Dalia Mogahed, Hizb ut-Tahrir Representative Tout Sharia for Women

Dalia Mogahed, a member of President Obama's Advisory Council on Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships, joined a representative of Hizb ut-Tahrir (HT) for a television interview in Great Britain on Sunday.

The Global Muslim Brotherhood Daily Report (GMBDR) noted that Mogahed was interviewed along with Dr. Nasreen Nawaz, women's representative for HT, on the British Muslim show "Muslimah Dilemma," which airs on the Islam Channel. GMBDR described the program as "a show presented by members of Hizb ut-Tahrir" featuring Nawaz "in her capacity as spokesperson" for the group.

In some ways, Mogahed's performance during the 45-minute program (which has been posted to HT's website and can be viewed here) offers a tutorial on how not to make America's case to the Muslim world. Mogahed, who was interviewed by telephone, did not challenge any of the views expressed by Nawaz or HT - including the group's call for establishing an international caliphate and imposition of Islamic law, or sharia, which includes suppression of women's political rights.

Both Mogahed and Nawaz touted the purported benefits of sharia for women. Mogahed, who is executive director of the Gallup Center for Muslim Studies, was asked about a 2005 Gallup survey of Muslim women entitled "What Women Want – Listening to the Voices of Muslim Women." Mogahed's Gallup unit conducted 8,000 face-to-face interviews with women in eight predominantly Muslim countries and reported that many of those women wanted the law to be based on sharia.

The program host noted that "the media" raises issues of "oppression, injustice" and "second-class citizenship" regarding sharia. "Why do you then feel that so many women in your survey specifically support sharia as the source of legislation for their countries in the Muslim world?" the host asked Mogahed.

Mogahed replied that many Muslim women "have a very different understanding of sharia," and they "associate… gender justice or justice for women with sharia compliance, whereas only a small fraction associated oppression of women with compliance with the sharia."

According to Mogahed, the critical issue today is finding ways to integrate sharia and state law in Muslim-majority countries. She said her survey results showed Muslim women wanted equal rights, democracy, and political suffrage. Mogahed said the hijab was not an issue for the women, and that they were most interested in facilitating women's rights and various good-government issues – which in their minds was congruent with sharia.

The Hizb ut-Tahrir representative claimed that sharia "pioneered rights for women" and said women should be involved in politics. When the host asked why sharia barred women from being heads of state, Nawaz defended the ban by belittling the record of Pakistani President Benazir Bhutto, who was murdered by jihadists. Mogahed failed to rebut these assertions.

Islam Television CEO Mohamed Ali Harrath has also been in the news lately – getting the kind of publicity he would rather avoid. The London Times reported that Harrath, who has been advising Scotland Yard on countering Muslim extremism, is wanted by Interpol for his alleged involvement with a Tunisian terrorist group.

Tunisia claims the organization, the Tunisian Islamic Front (TIF), is a jihadist organization. It accuses Harrath, (who says he founded the group as a nonviolent political party) of seeking support from Osama bin Laden. Harrath has been sentenced in absentia to 56 years in prison by Tunisian courts for terrorist-related crimes.

CAIR Frets Over FBI Policies

On September 30, the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) expressed concerns over recently revised and publicly posted FBI Domestic Investigations and Operations Guide (DIOG). Specifically, CAIR complained that a substantial portion of the DIOG was "whited out" and did not disclose the policies covered by that section.

The ACLU is a co-complainer with CAIR in this matter. Michael Macleod-Ball, acting director of its Washington, DC legislative office, stated, "The FBI has considerable authority - and a noted history of abusing that authority. Its investigative powers must have nothing less than clear, bright and easily understood boundaries."

The DIOG is 258 pages of clear, and understandable instructions on how the FBI conducts its domestic investigative and intelligence operations. These policies are replete with admonitions concerning the protection of Constitutional and civil rights. These policies link directly to similar Attorney General guidelines, requiring specific high level FBI headquarters and Department of Justice approval for the FBI to engage in certain kinds of investigative or intelligence gathering operations, including those that target religious organizations or prominent religious figures and prohibiting investigative efforts focused on First Amendment-protected activities.

These are the documented facts. Facts that are conveniently ignored by CAIR and similar Islamist apologist organizations as they seek to have these issues viewed through their muddied perspective.

