Supreme Court bars any support to U.S.-designated terrorists; Jimmy Carter and other leftists think it will crimp their style

The US Supreme Court has put international humanitarian workers on notice that any assistance to a US-designated terrorist group could land them in an American prison.

On Monday, the high court upheld a federal law that outlaws providing “material support” to any group on a State Department list of terrorist organizations.

The prohibition extends beyond knowingly facilitating illegal operations. The law – part of the USA Patriot Act – makes it a federal crime to provide any help or support to a terror group – even support designed to teach a violent group how to use legal and peaceful means to achieve political change.

Violators face up to 15 years in prison.

Organizations and individuals involved in international peace and humanitarian efforts expressed disappointment with Monday’s ruling.

“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,” said former President Jimmy Carter, founder of the Carter Center.

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

The 36-page majority opinion, written by Chief Justice John Roberts, says that Congress intended to establish a broad prohibition against any assistance to terrorist organizations. To prove a violation, prosecutors must show that the individual providing the help or support knew the receiving group was on the US terror list or was an organization that had engaged in terrorist activities.

Justice Stephen Breyer and two other justices dissented, arguing that the statute’s scope was narrower than the majority had found. The law should apply only when the assistance facilitates an illegal act by a terrorist group, Justice Breyer wrote.

Politics requires stagecraft, and stagecraft requires a terrorist trial in New York in 2010

Actually, this is a clever maneuver that is unrelated to legal issues. This is a counter-attack against the notion that Barack Obama is soft on terror and a closet sympathizer with Islamists.

If that accusation were to gain traction, it would damage Democrat prospects in the 2010 election.

The court maneuver also may explain the passage of time, with nothing much happening on the 9/11 terrorist front. The Obama administration can now see to it that a hanging judge is appointed (good luck in finding one of those in New York) to preside over the trial of Kahlid Sheikh Mohammed. Once the guilty verdict has been delivered, the administration will demand quick execution.

As all of this plays out, the 2010 election campaign will come and go. The voters will make their judgments. Mission accomplished.

Obama will be seen as a player. If he had simply allowed all of the terrorist trials to advance to military tribunals, Obama would not have been seen as a player. Instead, he would have been seen as a bystander,  uninvolved in the judgment and punishment process.

As a player, Obama can at least weaken the soft-on-terrorism vibe. It will not gain traction as a snarling Obama team calls for blood.

In politics, as in theater, timing is everything. The stagecraft here is impressive.

The thing to look for is the end of the trial. August or September would be ideal. Execution of Mohammed on the eve of the election would be too much to expect, but not out of the question.