According to David Cole, a lawyer for the organizations and individuals who challenged the law, the Court’s decision allowed for, “human rights advocates, providing training and assistance in the nonviolent resolution of disputes, can be prosecuted as terrorists,” (Egelko, The Chronicle).

Background: 

The Supreme Court’s June ruling was an extension of already existing bans on “material support” for foreign terrorists that began under Clinton in 1996 and was expanded by Bush in 2001 with the USA Patriot Act.  The parties in this specific case were HOLDER, ATTORNEY GENERAL, ET AL. v. HUMANITARIAN LAW PROJECT ET AL., with the plaintiffs case reading as follows:

As the litigation now stands, plaintiffs challenge §2339B’s prohibition on providing four types of material support—“training,” “expert advice or assistance,” “service,” and “personnel”—asserting violations of the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause on the ground that the statutory terms are impermissibly vague, and violations of their First Amendment rights to freedom of speech and association. They claim that §2339B is invalid to the extent it prohibits them from engaging in certain specified activities, including training PKK members to use international law to resolve disputes peacefully; teaching PKK members to petition the United Nations and other representative bodies for relief; and engaging in political advocacy on behalf of Kurds living in Turkey and Tamils living in Sri Lanka.

Two sides to every story:

On one side we have those who rebuke the Court’s ruling and fear its negative repercussions, such as former US President Jimmy Carter, whose own organization that has had to interact with US designated terrorist group Hamas in its Mideast diplomatic efforts, could come into question.  Carter has commented that the ruling, “threatens our work and the work of many other peacemaking organizations that must interact directly with groups that have engaged in violence,” (Egelko, The Chronicle).

On the other side we have those who take the more pragmatic perspective and see the Court’s ruling as positive in the way of shutting off channels of support, whether explicit or implicit and intentional or not, to terrorists.  Putting a burden of proof on NGOs and civil society actors to prove or ensure where and how their aid is being utilized in an attempt to proactively negate negative consequences of any kind of aid to these groups.  Annemarie McAvoy, a Fordham law professor and former federal prosecuter, articulated this point of view when she stated that, “by helping the terrorists, even tangentially, they’re freeing up the terrorists to focus on other things, such as violent attacks,” (Egelko, The Chronicle)  This sentiment was mirrored in the stance and comments of Solicitor General Elena Kagan (Obama’s current nominee to the court) that, “what congress decided is that when you help Hezbollah build homes, you are also helping Hezbollah build bombs,” (Egelko, The Chronicle).

Discussion:

Is the world so black and white?  Does civil society participation and assistance towards advocacy and training in the use of international law to resolve disputes peacefully and non-violently, the peaceful teaching of international human rights law, and advising on petitioning to the United Nations and other representative bodies for relief, really amount to “material support” of terrorists? 

When our class, Peacemaking and Peacebuilding, discussed this issue one of the comments made by a student during the discussion was that, when has ignoring a group or non-engagement with a group, terrorist or not, solved anything, besides cutting off dialogue?

Some of my own questions and those raised by other students in dialogue with our professor regarded:

The creation and expansion of “the other”—are we in the US making all other, the other?

Ghosts of McCarthyism—is the US defining a narrow black and white in global politics and affairs, in humanitarian assistance, and in peacemaking and peacebuilding?

Who can and does define “terrorism” and “terrorists”—is systemic and structurally entrenched monoculturalism at play in the Global War on Terror and its subsequent policies?

When all else fails—is this further security measure necessary to put the burden on organizations and individuals to prove the authenticity, legality, and constructiveness of their work, in order to take the world one step closer to safety from terrorists?

The question lurking in my mind regarding the Court’s ruling is, will these restrictions on “material support” via organizations and private individuals be applied equitably?  Or, will only the grassroots organizations and projects attempting to give legitimate aid suffer, while those with a recognizable name and friend on Capitol Hill find the convenient loopholes to slip through?

