On Monday, June 21, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of a provision of the Patriot Act that prohibits American citizens and peacebuilding/humanitarian agencies from providing "material support" to organizations deemed by the government to be terrorist. At first glance, this seems to be a reasonable ruling but in effect the ruling retains an extremely vague prohibition on aiding and associating with terrorist groups.

The presenting case was not about sending money to terrorist organizations nor was it related to serving as their liason. It was not about people claiming that they support the goals of terrorist organizations. The case remarkaly was a project that was trying to reduce the violence between two warring groups: the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam and teh Kurdistan Workers' Party. An American human rights group, the Humanitarian Law Project challenged the law prohibiting "material support" which was defined in the 2001 Patriot Act to include "expert advice or assistance." The Law Project sought to provide advice to the two terrorist groups on how to peacefully resolve their disputes and work with the United Nations. The Court ruled that it did not matter that reduction of violence was a goal as even peaceful assistance can, in the court's opinion, further terrorism by lending them legitimacy and allowing them to pretend to be negotiating while plotting violence.

This is an astonishing ruling and deeply troubling. Clearly the court has never lived in the context of war to understand the profound impact of violence on individuals, families and communities. The ruling seems to be a violation of first amendment rights and a strike against common sense. The ruling seems to discourage, in fact, make illegal, efforts to persuade groups away from extremism. Human rights advocacy and peacemaking appear to fall in the category now of criminal activity.