Supreme Court weighs free speech against aid to terrorists

Source: Washington Post

Supreme Court weighs free speech against aid to terrorists
By Robert Barnes
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, February 24, 2010

The Supreme Court on Tuesday explored the tension between Americans' right to free speech and a federal law that prohibits aid to terrorist groups, and hardly anyone seemed clear about the lines of demarcation.

The case stems from a challenge to an antiterrorism act by American advocates who say they want to support only the peaceful efforts of groups that the State Department has deemed to be terrorist organizations.

"This is a difficult case for me," allowed Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, whose vote often is the one that decides closely divided cases.

Georgetown law professor David D. Cole, who represents the Humanitarian Law Project, said his clients do not want to provide material support to the groups, but only to help them pursue peaceful ways to end conflict. "The government has spent a decade arguing that our clients cannot advocate for peace, cannot inform about international human rights," Cole told the court.



Read more: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2010/02/23/ST2010022304965.html?hpid=moreheadlines

US court urged to define 'material support' for terrorism
Tue Feb 23, 7:21 pm ET

WASHINGTON (AFP) – The US Supreme Court was urged Tuesday to help pin down the definition of "providing material support to terrorism," a charge widely used in the United States since the September 11, 2001 attacks.

In a case brought by both the government and a rights group, the Humanitarian Law Project, the nine justices were called upon to define what kind of support can be included in such a broad allegation.

The justices however appeared to be just as divided as the lawyers for both sides.

An appeals court has already ruled that providing "personnel" could be used to bring such charges, whereas "training" and "services" were considered too vague. On a fourth term included in the charge of providing "expert advice or assistance," the appeals court returned a split decision.

The Project has sought to help groups such as the Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK) and the Tamil Tigers (LTTE) -- both designated by Washington as terror groups -- in peaceful conflict resolution and human rights issues.

"The government spent the last 10 years arguing our client cannot advocate for peace," said David Cole, lawyer for the Project, which risks facing charges if it continues to provide such help.

More:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20100224/pl_afp/usattackscourt

Supreme Court: Peace activists challenge US antiterror law

The Supreme Court heard arguments Tuesday on whether an antiterror law violates the Constitution. The US solicitor general calls it 'a vital weapon.' A lawyer for international peace activists argues it will send his clients to prison.

By Warren Richey Staff writer / February 23, 2010

Washington
A lawyer for a group of international peace activists urged the US Supreme Court on Tuesday to strike down a portion of an antiterror law that he says threatens to send his clients to prison for urging terror groups to explore nonviolent solutions.

Georgetown University Law Professor David Cole told the justices that a part of the USA Patriot Act barring material support to terrorist organizations was too vague to withstand constitutional scrutiny.

“The government has spent a decade saying our clients cannot advocate for peace,” he said.

The case, Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project, exists at a crossroads between efforts to protect US national security by isolating certain designated terrorist groups and long-established American protections of the rights of free speech and association.

More:
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice/2010/0223/Supreme-Court-Peace-activists-challenge-US-antiterror-law