![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Jul. 11th, 2010
NO PEACE FOR THE WICKED
Jul. 11th, 2010 10:49 amI’ve been meaning to get around to blogging the recent Supreme Court decision on Holder v Humanitarian Law Project. But I needed to do some research into the case first, and I admit I’ve been constantly sidetracked by much more important news stories, like LeBron James’ next team and Lindsay Lohan’s subliminal fingernail messages.
But it’s still worth bringing up.
In essence, the Supremes upheld a federal law that makes it a crime to provide “material support” to foreign terrorist organizations – even if the help takes the form of advice or training for peacefully resolving conflicts.
Which basically means that, in the eyes of the US govt, if you try to engage with terrorist groups for the purposes of convincing them to renounce violence, you are only helping them be non-violent terrorists, and that makes America less safe.
Or something.
I’ve been struggling for over a week trying to think of something to say about this, and have found I can’t do it without writing about 30,000 words. Suffice to say it’s far more complicated issue than the decision makes it look, and it’s one plenty of people may be all too willing to accept at face value because they’ve bought the meme that terrorists are Big and Scary Supermonsters whom no prison can hold, and that the only way to win the War On Teh Terrors is by disproportionate violence, assassinations, gulags and military courts.
Luckily, there are far smarter people than me out there who have summed up my thoughts for me. So I recommend reading this piece from Scott Atran and Robert Axelrod explaining why it’s important to be able to engage at least some terrorist groups.
I also recommend this op-ed from Alternet which does a good job of explaining just how easy it for someone to be arrested for trying to encourage terrorists to stop using terrorism as a tactic.
To be fair, the Supreme majority did explicitly state that in free speech terms, you can write or say anything you want about terrorist groups (as long as yr not inciting violence or breaking obscenity laws, etc). You just can’t say it to them directly.
I’m less worried about that that than I am about the US govt criminalizing a viable tactic to dealing with terrorism out of nothing more than Big Dumb Fear of The Enemy. Which, for my money, is tactically stupid.
It might not be if there was any evidence that the favored alternative – disproportionate violence, assassinations, gulags, military courts, etc – was actually working to reduce the threat of terrorism.
It’s not. Ask Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair if you don’t believe me.
All right. I got that off my chest and I'm ruining yr weekend. Carry on.
We don’t talk anymore,
This is dF
But it’s still worth bringing up.
In essence, the Supremes upheld a federal law that makes it a crime to provide “material support” to foreign terrorist organizations – even if the help takes the form of advice or training for peacefully resolving conflicts.
Which basically means that, in the eyes of the US govt, if you try to engage with terrorist groups for the purposes of convincing them to renounce violence, you are only helping them be non-violent terrorists, and that makes America less safe.
Or something.
I’ve been struggling for over a week trying to think of something to say about this, and have found I can’t do it without writing about 30,000 words. Suffice to say it’s far more complicated issue than the decision makes it look, and it’s one plenty of people may be all too willing to accept at face value because they’ve bought the meme that terrorists are Big and Scary Supermonsters whom no prison can hold, and that the only way to win the War On Teh Terrors is by disproportionate violence, assassinations, gulags and military courts.
Luckily, there are far smarter people than me out there who have summed up my thoughts for me. So I recommend reading this piece from Scott Atran and Robert Axelrod explaining why it’s important to be able to engage at least some terrorist groups.
I also recommend this op-ed from Alternet which does a good job of explaining just how easy it for someone to be arrested for trying to encourage terrorists to stop using terrorism as a tactic.
To be fair, the Supreme majority did explicitly state that in free speech terms, you can write or say anything you want about terrorist groups (as long as yr not inciting violence or breaking obscenity laws, etc). You just can’t say it to them directly.
I’m less worried about that that than I am about the US govt criminalizing a viable tactic to dealing with terrorism out of nothing more than Big Dumb Fear of The Enemy. Which, for my money, is tactically stupid.
It might not be if there was any evidence that the favored alternative – disproportionate violence, assassinations, gulags, military courts, etc – was actually working to reduce the threat of terrorism.
It’s not. Ask Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair if you don’t believe me.
All right. I got that off my chest and I'm ruining yr weekend. Carry on.
We don’t talk anymore,
This is dF
COUNTRY LIFE
Jul. 11th, 2010 02:06 pmO, the things people email me.
That’s the work of Dan DeCarlo, incidentally.
Fire on the mountain,
This is dF
That’s the work of Dan DeCarlo, incidentally.
Fire on the mountain,
This is dF
WHAT UP, DOG?
Jul. 11th, 2010 02:34 pm
I can’t really add anything to this.
Even a dog can shake hands,
This is dF
