If the United States government were really serious about reducing terrorism and the attendant human costs, it would have welcomed the acts of the Humanitarian Law Project. In this article by Nat Hentoff entitled Court in Contempt of First Amendment, details the activities of this NGO. He quotes from Justice Breyer's dissent: :
"The plaintiffs, all United States citizens or associations," declare "they can (1) 'train members of the PKK ( the Turkish initials for the Kurdistan People's Party)on how to use humanitarian and international law to peacefully resolve disputes"' (2) "engage in political advocacy on behalf of Kurds who live in Turkey; (3) teach PKK members how to petition various representative bodies such as the United Nations for relief; and (4) engage in political advocacy on behalf of Tamils who live in Sri Lanka."
Obviously, the Humanitarian Law Project is trying to reduce the use of terrorism as a political tactic by training groups in the use of non-violent strategies. One would think that the government, which is spending trillions of dollars on two wars that everyone recognizes are quagmires, would welcome this kind of strategy. Instead, the Obama administration took the organization to court, charging it with material aid to terrorist groups. After a lower court ruled that the statute in question is unconstitutionally vague, the Obama administration directed Eric Holder to take the case to the Supreme Court, which ruled in the Obama administration's favor.
Since not even the Obama administration has claimed that the Humanitarian Law Project advocated violence, the government's agenda in bringing suit is clearly not motivated by national security concerns.
The consequences of this decision are four-fold. First, it clearly limits First Amendment guaranteees of freedom of speech and association, even when their purpose is to reduce terrorism and violence. Secondly, persons violating this provision face up to fifteen years in federal prison for the "crime" of trying to prevent violence and encourage the rule of law, a provision that criminalizes one form of meaningful dissent and reduces us all to writing letters to our congressmen and putting bumper stickers on our cars. Thirdly, it makes meaningful peace work with "enemies" almost impossible. Most importantly, the government's action gives the lie to its claim that its wars are defensive ones designed to reduce terrorism. A government that was serious about reducing terrorism would support the activity of the Humanitarian Law Project, not threaten its members with fifteen-year jail terms.
While I can only guess at the government's motivation, teaching the PKK to use non-violent strategies to attain its ends would boost its credibility as a human rights or liberation movement. This goes against the interest of Turkey which has a large and restive Kurdish population that has clamored for greater autonomy. The entire case is seemingly motivated, not by the desire to reduce terrorism, but by the desire to pacify a close ally that the US hopes to call on for various political favors. What are the favors? No doubt they are military in nature. Turkey is a NATO member and a long-time US ally. Turkey also shares a border with Iran and the US could benefit from cooperation with Turkey if it decides to strike Iran. If that is their motive, that ramifications are chilling. The Obama administration has left the option of bombing Iran "on the table" and is pacifying a potential ally, Turkey, in anticipation of such a strike.
Hope and Change? Not much hope but things certainly have changed.
0 comments:
Post a Comment