Did the title make you do a double-take? I did the same when I saw this Fox News Liveshots blog headline today: High Court: Americans Can’t Help Terrorists.

Not a lot of things shock me. Sure, I occasionally pause and think, “That’s just crazy.” But very few things truly shock me.

This just may be one of those things.

The case revolves around a group called the Humanitarian Law Project (HLP), which, as the article reports, “sought to provide legal training and political advocacy for a pair of groups designated by the State Department as foreign terrorist organizations.”

According to HLP’s website, the group describes itself as:

a non-profit organization … dedicated to protecting human rights and promoting the peaceful resolution of conflict by using established international human rights laws and humanitarian law. Our long-term objectives are to strengthen human rights standards ratified by nations around the globe and to foster communication on compelling international human rights issues among human rights activists, law faculty and students, members of Congress and their staffs, as well as interested citizens.

The Humanitarian Law Project is a non-governmental organization (NGO) with consultative status at the United Nations with a mandate to seek compliance with armed conflict laws.

Under federal law, Americans may not provide “material support or resources” to foreign terror organizations. (Well, duh.)

As the article notes, the HLP “had sought to assist the lawful and nonviolent activities of two separatist groups in Turkey and Sri Lanka. Notwithstanding any benevolent activities, the United States government says the groups PKK and LTTE are terrorists groups.”

Now, I realize this seems like a no-brainer. U.S. organization + support for terrorist groups = illegal (not to mention potentially treasonous – but I guess we don’t use that word anymore).

But HLP says “not so fast.”

It seems the group actually argued that the law – yes the law banning support for terrorists – violated the constitutional rights of free speech and assembly. (“I have a First Amendment right to support terrorists, and don’t you try to tell me otherwise!”)

Writing for the majority, Chief Justice John Roberts penned:

It is not difficult to conclude, as Congress did, that the taint of their [the terrorist groups'] violent activities is so great that working in coordination with them or at their command legitimizes and furthers their terrorist means. Moreover, material support meant to promote peaceable, lawful conduct can be diverted to advance terrorism in multiple ways.

And in case you didn’t catch it, I did say, “writing for the majority.” Meaning yes, there was a minority opinion – which is perhaps the only thing crazier than the case itself.

Justices Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor actually sided with the terrorist-supporting Humanitarian Law Project.

Recording the dissent, Justice Breyer wrote:

I believe the Court has failed to examine the Government’s justifications with sufficient care. It has failed to insist upon specific evidence, rather than general assertion. It has failed to require tailoring of means to fit compelling ends. And ultimately it deprives the individuals before us of the protection that the First Amendment demands.

Let’s cut to the chase here. This is not a case of government’s taking away rights in exchange for “security.” I’m no fan of that.

This is a case of aiding and supporting a terrorist organization, an act that can be labeled as a “right” only by those with the least understanding that the necessary counterpart of rights is responsibilities.

I am appalled that this case even made it to the Supreme Court. I am more appalled that three justices voted to support terrorism.

But sadly, as I think more about it, I actually don’t think I’m shocked.

More on this from Businessweek.com
Terror Support Ban Upheld by U.S. Supreme Court

Permalink | Comment on this post