Furthermore, when this discussion came up in our class, October 26^th, our professor couldn’t help asking us why when he first introduced this Supreme Court case and ruling to us the week prior, none of us had even heard of it?  Why had we, as global affairs students studying and keeping on the verge of international news, failed to notice this issue that occurred over the summer, which is significant to activities and participation in our field?  It is apparent that the Supreme Court’s ruling in Holder vs. Humanitarian Law Project has struck a chord of fear with NGOs and civil society who engage in peacemaking, peacebuilding, and conflict resolution, management and transformation, but what could the broader implications of such restrictions be? 

Will Big Brother bully out those truly interested in helping make the world a more peaceful place, or will civil society rally and enlighten the powers that be regarding the futility of estranging constructive peace efforts?

For further information regarding this Supreme Court case and the debate it has sparked please take a look at:

“The Supreme Court goes too far in the name of fighting terrorism.”  The Washington Post © 1996-2010.  22 June 2010.  http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06/21/AR2010062104267.html. 

Price, Michael.  “National Security Watch: Mens Rea and Material Support of Terrorism.”  The Champion Magazine; The National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers (NACDL).  August 2010.  http://www.nacdl.org/public.nsf/01c1e7698280d20385256d0b00789923/ae3a72c354740766852577c100550278?OpenDocument. 

The Humanitarian Law Project,  http://hlp.home.igc.org/ .  (Related headlines and articles).

IQ2’s blurb:

It could be the greatest strategic irony of the last twenty years: the American lead in digital technologies – upon which our financial, communications and defense systems are built, and on which they depend – may also represent a serious American Achilles heel. The sophistication of our mobile phone networks, of the GPS system that guides air traffic, even of the networked command-and-control that drives our power grids, may be without rival. But it also provides one great big and sprawling target to enemies determined to discover the choke points that can cripple us in a time of war.

At least that’s the scenario as described in various, and increasingly alarmed media accounts, especially in the wake of incidents like the hacking of Google last year, by digital assailants often described (without clear confirmation) as being based in China. It’s indeed alarming, to contemplate fighting the next war with both hands tied behind our backs because a canny enemy figured out how to shut us down electronically.

Alarming – but possibly, also, alarmist? Can we really be that vulnerable? Is our digital undergirding really that exposed, especially given that the Internet itself – the foundation of all this critical connectedness – was itself initially developed as a military undertaking? Even if our enemies – state enemies or terrorists – manage to cause damage in one corner of American cyberspace, don’t we have enough redundancy built in to protect us? As one technology writer has put it, this is one of those topics where the internet press likes to get worked up into a lot of “heavy breathing.”

So which is it? Are we at existential risk in the event of a well coordinated cyber attack, and if so, are we taking measures to protect ourselves? Or will the first cyber war be a war we are already positioned not only to survive, but to win?

First, Iran’s nuclear program and military capabilities are of great concern for Saudi Arabia as the Saudis’ armed forces are far from being able to challenge Iran.

Second, the situation in Iraq is a threat to Saudi Arabia stability as unstable, not unified and still under U.S. occupation.

Third, the current fighting on the Yemeni border with the Shia Houthis separatists is a challenge to Saudi Arabia national security. Furthermore, the President of Yemen warned that if calls for separation continue a new civil war could take place, which would result, according to him, not just be a simple division between the north and the south but would be a division between villages and states. Moreover, early 2009, Al Qaeda announced the merger of its Saudi and Yemeni branches in Yemen, raising the alarm of counterterrorist agencies, fearing that Yemen may become a terrorist safe haven, adding even more pressure on Saudi Arabia.

Four, Saudi Arabia is facing continuing instability in the Red Sea Area, such as the radical Sudan and the failed state of Somalia.

Finally, Saudi Arabia depends on the United States for its security and is an important source of trade and technology. However, some Muslims countries have strong views on this close cooperation, given the United States policies in the Middle East, from Israel to Iraq, which impede the kingdom wide range of action in the region.

Therefore, Saudi Arabia needs to play a crucial role in the region to achieve its number one priority: national security, which would ensure the legitimacy of the regime — its number two priority — while preserving its position as world leading exporter of petroleum — the Kingdom’s third priority.

