The Perils of Charity

What recent events tell us is that what something is called has substantive repercussions far greater than one might think. Consider “foreign terrorist organization”. It has been in the news because of a recent case that the Supreme Court refused to hear shortly after the first of this year. It involves a 1996 statute with the catchy name of the “Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act.”

The second half of the name has nothing to do with improving on the botched executions that have been the hallmark of recent efforts to rid us of the unwanted. It has to do with expediting their entry into the death chamber where society’s retribution is exacted. Habeas corpus is the writ whereby those in prison challenge their detention. The “effective death penalty” part of the act restricts the right of prisoners to petition for habeas corpus.

The first part of the act’s name refers to the fact that the act makes it a crime to give financial or other material support to a “foreign terrorist organization”. Under the Act the Secretary of State may designate an entity a “foreign terrorist organization”. The designation can be permanent and anyone convicted of contributing to such a charity (even before it has been so designated) may be sentenced to up to 15 years in prison. A designated terrorist organization may challenge its designation in court but a donor prosecuted for supporting the organization cannot.

The prosecution the Supreme Court refused to review is especially ironic because the defendants are seven donors who gave money to an organization that supports Mr. Bush’s goal of bringing down the Iranian government. They gave money to the People’s Mojahedin of Iran which was designated a terrorist organization in 1997 before Iran joined the Axis of Evil. In 1999 a federal court said the designation had been improperly made and the folks who had been giving it money could not be prosecuted since the recipient of the money was not properly designated a terrorist organization. No problem said the government. Since the fault lay in how the People’s Mojahedin had been designated, the state department redesignated it and, voila, the seven contributors were once again charged with violating the law.

At first blush that seems a little bit like what lawyers might call ex post facto. If for example, a pastor or priest under the jurisdiction of a foreign potentate were found to have been a sexual predator, the Secretary of State might conclude that particular parish was a terrorist organization (which as far as the young children involved were concerned it was) and prosecute all its parishioners who put money in the collection plate on Sundays. The foreign primate could challenge the designation but the individual parishioner could not. If the appeal were unsuccessful, the parishioners might find themselves in prayerful poses in jail cells for up to 15 years.

And so it is that the seven defendants in the case of Rahmani v. United States were disappointed when on January 8, 2007, the United States Supreme Court declined to hear their appeal attacking the designation of a group they had supported before it was properly designated a “terrorist organization.” They were supported in their appeal not only by ordinary people who agree with their goal of bringing down the current Iranian government. They were also supported by the Iran Human Rights and Democracy Caucus of the House of Representatives that described the organization as “the primary opposition group in Iran” and “a legitimate political resistance movement that seeks a transition from the current theocratic regime to a secular democracy”. The group’s brief said the People’s Mojahedin was not the kind of organization Congress had in mind when it passed the Act. The caucus includes such luminaries in the House of Representatives as Tom Tancredo from Colorado who rarely takes any public position that is not an embarrassment to his home state. This might be the one exception to that rule.

Thanks to the Supreme Court’s lack of action, here is the law of George Bush’s land. Anyone can be prosecuted and sent to prison for up to 15 years for supporting what the Secretary of State has designated a “terrorist organization” because, as the Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit said: “It does not matter whether the designation is correct or not”. Judge Alex Kozinski who wrote for the dissenters observed that the defendants were prosecuted “for giving money to an organization that no one other than some obscure mandarin in the bowels of the State Department had determined to be a terrorist organization.” The dissenters got it right. The majority got it wrong. The donors may get to go to jail.

CHRISTOPHER BRAUCHLI is a lawyer in Boulder, Colorado. He can be reached at: Brauchli.56@post.harvard.edu. Visit his website: http://hraos.com/



More articles by:

December 17, 2018
Susan Abulhawa
Marc Lamont Hill’s Detractors are the True Anti-Semites
Jake Palmer
Viktor Orban, Trump and the Populist Battle Over Public Space
Martha Rosenberg
Big Pharma Fights Proposal to Keep It From Looting Medicare
David Rosen
December 17th: International Day to End Violence against Sex Workers
Binoy Kampmark
The Case that Dare Not Speak Its Name: the Conviction of Cardinal Pell
Dave Lindorff
Making Trump and Other Climate Criminals Pay
Bill Martin
Seeing Yellow
Julian Vigo
The World Google Controls and Surveillance Capitalism
What is Neoliberalism?
James Haught
Evangelicals Vote, “Nones” Falter
Martin Billheimer
Late Year’s Hits for the Hanging Sock
Weekend Edition
December 14, 2018
Friday - Sunday
Andrew Levine
A Tale of Two Cities
Peter Linebaugh
The Significance of The Common Wind
Bruce E. Levine
The Ketamine Chorus: NYT Trumpets New Anti-Suicide Drug
Jeffrey St. Clair
Roaming Charges: Fathers and Sons, Bushes and Bin Ladens
Kathy Deacon
Coffee, Social Stratification and the Retail Sector in a Small Maritime Village
Nick Pemberton
Praise For America’s Second Leading Intellectual
Robert Hunziker
The Yellow Vest Insurgency – What’s Next?
Patrick Cockburn
The Yemeni Dead: Six Times Higher Than Previously Reported
Nick Alexandrov
George H. W. Bush: Another Eulogy
Brian Cloughley
Principles and Morality Versus Cash and Profit? No Contest
Michael F. Duggan
Climate Change and the Limits of Reason
Victor Grossman
Sighs of Relief in Germany
Ron Jacobs
A Propagandist of Privatization
Robert Fantina
What Does Beto Have Against the Palestinians?
Richard Falk – Daniel Falcone
Sartre, Said, Chomsky and the Meaning of the Public Intellectual
Andrew Glikson
Crimes Against the Earth
Robert Fisk
The Parasitic Relationship Between Power and the American Media
Stephen Cooper
When Will Journalism Grapple With the Ethics of Interviewing Mentally Ill Arrestees?
Jill Richardson
A War on Science, Morals and Law
Ron Jacobs
A Propagandist of Privatization
Evaggelos Vallianatos
It’s Not Easy Being Greek
Nomi Prins 
The Inequality Gap on a Planet Growing More Extreme
John W. Whitehead
Know Your Rights or You Will Lose Them
David Swanson
The Abolition of War Requires New Thoughts, Words, and Actions
J.P. Linstroth
Primates Are Us
Bill Willers
The War Against Cash
Jonah Raskin
Doris Lessing: What’s There to Celebrate?
Ralph Nader
Are the New Congressional Progressives Real? Use These Yardsticks to Find Out
Binoy Kampmark
William Blum: Anti-Imperial Advocate
Medea Benjamin – Alice Slater
Green New Deal Advocates Should Address Militarism
John Feffer
Review: Season 2 of Trump Presidency
Rich Whitney
General Motors’ Factories Should Not Be Closed. They Should Be Turned Over to the Workers
Christopher Brauchli
Deported for Christmas
Kerri Kennedy
This Holiday Season, I’m Standing With Migrants