Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project

¶ … Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project

Throughout history there have been those Supreme Court cases that have been so controversial that they have led to tremendous amounts of division. This is because protecting the civil liberties and the national security interests of the country requires that the government maintains some kind of a delicate balancing act. As a result, Congress will implement laws that are designed to address these issues, while dealing with the current threats facing the nation.

In the case of the U.S.A. Patriot Act, this law was passed in the wake of the September 11th terrorist attacks. It is designed to give law enforcement greater tools for monitoring and tracking the activities of terrorists. However, a variety of civil rights organizations have been actively opposed to the law. The reason why, is because they feel that the balance has been shifted to benefit law enforcement vs. protecting the rights of ordinary citizen. Over the course of time, they fear that this could lead to increased amounts of restrictions on the Constitutional protections for everyone. ("Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project")

As a result, a variety of groups have filed legal challenges to the law based upon its Constitutionality. One of most significant cases is Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project. In 2010, this civil rights organization filed a law suit against the U.S. government and their use of the Patriot Act in combating those individuals that are providing support for terrorism. At heart of their argument were the provisions of the law that said, "Individuals who are knowingly providing material support or resources to a foreign terrorist organization. The term 'material support or resources' means any property or service, including: currency or monetary instruments or financial securities, financial services, lodging, training, expert advice or assistance, safe houses, false documentation or identification, communications equipment, facilities, weapons, lethal substances, explosives, personnel to one or more individuals who may be or include oneself), and transportation, except medicine or religious materials. The Secretary of State may designate a 'foreign terrorist organization' after finding a foreign entity engages in terrorism, which threatens the security of: U.S. nationals or the nation." (Doyle 2- 4)This is significant, because it illustrating how the act is giving law enforcement a variety of powers to go after those groups designated as terrorist organizations.

The problem with this case began, when the police raided the offices of several nonprofit organizations that claimed to be supporting children's charities. However, federal officials believed that they were secretly funneling money and support to different terrorist organizations. The most notable include: the Partiya Karken of Kurdistan (PKK) and the Liberation of Tigers of Tamil Eelam. These groups were designated as terrorist organizations by: the Treasury Department. During the preliminary proceedings, is when various civil rights groups (most notably the Humanitarian Law Project) filed a law suit against these arrests. As the act and the power that it gave to the police, allowed them to circumvent many of the basic Constitutional protections.

After hearing the argument presented by both sides, the court ruled in favor of the government (in a 6 to 3 decision). This is important, because it showing how the case was an area of interest for many of these organizations, as they were challenging the fundamental basis of the law. To fully understand this case requires: examining the arguments that were presented by both sides and the groups of individuals that are being impacted by this decision. At which point, we will focus on: the political, economic and biological factors that had an impact on the outcome of the case. Together, these different elements will provide the greatest insights as to the overall effects of the decision on the nation. ("Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project")

Arguments

Humanitarian Law Project Claims

The arguments that were presented by the defense are: that the law is a violation of the First Amendment. The reason why, is because these groups claimed that they were not directly supporting activities related to terrorism. Where, they are providing these organizations with humanitarian relief and other areas of the support that were not associated with violence. Instead, they were helping these organizations to: use various international institutions to solve their disputes. At the same time, they were engaging in political advocacy that was targeted directly at these organizations to resolve these issues through: opening channels of communication with the other side. This is significant, because it is illustrating how their interpretation of the law was different. With, the nonprofit not actively supporting terrorism by: teaching these individuals how to peacefully address these issues. (Volokh)

As a result, there are number of moral and political assumptions that these arguments are based upon to include: ambiguity in the law as well as the inability to establish some kind of proper burden of proof. The ambiguity in the law is that the various provisions claimed that individuals who are engaged in these kinds of activities (even political / humanitarian support) are aiding terrorists. This is troubling, because the defense believed that the law gave the government the ability to apply this label to any organization that may or may not be supporting terrorism (based upon: the distinctions made by the Treasury Department).

The inability to establish some kind of proper burden of proof is when the government does not have detailed evidence outlining the activities of the organization. This is problematic, because it means that they are targeting any kind of groups that may or may not be supporting terrorists (based upon various assumptions that are being made). As it is a clear violation of the First Amendment by: limiting the activities of human rights organizations to provide nonmilitary support to these individuals.