CAIR contends that Part 16, dealing with "undisclosed participation," covers the use of informants working undercover in mosques. This has been a major issue of contention with CAIR and other Islamist groups, who believe the FBI indiscriminately and unjustifiably sends undercover informants into mosques even when there is no criminal predicate to do so. This issue came to a near boiling point with the arrest by the FBI in southern California of Ahmadullah Niazi, who was charged with immigration fraud stemming from a counter-terrorism investigation. That investigation employed a confidential informant who met with Niazi in a local mosque. As the Investigative Project on Terrorism reported in April, CAIR's concerns did not rightly consider the facts.

CAIR and other Islamist apologists ignore that Part 16 of the DIOG (page 242) pertains in large part to the FBI's role as an intelligence agency and the collection of information related to foreign intelligence. Those intelligence provisions of the DIOG arguably are kept from public release because they deal with the sources and methods of collecting intelligence. It should be noted, however, that "undisclosed participation" operations by the FBI may also be undertaken when the FBI conducts its law enforcement investigations, but only under strictly controlled and approved circumstances.

These operations are clearly authorized by Presidential Executive Order (E.O.), specifically E.O. 12333. The E.O. Subsection related to "undisclosed participation" is also very specific about such operations being undertaken for the purpose of influencing the activities of an organization or its members. Subsection 2.9 states in part:

No such participation may be undertaken for the purpose of influencing the activity of the organization or its members except in cases where:
(a) The participation is undertaken on behalf of the FBI in the course of a lawful investigation; or
(b) The organization concerned is composed primarily of individuals who are not United States persons and is reasonably believed to be acting on behalf of a foreign power.

This provides clear authorization for the FBI to engage in such an operation if it is in the course of a lawful investigation or related to foreign counterintelligence.

The DIOG also clearly addresses how the FBI can pursue investigative operations involving a "Sensitive Investigative Matter" (page 57) that can include religious organizations or prominent members thereof.

5.7. (U) Sensitive Investigative Matter / Academic Nexus / Buckley Amendment
A. (U//FOUO) Sensitive Investigative Matter: An investigative matter involving the activities of a domestic public official or political candidate (involving corruption or a threat to the national security), religious or political organization or individual prominent in such an organization, or news media, or any other matter which, in the judgment of the official authorizing an investigation, should be brought to the attention of FBI Headquarters and other DOJ officials. (AGG-Dom, Part VII.N.)

This policy means that investigative operations targeting religious organizations or prominent religious persons require approval at FBI headquarters and/or the Department of Justice. This approval process requires detailed justification and is subject to several levels of legal review. Such operations cannot legally be undertaken indiscriminately nor without an articulated justification.

These sensitive investigative matters often involve undercover operations, including the kind about which CAIR complains, wherein an informant may be sent into a mosque to gather evidence or intelligence. Part of CAIR's complaint involves what they perceive to be a relatively low standard for the FBI to initiate an "assessment" operation, specifically the wording "no particular factual predication" in the commencement of an assessment operation. An assessment is an inquiry short of a predicated investigation and, per the DIOG (first page of the link), requires an "authorized purpose" and may be carried out to "detect, obtain information about, or prevent or protect against federal crimes or threats to the national security or to collect foreign intelligence. (AGG-Dom, Part II and Part II.A) (U//FOUO) Although "no particular factual predication" is required, the basis of an assessment cannot be arbitrary or groundless speculation, nor can an assessment be based solely on the exercise of First Amendment protected activities or on the race, ethnicity, national origin or religion of the subject."

The DIOG prohibits undercover operations in the conduct of "assessments." Further, assessments conducted relative to foreign intelligence matters must be approved by FBI headquarters.

Those Brotherhood "Conservatives"

Another month, another tale of industrial-scale repair, restructuring or replicating of hymens in the Muslim world. This time, it's the Los Angeles Times' Jeffrey Fleishman and Amro Hassan on the virginity trail. The hot news: a new, $30 "Artificial Virginity Hymen Kit" will buy Egyptian women a gadget to produce enough wedding night blood to prove their purity. No small thing in a jurisdiction where honor killing is the sometime solution to extracurricular deflowerings.

Alas, the Timesmen's enthusiasm for genital mechanics is unmatched by concerns about political manipulation. For Fleishman and Hassan stoke their story with a misleadingly-benign impression of their sources. In doing so, they've inadvertently laundered some of the most sinister radical-Islamic elements in the Egyptian firmament – some of them with a presence in our communities.

