration has spoken out in defense of the law, claiming it is "a crucial tool in America's fight against terrorism."
In this case, I have to side with Humanitarian Law Project. While I do not have a problem with the concept of the law, I do not believe that it is narrowly tailored. Because the law is vague, it has implications in areas outside of the purpose for which it was explicitly designed. I think that the law needs to be revised such that it does not prevent the peaceful and legitimate actions of organizations such as the Humanitarian Law Project. As it stands, the law is a serious violation of the First Amendment.
3 comments:
You have GOT to be kidding me.
"As Senator-elect Scott Brown says, we should be spending taxpayer dollars to defeat terrorists, not to protect them." -Bob McDonnell, GOP response. What do you think?
Well, I'm not familiar with the law, so I'm unsure of where I stand. The way I see it, there are two options.
1. The Law isn't narrow enough and is banning people from contributing to non-violent groups who really are trying to be peaceful. In that case, the law ought to remain in place, but be amended so that it doesn't ban contributions to legitimate non-violent groups.
2. The law is narrow enough, and should be left alone because it's ensuring that people trying to kill other people aren't getting money. It's like a law banning contributions to Gangs. Gangs are illegal groups that conduct illegal activities, and thus should not be funded. The same holds true for terrorist groups.
Post a Comment