Analysis

When you analyze the impact of the decision on a variety of stakeholders, it is clear that will have an effect on a number of different parties. When it comes to institutions / groups (i.e. charities / nonprofits) this will have an impact on the kinds of activities that they are engaged in. Where, executives must be aware that even non-military and humanitarian support to an organization is in violation of the law. This is important, because it is showing how they must conduct larger amounts of due diligence to: determine the possible impact of their affiliation with a particular group on their organization.

The individuals within society that will be affected by the most are: those people who have been providing any kind of advice or assistance (to include indirectly) to terrorist organizations. This means that they must be aware of who they are associating with and the kinds of activities that they are involved in. Over the course of time, this will require that everyone who is supporting any kind of charity or nonprofit to conduct their own form of due diligence to ensure that they are in compliance with the law.

Once you look at the overall big picture, it is obvious that the ruling will have an adverse impact on: nonprofits, charities and the individuals that are working with them. As, they must begin to: practice increased amounts of due diligence, to determine if a particular group was given a terrorist designation. At which point, they must not engage in any kind of activities that will support the actions of terrorists (to include indirectly helping them). Otherwise, they could be subject to various provisions of the law.

The Arguments Presented by the Government

The government argued that the law is Constitutional. The reason why, is because it is not applying a label to all charities that may or may not support terrorism. Instead, the Treasury Department will provide a list of those organizations that are supporting terrorist activities. This takes place, after they have conducted an extensive investigation and determined that they are actively involved in a number of terrorist activities. At which point, the Treasury Department will limit any kind of support they will receive (by placing them on the list). Once this occurs, it will offer specific insights about what organizations are actively involved in terrorism.

From the viewpoint of the government, once a particular group has been added to the list is when all charities and nonprofits are aware that they need to stop supporting these organizations. This is because they can be able to access the list at any time via: the Treasury Department's website. While simultaneously, the government will announce new groups that are being added to the list through: the news media and sending nonprofits any kind of changes that have been made.

Once this takes place, anyone who is supporting different terrorist related activities will be aware that a particular group has been added to the list. At which point, everyone has been informed that providing assistance to an organization that received these kinds of designations is considered to be in violation of the law. Those groups that continue with these activities are knowingly doing so, despite the fact that they have been informed that they are in violation of the Patriot Act. This is significant, because it is illustrating how the act is giving all nonprofits the chance to be in compliance with: various provisions of the law the moment a particular organization has been added to the list. As a result, the arrests and the activities of law enforcement that are directed at these groups is Constitutional. This based on the premise that they are supporting terrorism by: continually ignoring these distinctions that have been made. At which point, they should be subject to arrest and prosecution under the law.

Analysis

In this aspect, the decision will have an impact on number of different stakeholders. As far as institutions / groups are concerned, this will have a positive impact for law enforcement and the intelligence community. The reason why is because, they can use the decision as way to effectively target those individuals that are providing any kind of support for terrorist organizations. This is giving the government the power to aggressively tackle the problem at its source. Once this occurs, it means that law enforcement can disrupt the activities of terrorists prior to: the planning, financing and implementing an attack. This is significant, because it is illustrating how the ruling was an affirmation of the powers that the police have in: tracking and monitoring the activities of terrorists.

When it comes to various individuals (i.e. The police, the intelligence community and government officials), this is giving them the power to use more aggressive tactics in going after terrorist organizations. Over the course of time, this will help to effectively monitor and disrupt the activities of terrorist organizations. At which point, their ability to conduct a wide variety of attacks has been severely diminished. This is significant, because it is showing how the ruling will have positive impact on the activities of law enforcement and the intelligence community.

Once you step back and analyze these views, it is obvious that this will help to give the government a number of tools they can utilize to go after terrorist organizations. The precedent that the ruling is setting is that there are clear distinctions, as to the actions of how law abiding citizens are protected by different provisions of the Constitution. While, terrorists and anyone who is supporting them are given these rights, due to the fact that they intend to do harm to the general public and different government institutions. As a result, law enforcement and the intelligence community have a duty to prevent these individuals from achieving their objectives at all costs. This is the point that when they can use the tools, to mitigate any kind of strategic advantages that terrorist groups may have.