Our journos start with the obligatory upset of the arch-radical Muslim Brotherhood (MB) members faced with the predictable moral issues. Except that Fleishman and Hassan don't call them "radical." Instead, we're told the MB folk are "conservatives," a polite handle that might properly describe McCain or Churchill or your uncle in Missouri, assuming your uncle doesn't have the MB's "dying-in-the-path-of-Allah" nailed to his mantelpiece. It's sheer misdirection to pass off the Muslim Brotherhood as mere "conservatives" when they've been recognized as an international extremist, supremacist outfit since their founding by the seethingly anti-Western Hassan al-Banna in 1928.

The article clatters along, promiscuously quoting MB operatives without the least hint that they're attached to a fanatic group that is the mother of worldwide Islamist front organizations whose presence in America and the West is a real and present subversive danger. From there, those identified as Brotherhood reps are supplemented in the article with the supporting views of a source who is palmed off on us as "Farid Ismael, a member of parliament's health committee." Never are we vouchsafed word that Mr. Ismael is, as the quickest Googling shows, a prominent MB agitator.

In similar vein, the Times' piece bows to the opinions of "Egypt's leading Muslim cleric, Mohammed Sayed Tantawi," the grand imam of Al-Azhar University, as though he were a progressive for trying to ban face-veils on religious grounds. Fleishman and Hassan seem unaware that, as Bruce Thornton has revealed, Mr. Tantawi has rather unprogressively condemned Jews as the "descendants of apes and pigs" – also, apparently on religious grounds (Quran 5:60).

Even-handed in his rabidity, Imam Tantawi is said by Egypt's Al-Ahram weekly to have "defined Bahaism as a sacrilegious dogma followed by a deviant sect of atheists" – something else unmentioned by the Times. Missing information and irony, the writers spin Tantawi's Al-Azhar connection as further evidence of his sweet reason, ignoring Al-Azhar's notoriety as a hotbed and headquarters of MB activity.

So, too, with Fleishman and Hassan's reference to Cleric Abdul Moeti Bayouni's demand that sellers of hymen devices be "punished for spreading immorality and sin." There is no mention that Bayouni is connected with the Al-Azhar MB stronghold. Or that, far from his being merely the pre-Victorian rantings of a quaintly-benighted individual, Bayouni might actually be calling for what is frequently understood in the Middle East to be the theologically-correct prescription for immorality and sin: death.

As a great philosopher must surely have said, soft-soaping has consequences. This is especially so when American Brotherhood-front organizations are embarked on charm offensives calculated to extract recognition from a novice U.S. administration that has hardly distinguished itself for its understanding of the cast of international jihadist characters.

What was the Times thinking?

Al Qaradawi Calls for "Day of Rage"

At a press conference in Egypt, radical cleric Yusuf al Qaradawi called on Muslims throughout the world to make Friday, October 9, a "Day of Rage." He urged preachers throughout the Muslim world to focus their Friday sermons on the al Aqsa mosque, where disturbances have taken place recently; and on Jerusalem, which al Qaradawi alleges is subject to a 'Judaization' campaign to clear out the Holy City's Arab inhabitants.

Qaradawi has called for such Days of Rage in the past, including during the Gaza crisis which began last December, when the Danish Muhammad cartoons were published, and when Pope Benedict XVI quoted the anti Islamic sentiments of a Byzantine emperor. Some Western apologists have attempted to explain away "rage" as not particularly threatening. However, in the Quran (a Book Qaradawi memorized many years ago) the word appears about a dozen times, and almost invariably refers to the Wrath of God, such as in the Quranic versions of the stories of Noah's flood and the Golden Calf. In Chapter 20 Verse 81, God Himself says, "On whosoever My Wrath alights, he shall perish indeed."

Furthermore, Qaradawi asserted that Palestine is "the cause of all Muslims in all parts of the world" who are religiously obligated to "liberate the usurped land." He criticized Arab regimes for spending millions of dollar on armaments but not doing anything when "the Zionists … make the blood of Palestinians flow in rivers."

The "spirit of Jihad still exists…awaits the opportunity to set forth on the road to liberate the land of the holy places from the Jewish occupier," according to Qaradawi. He approvingly mentioned a group of young men who came to him expressing their desire for Jihad and 'martyrdom' in Palestine. He advised them to be patient since their countries have "prevented their going to the field of martyrdom in the land of Palestine."

Read IPT's translation of the Arabic news report on Qaradawi's press conference here.

Fighting Terrorist Financing on the Other Side of the Pond

In its inaugural case, the newly established Supreme Court of the United Kingdom heard arguments in a challenge to the nation's counter-terrorist financing policies. The case, A v. Her Majesty's Treasury will provide an opportunity for the Court to consider the narrow question of asset seizures in terrorism investigations as well as the broader issue of controlling Executive branch actions towards terrorist suspects. As Lord Phillips, the head of the new court, explained in discussing the importance of the case:

"It's one of a number of cases which we have had to deal with where there may be a tension of human rights on the one hand and dealing with the challenge of terrorism on the other."

