background preloader

Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project

Facebook Twitter

Hedges v. Obama. Hedges v.

Hedges v. Obama

Obama[note 1][1][2] is a lawsuit filed January 13, 2012 against the Obama Administration and Members of the U.S. Congress[3] by a group including former New York Times reporter and current Truthdig columnist Christopher Hedges challenging the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (NDAA)[4] which permits the U.S. government to indefinitely detain people "who are part of or substantially support Al Qaeda, the Taliban or associated forces engaged in hostilities against the United States".[5] The plaintiffs contend that Section 1021(b)(2) of the law allows for detention of citizens and permanent residents taken into custody in the U.S. on "suspicion of providing substantial support" to groups engaged in hostilities against the U.S. such as al-Qaeda and the Taliban[4] respectively that the NDAA arms the U.S. military with the ability to imprison indefinitely journalists, activists and human-rights workers based on vague allegations.[6] History summary[edit]

Ralph Fertig’s Case Pits Free Speech Against Terror Fight. The Supreme Court, Material Support, and the Lasting Impact of Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project – Wake Forest Law Review. Responding to Holder v.

The Supreme Court, Material Support, and the Lasting Impact of Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project – Wake Forest Law Review

Humanitarian Law Project, 130 S. Ct. 2705 (2009). Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project may prove to be simply the beginning of a rich vein of emerging jurisprudence at the intersection of national security and civil liberties. Indeed, the majority’s determination that “strict scrutiny” applies may yet prove to be the most important aspect of the decision, one that will not always break the government’s way. Over the course of the post-9/11 era, the Supreme Court has had a fair amount to say about the government’s response to terrorism as that response relates to military detention and trial before military commissions.[1] Notably, however, it has not had much to say about federal criminal law relating to terrorism until very recently.

From the government’s perspective, the material support law is important in two distinct ways. On the other hand, these same features also raise an array of constitutional concerns. . [1] . [2] . [4] . [7] . [8] . [9] . [10]. The Supreme Court, Material Support, and the Lasting Impact of Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project – Wake Forest Law Review. Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project. Supreme Court's hard line on supporting terrorists is the right line. By Juan C.

Supreme Court's hard line on supporting terrorists is the right line

Zarate / July 16, 2010 In Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project, the Supreme Court last month rightly upheld the ban on “material support” for designated foreign terrorist organizations to include seemingly benign support and training. The importance of this ruling lies not just in holding that this preventive criminal provision is constitutional but in the reaffirmation of America’s most basic counterterrorism policy. Skip to next paragraph Subscribe Today to the Monitor Click Here for your FREE 30 DAYS ofThe Christian Science MonitorWeekly Digital Edition This policy seeks not only to prevent terrorist attacks against US interests, but to delegitimize foreign organizations whose terrorist activities taint all that they do, regardless of the cause.

In this context, the constitutional arguments melt away. Application of this policy requires quarantining and strangling those non-state organizations that use terrorism as a tactic. Supreme Court upholds ban on 'material support' to foreign terrorist groups. The First Amendment does not protect humanitarian groups or others who advise foreign terrorist organizations, even if the support is aimed at legal activities or peaceful settlement of disputes, the Supreme Court ruled Monday. In a case that weighed free speech against national security, the court voted 6 to 3 to uphold a federal law banning "material support" to foreign terrorist organizations. That ban holds, the court said, even when the offerings are not money or weapons but things such as "expert advice or assistance" or "training" intended to instruct in international law or appeals to the United Nations. The court's majority said it was not abdicating its role in protecting constitutional freedoms but acknowledging that Congress and the executive branch are better situated than the judiciary to decide what kind of restrictions are needed to keep Americans safe in a post-Sept. 11 world of terrorist threats.

Chief Justice John G. Justice Stephen G. Why We Talk To Terrorists.