Georgetown Law Professor David Cole cleverly seizes on Former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, Former Attorney General Michael Mukasey, Former Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge and Former Homeland Security Adviser Frances Townsend's support for Mujahedeen Khalq to criticize the breadth of the "material support for terrorism" statute that was the subject of a Supreme Court ruling last year. The MEK is a religious group violently opposed to the regime in Iran responsible for the assassination of several U.S. military personnel and civilians in the 1970's," according to the State Department.
In stark contrast to their First Amendment fundamentalism in Citizens United, the conservative wing of the high court (joined by Justice John Paul Stevens) ruled that advising entities designated as "terrorist groups" in nonviolent matters such as human rights law and holding elections could be criminalized because, as Chief Justice John Roberts wrote, "providing material support to a designated foreign terrorist organization -- even seemingly benign support -- bolsters the terrorist activities of that organization."
As Matt Duss pointed out last week, the aformentioned Republican officials appeared at an event staged by the French Committee for a Democratic Iran, which the Washington Post describes as a "a pressure group formed to support MEK," to demand they be taken off the Treasury's designated terror group list. Since the Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project ruling held that "a person of ordinary intelligence would understand the term 'service' to cover advocacy performed in coordination with, or at the direction of, a foreign terrorist organization," either these four prominent Republicans are not persons of ordinary intelligence or they've just committed a felony.
Cole's point though, isn't that they should be arrested. It's that the material support for terrorism law is too broad and criminalizes conduct that just isn't criminal:
The government has similarly argued that providing legitimate humanitarian aid to victims of war or natural disasters is a crime if provided to or coordinated with a group labeled as a “foreign terrorist organization” — even if there is no other way to get the aid to the region in need. Yet The Times recently reported that the Treasury Department, under a provision ostensibly intended for humanitarian aid, was secretly granting licenses to American businesses to sell billions of dollars worth of food and goods to the very countries we have blockaded for their support of terrorism. Some of the “humanitarian aid” exempted? Cigarettes, popcorn and chewing gum.
Under current law, it seems, the right to make profits is more sacrosanct than the right to petition for peace, and the need to placate American businesses more compelling than the need to provide food and shelter to earthquake victims and war refugees.
That's precisely the point--the government doesn't see a problem with the breadth of the law because the point of an overly broad law like this one is to be selective in its enforcement--criminalizing certain conduct when it's convenient and avoiding strict enforcement when it involves political elites or other connected entities--in this case a group of conservative Republicans eager to push the U.S. into a violent confrontation with Iran.
The quickest way to get the law changed of course, would be to charge the aforementioned Republicans with a crime, which would prompt Congress to act to narrow the statute. While the Justice Department probably won't be doing that any time soon, I wouldn't be surprised if the law wasn't used to justify politically motivated prosecutions against liberal groups or politicians the next time there's a Republican president in the White House.