The consolidated appeals in the case were brought by six unnamed individuals who have been designated by the Treasury under the Terrorism Order of 2006, the equivalent of U.S. Executive Order 13224. Similar to American terrorist-financing laws barring financial support for terrorist groups, once designated, a person's assets may be frozen indefinitely.

The appellants in question were designated because of their alleged connection to Al Qaeda and the attackers behind the London bombings. Following a brief administrative hearing, the total assets of each of the men were frozen by the Treasury. They complained that these actions deprived them of their property without notice or an opportunity for a hearing.

Having had his assets frozen, the named appellant, who has since been identified as Mohammed al-Ghabra, challenged the legality of the order. The trial court dismissed the order on the grounds that the order was too vague and there were insufficient procedural safeguards prior to designation. Interestingly enough, these are the same types of grounds upon which U.S. efforts at counter-terrorist financing prosecutions have been challenged and generally upheld.

Upon review, the UK Court of Appeals reversed in a 2-1 decision, rejecting each of the lower court's findings.

Upholding the ability of the Crown to act absent Parliament, the Court of Appeals explained, that the Treasury was simply applying U.N. Security Council policies regarding the suppression of terrorist financing. In particular, the Court relied upon Security Council Resolution 1373, which requires member states to:

"freeze without delay funds and other financial assets or economic resources of persons who commit, or attempt to commit, terrorist acts or participate in or facilitate the commission of terrorist acts…"

Stressing the preventative nature of the CTF regime introduced by the Security Council and the need to prevent acts of terrorism, the court ruled that the Treasury acted appropriately in freezing the assets based on a "reasonable suspicion" that the appellants were engaged in financial and logistical support for Al Qaeda.

The Court of Appeals also rejected the lower court's finding that the use of secret evidence at the asset freeze hearing was improper. In the eyes of the court, rather than completely quash the Terrorist Order as the lower court had done, the proper approach would have been to simply provide effective procedural protections.

Having had each of their arguments struck down by the Court of Appeals, the appellants have asked the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom to reverse the decision and reinstate the trial court decision quashing the Terrorism Order. This is a newly established court, and there is little way to know which direction they will rule. This case is reminiscent of the daily battles that federal prosecutors must fight ensuring that those who provide financial assistance to terrorist organizations are punished. It is certainly interesting to see how other nations have chosen to respond to the spread of terrorist financing. Of even greater importance, however, will be whether this newly formed court will recognize the dangers of these crimes and allow the Treasury to combat it appropriately.

Tracing the Zazi Arrest

New evidence is emerging that New York terror suspect Najibullah Zazi met with senior Al Qaeda operatives, in addition to his training in explosives by members of the organization. A New York Daily News article tracked these new developments and noted that it started with a tip from the CIA. That, the article notes, "sheds more light on the government's claim that the charges against him are part of a broader, international case and begins to explain why the investigation triggered such a large offensive from the nation's intelligence community."

The CIA learned about Zazi in late August from informants in Pakistan and alerted domestic law enforcement of his movements. Zazi had been recruited by Al Qaeda and trained in making bombs from relatively common supplies, potentially for an attack on the New York subway system around the anniversary of the 9/11 attacks. The type of explosives matched the size and scale of a smaller assault which would have still killed scores of people, similar to the type assembled in a foiled July 2005 London subway plot.

In addition to the new details about Zazi's training, officials have put out word that they have identified three of Zazi's accomplices as well as having developed a clearer timeline of their plan. On September 9^th, Zazi drove to New York from Colorado in a rental car, but fled on September 12^th when he heard that authorities were searching for him. The names of Zazi's fellow terrorist have not yet been released.

However, the original, light charges for which Zazi was arrested upset some mainstream Muslim organizations like the Council on American-Islamic Relations. Spokesman Ibrahim Hooper told the New York Times:

"It heightens our concerns about the case because you would expect that if the government's allegations were based on strong evidence, that there would be charges brought based on terror-related evidence, not making false statements."

Contrary to such knee-jerk defenses, this case showed a rapid reaction to a multi-national plot with multiple, sophisticated actors. The collective efforts of the nation's intelligence services and the heightened security monitoring following the arrests is a clear victory in the continuing war on Al Qaeda.

