More on Material Support
In our article last week, we made mention of the Material Support law, and how it specifically prevents the transfer of money or other support, even on humanitarian grounds, when the provider of those funds have reason to believe that the money will go to a designated terrorist organization.We used this to point out that the Administration’s intention to transmit $400 million dollars for Gaza and the West Bank, specifically transmitting funds through UNRWA, violates the spirit of the law.
More on that subject, now that the Supreme Court has upheld the Material Support Statute as legal. From the always insightful Investigative Project on Terrorism:
The Court began by rejecting the argument that the statute was violated the Fifth Amendment because it was unclear to an ordinary person what type of activity was actually prohibited. Explaining that “perfect clarity and precise guidance have never been required,” the majority found the statute was sufficiently clear in what conduct was proscribed:
“Of course the scope of the material-support statute may not be clear in every application. But the dispositive point here is that the statutory terms are clear in their application to plaintiffs’ proposed conduct, which means that plaintiffs’ vagueness challenge must fail.”
Next, the Court rejected the claims that the law violated free speech and free association guarantees in the First Amendment. Those challenging the statute sought to provide non-violent resources to support the humanitarian and peaceful efforts of terrorist organizations. The Court found that not only was there no distinction between the violent and non-violent wings of terrorist groups, but that terrorist groups benefit from any support given to them.
Justice Scalia specifically invoked Hamas, interestingly enough, pointing out:
“The theory of the legislation is that when you aid any of their enterprises, you’re aiding the organization. Hamas, for example, gained support among—among the Palestinians by activities that are perfectly lawful, perhaps running hospitals, all sorts of things.”
Go to IPT and read the whole thing, very insightful. Now if only the administration would come to recognize the fact that funds given to Gaza will invariably benefit Hamas as surely as if you had wired the money directly too them.