What is Material Support?
2012
The law now says that if you offer material support to terrorist
organizations you can be arrested and detained without trial.
But what does "material support" mean. We'll get back
to that. First let's take a look at the recent history of this
legislation.
Republican Senator John McCain and former Democratic Senator
(currently an independent) Joe Lieberman introduced "The
Enemy Belligerent Interrogation, Detention, and Prosecution Act
of 2010" just a couple years ago. If passed it would have
suspended Habeas Corpus, meaning you could be detained without
sufficient cause or evidence being presented and without the
right to go before a judge. It would have given new powers to
President Obama (and any future presidents). It was one of the
most extreme and tyrannical bills to be introduced in the Senate
in a long time.
The bill would have given the President the power to order
anyone arrested, interrogated, and imprisoned, solely because
of suspicion that a person was "affiliated" with terrorism.
This action was to be allowed on the sole authority and judgment
of the President as Commander in Chief. It applied whether or
not the suspect was a U.S. citizen. Of course, if one believes
that people have inherent rights (as opposed to having only privileges
granted by governments), citizenship should not be an issue one
way or the other. Fortunately the bill never became law.
What has not been widely reported (or at least not widely
enough) is the fact that parts of that bill (including giving
the President the power to indefinitely detain citizens and others
without charge) are now law anyhow. The rights-denying parts
were snuck into the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA)
of 2012, which was recently passed with support from both Democrats
and Republicans.
Some people obviously think it's necessary for a president
to have more power in times like these, but many of us think
freedom is not well-protected by tyranny. Powers, once granted,
tend to be used to the point of abuse. It may sound reasonable
to make it illegal to provide "material support" to
foreign terrorist groups, as the law now does. But what does
that mean, and how might a president interpret the law, and isn't
a problem that the sole authority of a president--with no evidence
at all required--is enough to lock someone away forever?
We would like to believe that mistakes will not be made and
that personal political motives will not be involved in making
such decisions, but what does history say if not the opposite?
Power corrupts; it always has and always will. That is why we
need constitutions and other protections against governments.
If you happened to do something as simple as give a ride in
your car to a man involved in terrorism, it could easily be said
that you provided "material support" to a foreign terrorist
group. This is true even if you didn't know that he was a terrorist.
If you were then arrested, don't you think it is only fair that
you get to explain to a judge what happened? Do we have any reasonable
basis for assuming that such mistakes will not be made?
By the way, the way the law is written, it isn't just about
giving money or weapons or direct aid to terrorist groups. The
says that "material support" includes providing advice
and "service." It has already been suggested that if
a man advises a terrorist group on how to give up their violent
ways and become a political group instead, this would be enough
for that man to be arrested and indefinitely detained.
Some of these provisions will be voided by the courts (and
that may happen by the time you read this--there are several
court challenges ongoing). But if the power of a president to
arrest and detain individuals without charges remains, changing
the rest is largely irrelevant. And don't believe that there
will never be a president who targets political adversaries using
this power. Dictatorial power like this is rarely used only for
good and just purposes. An early instance in this country was
when the 1798 Alien and Sedition Acts (there were four of them)
were used to target congressmen and newspaper editors who criticized
President John Adams. History provide many other examples.
By the way, if I attack in writing what a government is doing
I am probably still protected to some degree by the first amendment
to The Constitution. But what if I write about how to escape
when one is unjustly targeted as a terrorist? Am I offering advice
which constitutes material support to terrorists? Technically
I suppose that offering dietary advice to the wrong people could
subject one to arrest, since terrorists could then live longer
by using this advice, and so continue their nefarious plots.
I suppose we better watch what we say in this new "safer"
world where freedom is traded for "security" that makes
us less secure.
|
