Source: www.chron.com
WASHINGTON, DC, June 23, 2010: WASHINGTON: The Supreme Court of the United States has ruled that a federal law barring individuals or groups from giving advice to known terrorist organizations does not violate the constitutional right to freedom of speech. In a 6-3 ruling, the high court also said a ban on providing three other types of “material support” — training, service and personnel – to those groups was within the government’s authority.
The court’s ruling ends a 12-year legal saga involving six organizations and two American citizens who sought to provide, among other things, “expert advice and assistance” to rebel groups in Sri Lanka and Turkey. The U.S. government had officially designated the two rebel groups in question as “foreign terrorist organizations,” thereby triggering strict limits on the support the organizations can receive. The two groups at the center of the case decided Monday – Turkey’s PKK and Sri Lanka’s Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam – both seek independent states for ethnic groups in their countries.
By upholding the law, the Supreme Court rules that aiding any activity of groups engaged in terrorism — even humanitarian missions or similar aid — constitutes a crime.
The Humanitarian Law Project, a Los Angeles-based human rights organization that advises the United Nations, filed suit with seven other parties on the grounds that the law was unreasonably keeping them from advising and training the terror organizations in peaceful activities.
Chief Justice Roberts said Congress had made it clear that the intent of the support was irrelevant, with only the end result – support for the known terrorist organizations – being a qualifier for criminal charges.
The opinion triggered passionate opposition from Justice Stephen Breyer, who read parts of his dissenting opinion aloud in open court, an atypical event. “I cannot agree with the court’s conclusion that the Constitution permits the government to prosecute for engaging in coordinating teaching and advocacy,” Breyer wrote, emphasizing that the activities were only meant to further “lawful political objectives.” Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor signed Breyer’s dissent.