"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." - U.S. Bill of Rights, First Amendment.
"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort." - U. S. Constitution, Article III, Section 3.
The great minds behind our Constitution more than 200 years ago knew that our society would evolve over decades, and centuries, in ways that they could not foresee, or even imagine. And the enduring beauty of their creation is that the Constitution has always served as a basic outline, designed to be fleshed out and applied within the changing needs of the nation. Politics, and "activist" judges, were all part of the grand scheme.
As a result, Constitutional Law is such a fascinating subject - unless you happen to be on the wrong end of a decision. Like segregationists. Or anti-abortion advocates. Or handgun control proponents. Or supporters of prayer in public schools. Or, now, the Humanitarian Law Project.
HLP describes itself as "A non-profit organization founded in 1985, dedicated to protecting human rights and promoting the peaceful resolution of conflict by using established international human rights laws and humanitarian law." But those seemingly praiseworthy purposes have run afoul of the Patriot Act, and the Supreme Court's swing to the right. A ban on "material support" for foreign terrorists was signed into law by President Clinton in 1996, and was expanded in the 2001 Patriot Act signed by President George W. Bush. The Law Project claimed the "material support" provision infringed on their First Amendment rights to advocate and speak on behalf of the separatist groups. But under the latest twist, Article III now trumps the First Amendment. Feel free to speak out* (* but only at the risk of aiding and comforting the enemy, whoever that may be).
HLP - actually an amalgam of two groups which originally worked independently - sought to assist the "lawful and nonviolent activities" of separatists in two countries: the Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK) in Turkey, and the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam in Sri Lanka. They wanted to advise the ethnic Kurds about ways to take their complaints against the Turkish government to the United Nations. They tried to help the Hindu Tamils peacefully establish their own state in largely Buddhist Sri Lanka. And those basic goals sound benign enough. But, according to the US government - and many others around the world, including the United Nations and European Union - PKK and LTTE are officially designated as terrorist groups. The Tamils trained Palestine Liberation Organization fighters in Lebanon, and assassinated former Indian Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi in 1991, and the President of Sri Lanka in 1993. The Kurds also worked with the PLO, and carried out numerous suicide bombings.
The Law Project was trying to encourage the insurgents to swap their guns and bombs for more peaceful methods of resolution. There are no accusations that they provided any money for arms, or engaged in any active hostilities. But the US Justice Department took the position that by providing free legal training and political advocacy abroad, the Law Project potentially freed up other Kurds' and Tamils' resources to maintain their violent agendas. In fact, under the Feds' argument, even filing an amicus brief in the Supreme Court on behalf of a designated "terrorist" group would be a crime.
Ironically, former President Jimmy Carter filed an amicus brief in the matter, because under the Court's interpretation, he could have been prosecuted for training all parties in fair election practices in Lebanon, and trying to broker Mideast peace with Hamas.
The Tamils actually surrendered back in 2009, when their founder/leader was killed, but the HLP legal challenge to the prohibitions continued, because the underlying principal has far-reaching future consequences. And after 12 years, the US Supreme Court has ruled 6-3 that the HLP (and, most importantly, anyone else) can not provide "expert advice", "training", "service", or "personnel" to groups designated by the State Department as foreign terrorist organizations. The Six Supremes also overturned multiple rulings by lower courts that the prohibitions were too vague. The decision states that such support is illegal because "...all contributions to foreign terrorist organizations - even those for seemingly benign purposes - further those groups' terrorist activities."
Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the majority, said "It is not difficult to conclude, as Congress did, that the taint of (a terrorist group's) 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."
The Court attempted to distinguish free speech from prohibited pro-terrorist actions. Roberts pointed out that anyone is free to speak on behalf of the groups, praise their activities, and urge citizens to act. But they may not do so in collaboration or coordination with the groups themselves. And, as is so often the case with the current politicized Supreme Court, Justice Stephen Breyer was outraged by the ruling, which he felt improperly infringed on free speech, despite Roberts' disclaimer. He demonstrated his anger by reading his dissent from the bench.
Breyer, joined by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsberg and Sonya Sotomayor, disagreed with the majority's conclusion that "the Constitution permits the Government to prosecute the plaintiffs criminally for engaging in coordinated teaching and advocacy furthering the designated organizations' lawful political objectives," and that it is "wholly foreseeable" that any support for these groups would provide them with "information and techniques that it could use as part of a broader strategy to promote terrorism, and to threaten, manipulate, and disrupt."
Breyer did not dispute the Court's concerns about protecting the country from the threat of foreign terrorist groups. But he said he was unable to determine how applying the law actually achieves that purpose. "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."
And The Washington Post noted in its editorial criticizing the decision, "The court concluded that Congress meant to preclude any type of aid to such groups because this assistance could help to 'legitimate' the terrorist organization. Aid of all types also could help the group conserve resources that could then be channeled toward terrorist activities. So members of the Humanitarian Law Project legally can stand on a street corner and praise the PKK for carrying out terrorist acts, but they can not work with the PKK in an effort to stop the violence."
It would now be up to Congress to replace this offense to the Constitution with some common sense.