Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. ======================================================================== Archives Available at:
http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ <A HREF="">ctrl</A> ======================================================================== To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Om
--- Begin Message ----Caveat Lector- [This important decision by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in California will influence other courts around the country. It will help counter the "chilling effect" of the 1996 Anti-Terrorism Act (and indirectly, the 2001 USA Patriot Act). These laws have discouraged and scared many people away from making badly needed contributions to medical clinics, schools, churches, mosques, grassroots organizations, and other humanitarian causes in countries where US-designated "terrorist groups" are active.More comments follow the CCR press release. David Pugh] ************** FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE DECEMBER 3, 2003 CONTACT: Center for Constitutional Rights, David Cole 202-362-6473 Nancy Chang 212-614-6420 Key Provisions of Anti-Terrorism Statute Declared Unconstitutional WASHINGTON - December 3 -The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit today declared unconstitutional significant parts of a criminal statute barring "material support" to terrorist organizations, and rejected the government's interpretation of the statute as imposing liability on "moral innocents." The statute at issue, 18 U.S.C. 2339B, has been a central tool in the Bush administration's criminal "war on terrorism" cases, and the decision calls into question the legality of several convictions, including those of the Lackawanna 6, the first of whom were sentenced today. The case, Humanitarian Law Project v. Ashcroft, involved a challenge brought by the Center for Constitutional Rights on behalf of a human rights organization in Los Angeles and several groups of Sri Lankan Tamils to a statute that criminalizes "material support" to any group designated as "terrorist" by the Secretary of State. [The Humanitarian Law Project has provided humanitarian aid to the Kurdish Workers Party (PKK) in Turkey.] The Administration has argued that the statute makes it a crime to provide material support to terrorist organizations without regard to whether the donor knows that the organization is a designated group, and the statute includes within the ambit of "material support" the provision of "personnel" and "training." Reaffirming an earlier decision in the case, the Court of Appeals held unconstitutionally vague the statute's prohibition on the provision of "personnel" and "training" to terrorist organizations. These are the very terms that the Lackawanna 6 have pleaded guilty to violating by attending an Al Qaeda training camp. In addition, the Court firmly rejected the government's broad interpretation of the "material support" statute. The government argued that the statute permitted a conviction even where a donor was unaware that a recipient organization was designated, and unaware of the organization's unlawful acts. The Court held that this interpretation would unconstitutionally punish "moral innocents" in violation of due process, and therefore interpreted the statute to require the government to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the donor knew the organization was designated or was aware of the unlawful activities that led to its designation. The Court reasoned: Without the knowledge requirement described above, a person who simply sends a check to a school or orphanage in Tamil Eelam run by the LTTE could be convicted under the statute, even if that individual is not aware of the LTTE's designation or of any unlawful activities undertaken by the LTTE. Or, according to the government's interpretation of 2339B, a woman who buys cookies from a bake sale outside of her grocery store to support displaced Kurdish refugees to find new homes could be held liable so long as the bake sale had a sign that said that the sale was sponsored by the PKK, without regard to her knowledge of the PKK's designation or other activities. The court also upheld prior rulings that the material support statute's prohibitions on the provision of "personnel" and "training" were "void for vagueness under the First and Fifth Amendments because they bring within their ambit constitutionally protected speech and advocacy." David Cole, a Georgetown University law professor and lawyer with the Center for Constitutional Rights, who argued the case, said: "Today's decision means that central parts of this "material support" statutes are unconstitutional, and that the government's interpretation of the statute cast an unconstitutionally broad net over innocent persons. This decision will mitigate the substantial chilling effect that this statute has cast over those who seek to provide humanitarian aid to conflict-ridden areas. In our view, however, the statute's flaw is even more fundamental. It imposes guilt by association. People should be held responsible for their own acts, and for any acts of terrorism that they support, not for their mere "support" of a group the government has placed on a blacklist." Nancy Chang, the Center for Constitutional Rights staff attorney who is working on the case, said, "The First Amendment protections that the Ninth Circuit has put into place are especially important now that the Patriot Act was amended to increase the penalty for the provision of material support from ten years to 15 years and possibly a sentence of life." The decision is available at: http://mailhost.groundspring.org/cgi-bin/t.pl?id=55310:134469BDE4/$file/0255082.pdf ___________________________ [This decision in HLP v. Ashcroft is a victory for international solidarity groups. Still it's a partial one. Since the late 1980s, CCR's lawyers have argued that a criminal prosecution for providing material support to a designated terrorist organization should require that the donor had a "specific intent to further unlawful ends"--that the donor specifically intended to provide funds or other material support for the terrorist actions of a particular group. Instead, the 9th Circuit held that the government's burden is to prove that a donor to a project of a terrorist-designated group (like the Kurdish bake sale example used below) had to be aware of a group's designation as terrorist, and of the unlawful activities that led to its designation. Of course, none of this will stop the government from bringing unfounded "material support" prosecutions in order to harass activists and bog them down in legal proceedings. There are already a number of such cases around the country-with mostly Muslim and Arab defendants-- that should be watched carefully. All in all, this decision will make it harder for the government to spread fear and confusion among people in the US who donate to humanitarian causes in areas of conflict overseas. The Justice Department will have a harder time justifying its material support prosecutions According to Nancy Chang at CCR, Ashcroft's boys are unhappy with this decision. They want to strike the "knowing" requirement altogether. The Justice Department will probably ask the 9th Circuit as a whole to rehear the case (en banc), or will ask the US Supreme Court to take it. "HLP v. Ashcroft II" is in the works, with pretty much the same plaintiffs and attorneys. It will challenge the USA Patriot Act on similar grounds, including its definitions of "expert advice" and "assistance" in the material support context. Stay tuned.--dp] __________________________________________________________________ New! Unlimited Access from the Netscape Internet Service. Beta test the new Netscape Internet Service for only $1.00 per month until 3/1/04. Sign up today at http://isp.netscape.com/register Act now to get a personalized email address! Netscape. Just the Net You Need. portside (the left side in nautical parlance) is a news, discussion and debate service of the Committees of Correspondence for Democracy and Socialism. It aims to provide varied material of interest to people on the left. Post : mail to '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' Subscribe : mail to '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' Unsubscribe : mail to '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' Faq : http://www.portside.org List owner : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web address : <http://www.yahoogroups.com/group/portside> Digest mode : visit Web site Yahoo! Groups Links To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/portside/ To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ www.ctrl.org DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER ========== CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic screeds are unwelcomed. Substance—not soap-boxing—please! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'—with its many half-truths, mis- directions and outright frauds—is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. ======================================================================== Archives Available at: http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ <A HREF="http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/">ctrl</A> ======================================================================== To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om
--- End Message ---
