Marc Ambinder takes a look at a pending case before the Supreme Court, Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project, that will consider the constitutionality of "material support for terrorism" charges -- which the government has used to great success in securing convictions. The Ninth Circuit Court that overturned the statute said it was too vague regarding intent -- namely that someone could conceivably be prosecuted for unknowingly aiding terrorist groups. Left-leaning legal groups have gone further in their objections, the Center for Constitutional Rights for example, contends that:
[T]he challenged provisions violate the First Amendment insofar as they criminalize the provision of forms of support such as the distribution of literature, engaging in political advocacy, participating in peace conferences, training in human rights advocacy, and donating cash and humanitarian assistance, even when such support is intended solely to promote the lawful and non-violent activities of a designated organization. Plaintiffs' principal complaint is that the statute imposes guilt by association by punishing moral innocents not for their own culpable acts, but for the culpable acts of the groups they have supported.
Material support charges have often succeeded where more serious charges have failed, and they've provided the bulk of convictions in the government's 91 percent conviction rate against suspected terrorists, according to a report from Human Rights First. So the stakes are pretty high for the government here.
-- A. Serwer
