Aid groups challenged provisions that put them at risk

WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court upheld the US government's authority on Monday to ban aid to designated terrorist groups, even when that support is intended to steer the groups toward peaceful and legal activities.

The court left intact a federal law that the Obama administration considers an important tool against terrorism. But human rights organizations say the law's ban on providing training and advice to nearly four dozen organizations on a State Department list squanders a chance to persuade people to renounce extremism.

The justices voted 6-3 to reject a free-speech challenge from humanitarian aid groups to the law that bars "material support" - everything from money to technical know-how to legal advice - to foreign terrorist organizations.

The aid groups were only challenging provisions that put them at risk of being prosecuted for talking to terrorist organizations about nonviolent activities.

But Chief Justice John Roberts said that material support intended even for benign purposes can help a terrorist group in other ways.

"Such support frees up other resources within the organization that may be put to violent ends," Roberts said in an opinion joined by four other conservative justices, but also the liberal Justice John Paul Stevens.

Justice Stephen Breyer took the unusual step of reading his dissent aloud in the courtroom. "Not even the 'serious and deadly problem' of international terrorism can require automatic forfeiture of First Amendment rights," he said, referring to the provision in the US constitution that guarantees freedom of speech.

The Obama administration said the "material support" law is one of its most important terror-fighting tools. It has been used about 150 times since Sept 11, resulting in 75 convictions. Most of those cases involved money and other substantial support for terrorist groups.

Only a handful dealt with the kind of speech involved in Monday's case.

Human rights groups said they were stunned by the ruling.

David Cole, a Georgetown law professor who represented the aid groups in court, said the court essentially ruled that "the First Amendment permits the government to make human rights advocacy and peacemaking a crime."

No serious dispute exists in the US over the designation for groups such as al-Qaida, Abu Nidal and the Shining Path. But some others - such as Hamas, which politically controls the Gaza Strip -have legitimate political arms and extensive social missions as well as associations with violence through paramilitary or insurgent means.

Associated Press

(China Daily 06/23/2010 page24)