1. Chubin S. “Iran’s Nuclear Ambitions” Carnegie Endowment, Washington DC, 2006, P.16
2. Ibid
3. Ibid
4. Byman, D, Iran’s Security Policy in the Post Revolutionary Era, Rand Corp., Santa Monica, 2001, p.8
5. (Chubin, 2006, p.113)
6. James M. Lindsay, Ray Takeyh “After Iran Gets the Bomb” Foreign Affairs, March/April 2010, p.36-38
7. (James M. Lindsay and Ray Takeyh, 2010, p.38)

After that, be sure to check out Fallows’s blog entry on the same subject rounding up reactions to the imagery of a “digital Pearl Harbor” and whether or not that really is a valid concern (a topic about which I’ve previously expressed my own skepticism but is something well worth discussing).

This is not a new criticism. But even if you take out the digital aspect of this new tide in warfare, criticisms against the U.S.’s approach to security operations and conflict still seem to suggest that the American military is slow to adapt. We still have the latest technology, the biggest guns, and thousands of nuclear warheads that can destroy that world several times over. Yet, in the “War Issue” of Foreign Policy magazine released just today, a commentary on the U.S.’s lack of understanding of networking stings:

“…the United States is spending huge amounts of money in ways that are actually making Americans less secure, not only against irregular insurgents, but also against smart countries building different sorts of militaries. And the problem goes well beyond weapons and other high-tech items. What’s missing most of all from the U.S. military’s arsenal is a deep understanding of networking, the loose but lively interconnection between people that creates and brings a new kind of collective intelligence, power, and purpose to bear — for good and ill.

Civil society movements around the world have taken to networking in ways that have done far more to advance the cause of freedom than the U.S. military’s problematic efforts to bring democracy to Iraq and Afghanistan at gunpoint. As for “uncivil society,” terrorists and transnational criminals have embraced connectivity to coordinate global operations in ways that simply were not possible in the past. Before the Internet and the World Wide Web, a terrorist network operating cohesively in more than 60 countries could not have existed. Today, a world full of Umar Farouk Abdulmutallabs awaits — and not all of them will fail.”

The rest of the issue looks to be an intriguing read on the shifting tides in modern war. But perhaps even this one critique is myopic still. Unrestricted Warfare, a 1999 best-selling book in China and a heavy influence on the People’s Liberation Army, advocated this approach to war in the modern age:

“War which has undergone the changes of modern technology and the market system will be launched even more in atypical forms. In other words, while we are seeing a relative reduction in military violence, at the same time we definitely are seeing an increase in political, economic, and technological violence. However, regardless of the form the violence takes, war is war, and a change in the external appearance does not keep any war from abiding by the principles of war.

If we acknowledge that the new principles of war are no longer ‘using armed force to compel the enemy to submit to one’s will,’ but rather are ‘using all means, including armed force or non-armed force, military and non-military, and lethal and non-lethal means to compel the enemy to accept one’s interests.’”

Perhaps this is what we really should be preparing for.

Thirty years ago this Christmas Eve will be the anniversary of the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. It’s interesting to think that the United States will succeed where the Soviets failed. Newsweek has an interesting article on avoiding making the same Soviet mistakes. Questions abound: How much has changed in Afghanistan in those 30 years? Is the US that much better of a military? — among many others. Personally, I feel that history will repeat itself, and will simply show that Afghans may fight amongst themselves, but will band together should an outsider intrude.

An old adage states, “Never fight a land war in Asia.” Never has this been more accurate. Afghanistan is a mysterious and complicated society where foreign militaries have consistently failed.

I agree that the U.S. military is easily the most successful, powerful and professional in history. That does not mean, however, that it will be capable of fixing every situation and being successful in every mission it undertakes. I would love nothing more to see the US succeed in Afghanistan, yet we can’t want it more than the Afghanis do. Top-down and outside-influenced democracy isn’t generally successful. Afghanis need to find their own way through political, economic and democratic development. Such an indigenous path makes it more likely that the final decision will stick.

The Soviets spent years trying to subdue the Afghanis and install a communist government. Eventually, they decided that it just wasn’t worth the time, money and effort. Will the U.S. break the Afghan curse or will we simply join the Soviets as yet another failed occupier?