The Political, Economic and Biological Factors that Affected the Decision

Depending upon the view that you are taking, the different interpretations of political, economic and biological factors will play a major role in determining how the decision will have an impact. As, each side will make a number of different points about the way the ruling will have an effect these areas.

Views on the Ruling for Nonprofits and Charities

From the view of the defense, this decision is considered to be a major setback. This is because, it placing serve restrictions on the ability of many different charities and nonprofit organizations. To begin introducing some kind of dialogue, in many troubled regions of the world.

Politically speaking, this is troubling because it means that the ability to bring warring sides together in various conflicts are challenging. The reason why, is due to the fact that the law will prosecute any individual or organizations that has contact with these groups. Over the course of time, this will make many nonprofits nervous about becoming involved in civil wars and other troubled regions of the world. This will make it more difficult to bring a peaceful end to the fighting in these regions. As, there is no way of pushing many of these groups to: renounce violence and enter peaceful negotiations. This is significant, because it means that the underlying amounts of violence will continue to increase and become more extreme. As it will be challenging, to establish some form of communication with groups that are given a terrorist designation. (Hun)

The economic factors of the decision for many nonprofit and charities can be more severe. As, they must perform some kind of due diligence to: ensure that they are not providing any kind of support for terrorist groups. This is problematic, because it means that many of nonprofits and charities will have added expenses to ensure that they are incompliance with the law. Then, they must monitor how they are providing financing to a variety of organizations. To ensure that none of them are front for a terrorist group on the list. At the same time, this will have an effect on the ability of the nonprofits to be able to raise money and explain what kinds of activities they are supporting. Once this begins to take place, it will have consequences on the ability of the nonprofit to address the various challenges that they are facing. This is significant, because it showing how costs will increase dramatically and it will hurt their capacity to raise funds. Over the course of time, this will reduce the effectiveness of the charity to deal with various challenges that are affecting a particular region. (Hun)

In the case of biological factors, this law is designed to target those individual who are from ethnic minorities that are being pursued by repressive governments. The only way that they have the ability to fight back and defend themselves is through joining / supporting terrorist organizations. The reason why, is because there is no other way to effectively address their concerns or issues. As a result, the ruling is directly going after those individuals that are the most vulnerable in many societies (i.e. women, children, the elderly and minorities). As, it is preventing them from: receiving any kind of humanitarian support, which is having an impact on the ability to prevent the crisis from becoming worse. This is significant, because it is showing how the law will have an adverse impact on those individuals who are seeking basic humanitarian support. (Hun)

Views on the Ruling from the Perspective of the Government

From the government's viewpoint, the ruling is a reflection of different factors that are highlighting the overall threats facing the nation. As far as political factors are concerned, this decision is an affirmation for the calls to give law enforcement greater powers in combating terrorism. With many proponents highlighting, how the decision gave them the Constitutional authority and case precedent to pursue anyone who is directly or indirectly supporting terrorism. This is significant, because it is illustrating how the events of September 11th shaped the views of lawmakers and Supreme Court justices. Where, they believed that any person or organization is not entitled to: the same basic protections. This is because of the activities that they are involved in.

In the case of economic factors, this ruling is allowing the government to continue with their anti-terrorism funding. As, they are: providing agencies, cities and states with additional financing to combat terrorism. At the same time, the ruling will allow local officials to protect the different economic interests in an area. This is because many locations will often experience some kind of economic slowdown in the aftermath of a terrorist attack. In order to protect the economic interests of a particular region, law enforcement can use these basic provisions to effectively target terrorists that are focusing on these areas. That being said, this will cause the amounts of spending on security and surveillance to increase.

The biological factors that shaped the decision, is that terrorists are trying to target the nation by any means necessary. This is having an effect on how: they will recruit and train a wide variety of individuals. As a result, the decision is giving law enforcement the power to track and monitor anyone who they believe could be involved in terrorist activities. At the same time, it allowed many government agencies to use controversial tactics such as: racial profiling to identify potential terrorists. ("The Roots of Racial Profiling")