 |
This Amicus Brief is filed in support of a challenge to the constitutionality of Bill 18 U.S.C. § 2339B. The Amici are a diverse coalition of conflict resolution, human rights, humanitarian aid, academic, and advocacy organizations that share a profound concern about the implications of the material support statute for their efforts to foster peace, further human rights, and alleviate human suffering around the world.
At issue, the challenged statute makes it a crime punishable by up to 15 years in prison to provide “material support or resources” to an organization the Secretary of State has designated a “foreign terrorist organization” (FTO). 18 U.S.C.§ 2339B(a)(1); see also 8 U.S.C. § 1189. These severe criminal penalties attach whether or not the provider of “material support” intends to further the designated organization’s violent or unlawful aims. Under the statute, it is enough that the provider knows “that the organization is a designated terrorist organization [or] has engaged or engages in terrorist activity.” 18 U.S.C. § 2339B(a)(1). Thus, a provider can be held criminally liable even if he or she opposes the terrorist activities of the designated group and even if the support is intended to further entirely peaceful, lawful objectives.
The material support statute’s prohibitions on “service,” “training,” “personnel,” and “expert advice or assistance” are unconstitutionally vague as applied to the kind of peaceful, non-violent speech and advocacy in which both plaintiffs and amici engage. Amici, like plaintiffs, are left hopelessly guessing – at the risk of grave penalty – whether their advocacy for peace or human rights, their engagement in or facilitation of peace-making dialogue, or the expressive components of their humanitarian aid work crosses the line from constitutionally protected to criminally proscribed. Teaching peacebuilding skills, engaging in mediation or conflict resolution, advocating non-violence theories to violent actors, and providing humanitarian aid are just a few of the potentially prohibited activites under this Bill.
To the extent that the vague terms of the statute do, in fact, proscribe this kind of speech and advocacy, the statute suffers two independently fatal flaws under the First and Fifth Amendments. First, it proscribes speech and advocacy that is intended to further only lawful, non-violent activity – and which in no way incites others to imminent lawless action – merely because the recipient or beneficiary of that speech has been unilaterally designated as a terrorist organization by the Executive Branch. Second, it punishes association with a group even where the association is not intended to further the group’s unlawful activities and is, in fact, intended to dissuade the group from engaging in unlawful activities.
Read the Amicus Curiae Brief
Amici include:
The Carter Center,
Christian Peacemaker Teams,
Grassroots,
International, Human Rights Watch,
International Crisis Group,
The Institute For Conflict Analysis And Resolution At George Mason University,
The Kroc Institute For International Peace Studies At Notre Dame University,
Operation USA,
Peace Appeal Foundation
ICAR's involvment in this Amicus Brief is explored in the Newsletter article, Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project: ICAR Joins the Carter Center in Opposing Use of the Homeland Security Act to Criminalize Conflict Resolution Activities