Israel Matzav

It cramps his style

On Tuesday, I reported on a United States Supreme Court ruling that defines 'material support' for terrorists as including legal advice and humanitarian aid. America's worst ex-President, Jimmy Carter, is afraid that ruling will cramp his style. (Hat Tip: GOP USA).

In a statement reacting to the decision, Carter said, “We are disappointed that the Supreme Court has upheld a law that inhibits the work of human rights and conflict resolution groups.”

“The ‘material support law’ – which is aimed at putting an end to terrorism – actually threatens our work and the work of many other peacemaking organizations that must interact directly with groups that have engaged in violence,” he said.

“The vague language of the law leaves us wondering if we will be prosecuted for our work to promote peace and freedom.”

...

Carter’s statement was released through the American Civil Liberties Union, which earlier filed a friend-of-the-court brief on behalf of the Carter Center and other organizations involved in human rights and peace-promotion advocacy.

The brief outlined some of the areas where the Carter Center was concerned its work could be affected.

“In the course of resolving or preventing conflicts, Carter Center staff will meet
with violent actors – some of whom may be or may in the future be designated as FTOs – to persuade them to cease violent activity and discuss specific paths to peace,” it said.

Meetings with such groups may include discussions about “peace-facilitating strategies” or advice on their “obligations under international law.”

Some of the groups the center had been engaged with in this capacity included FTOs Hamas and Hezbollah, as well as other group not currently designated as such – the PLO, Fatah, the Lord’s Resistance Army in Uganda, Maoists in Nepal and Sudanese rebels.

“The intent, of course, is to further peace, not terrorism,” the brief said.

During elections in Lebanon and the Palestinian self-ruled territories, Carter Center observers occasionally came in contact with “members of Hezbollah’s or Hamas’ political wing.”

It said the center’s advocacy and advising activity aims to ensure fair elections, but it was not clear whether it could be construed as prohibited “expert advice.”

“Similarly, the Carter Center, in its advocacy efforts to achieve peace between
Palestinians and Israelis, publicly calls for inclusion of Hamas in peace talks because Hamas represents a sizeable portion of the population and the Carter Center believes that true peace is not achievable without their active participation,” the brief said.

“The Carter Center’s advocacy in this regard is intended to ensure an effective peace process and is wholly independent of Hamas. Nonetheless, it is unclear whether even this type of advocacy could be viewed as a prohibited service because it could be construed as action taken ‘for the benefit of’ Hamas as Hamas would presumably derive some benefit from inclusion in the peace process.”

Oh yes, Carter is promoting 'peace and freedom.' Carter's past actions that would likely be prohibited under the Supreme Court ruling include advising Hamas on how to get more ransom for Gilad Shalit, and meeting Hamas politburo chief Khaled Meshaal (the interview at that link is a doozer).

By the way, in my previous post on this subject I questioned how Elena Kagan might vote if she becomes a Supreme Court justice and if this issue were to be presented again. Obviously, lawyers sometimes take positions in which they don't believe for their clients, but for what it's worth, Kagan was the Solicitor General who argued this case before the Supreme Court on behalf of the government.

posted by Carl in Jerusalem @ 1:17 PM