I would like to be cautiously optimistic about this new campaign/escalation/surge, but deep down I just don’t believe history is on our side. As good as the intentions are of President Obama, he can’t make the U.S. military or the Afghani population make this work out. Only they can come to that conclusion and figure out a way to move forward. The U.S. military is undoubtedly one of the most (if not the most) successful military in history, yet it can’t fix a problem that isn’t solely a military one. Building social cohesion, creating infrastructure and institutions, and providing the stable, transparent government is not traditionally a military role. That’s not to say the military can’t help, just that personnel aren’t always prepared for the civil society role.

The problem for me and many others is just how the U.S. can justify its continued involvement in Afghanistan when there is rampant corruption and ties to the drug trade (see previous entries on this subject). According to Newsweek, the plot is even thicker since Afghan drug money is now tied to Dubai. It is very difficult, even in the best of circumstances, to defend and support a government that is one of the most corrupt in the world and is essentially a narcostate. I fear that very little good will actually come from this, with good money being poured after bad.

One other major issue is the publication of a possible withdrawal date. While it’s smart to have an exit strategy in the works, but announcing it out of the gate will most likely make things that much more complicated. It also doesn’t help to have an opposition party ready and willing to pounce on any decision Obama makes, good, bad or indifferent. Opposition is great when it’s healthy, but in some cases it has been disingenuous. Many of these politicians were unquestioning of “questionable” policies 7 or 8 years ago, and yet now the fine-tuning of said policies is a major issue.

Apparently, only time will tell whether or not Obama made the right decision or if history will simply repeat itself in Afghanistan.

Cyber warfare is a fascinating topic, mainly because it’s new, mysterious, and potentially could inflict damage comparable to that of a nuclear weapon. Few need to be reminded of the security threats that our increasing inter-connectedness exposes us to on a daily basis: online fraud, identity theft, invasions of privacy, accidentally revealing embarrassing music tastes on Facebook, the list goes on. And because of the nature of the Internet, all of these criminal activities operate internationally, and often in complex yet organized rings. But more sinister cyber attacks have cropped up in recent years — take Estonia’s three-week outage by a denial-of-service attack in 2007. Hackers targeted several government and commercial websites during a conflict between Estonia and Russia, at times “vandalizing” sites with images or altered text. The commercial transactions lost by the DDoS attacks resulted in millions of dollars worth of economic damage.

Denial-of-service attacks are fairly common, and have been a frequent tool in political and international conflicts. DDoS attacks were also used in the conflict between Georgia and Russia over South Ossetia, and in various skirmishes between Israeli and Palestinian groups.

Cyber warfare is becoming an increasingly attractive tool for the tech-savvy and the aggravated, no doubt. Hacking is a huge problem, and so is privacy and security. The more problematic feature for me is when the discussion turns to an end-of-the-world scenario — namely, if cyber attacks are used to bring down a city’s power grid, or water system. From the 60 Minutes report:

“Do we believe that there are, the governments have planted code in the power grid?” Kroft asked.

“Steve, I would be shocked if we were in a situation where tools and capabilities and techniques have not been left in U.S. computer and information systems,” McConnell said.

Of all the critical components in the U.S. infrastructure, the power grid is one of the most vulnerable to cyber attack. The U.S. government has control of its own computers and those of the military. The power grid, which is run and regulated by private utilities, is unbeholden to government security decrees.

The idea of a group of angry yet sophisticated acne-laden teenagers (after all, many of today’s modern hackers are teenage boys) clicking away to bring down an entire power grid is terrifying, to say the least. But how realistic is it? The problem is that few of us are technologically sound enough to understand both the possibilities of hacking and the security design of something like a power grid, leaving us only to trust a handful of “experts” in news stories. Will the cyber warfare discussion evolve into a Cold War-esque nuclear scare as it becomes more and more of a possibility? Surely we have learned by now that fear can’t take priority over hard, verifiable facts. So before we all start doing safety drills under our desks, let’s dig for more information first.