Alumni, Scholar Blast Yale on Mohammed Cartoons

The fallout continues for Yale University after its decision to publish Jytte Klausen's book, The Cartoons That Shook the World, without printing the images of the Prophet Mohammed that are the book's focus. Yale said experts it consulted warned that publishing the images "ran a serious risk of instigating violence."

A group of 44 Yale alumni wrote to President Richard Levin urging that the school reconsiders "its unprecedented censorship."

"Simply stated," the alumni letter said, "Yale must not be the arbiter of what is 'safe' to publish. Such censorship corrodes the intellectual freedom that is the foundation of the entire university community."

Notable signatories include former U.N. representative John R. Bolton, senior associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace Robert Kagan, novelist Matthew Klein, and columnist Diana West. The letter comes on the heels of an announcement by scholar Sarah Ruden that she no longer would accept bids from Yale University Press on her future work. Yale published her translation of The Aeneid last year, but she pledged to take future projects elsewhere:

"This is, first of all, a self-protective move. I don't think there's any coffee good enough that I'd enjoy being told over it that my finished, fully edited manuscript is going to be neutered because of a report I'm not allowed to see without swearing secrecy. Since I write about politics and religion, such a scene is a likely danger for me. But I would urge all authors who are even considering a relationship with the Press to stay away from this non-publisher."

Meanwhile, both Klausen and Kurt Westergaard, who drew one of the now-infamous cartoons, spoke about the controversy last week. According to the Yale Daily News, Klausen tried to shy away from Yale's decision to leave the images out of her book. But in response to audience questions, she acknowledged the move made her "a chapter in my own book," and while the cartoons can be considered offensive, The Cartoons That Shook the World contradicts "the notion that they are taboo or bad and [Muslims] lack the self-control to deal with that."

Yale's Muslim Students Association chapter complained that Westergaard's appearance undermined the school's "commitment to a creating a nurturing learning environment by failing to recognize the religious and racial sensitivity of the issue." Similarly, Council on American-Islamic Relations spokesman Ibrahim Hooper criticized those who hosted Westergaard as engaging in Muslim bashing saying the "are obviously intending to offend Muslims, but we're not going to rise to the bait."

Westergaard told a New York audience that Muslims need to understand that they, like anyone else, are not "free of being mocked or being offended."

The Long Path to Nowhere: Suing State Sponsors of Terrorism

Over the past decade, victims of terrorist attacks have taken to federal courts in an attempt to hold state sponsors of terrorism civilly liable—a practice that has become nothing more than a "meaningless kabuki dance," the chief U.S. District Court judge in Washington writes in a recent opinion. Calling this system of justice a "failed policy," Judge Royce Lamberth called upon Congress and the President to reexamine the laws permitting these suits to consider whether there might be a viable alternative to private litigation.

The Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act ("FSIA") allows foreign governments to be sued if they are engaged in acts of terrorism, either directly or through the provision of "material support or resources." When this law was passed, the popular sentiment was that "terrorism victims were going to 'sue the terrorists out of business.'"

A decade later, hundreds of claims representing thousands of victims have been brought against Iran seeking compensatory and punitive damages for the rogue nation's support for terrorist organizations such as Hamas and Hizballah. The combined results of these suits have been judgments totaling $9 million. As the court points out, however, these are nothing but pyrrhic victories, with victims seldom - if ever - able to recover their damages.

The court's 191-page opinion is dedicated to laying out the substantive hurdles victims of terrorism face, from the technical application of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to more complicated "separation of powers" issues. In the case of Iran, the assets are simply unreachable. Based on a recent estimate, Iranian assets in the United States total $45 million, a mere drop in the bucket compared to the judgments entered against it. As Judge Lambert explained in detailing the problem, courts have tried "with very little success, to locate and attach Iranian government assets in aid of their execution of their civil judgments."

Although the instant opinion dealt solely with the challenges facing victims of terrorism who bring suit under the FSIA, those who file under the Anti-Terrorism Act ("ATA") against individuals who provide "material support or resources" face similar hurdles to enforcing judgments. Just as "the overwhelming majority of successful FSIA plaintiffs with judgments against Iran still have not received the relief," ATA plaintiffs likewise have been denied justice.

In light of these concerns, the court called upon the government, both Congress and the President, to work towards meaningful reform of the FSIA. Although he proposed the creation of an administrative agency-style commission, Judge Lamberth explained that reform should be undertaken by the political branches of government, rather than the courts.

The court properly recognized the need for reform. The current system of justice is simply untenable. As the court warned, "as long as civil litigation is a means by which our political branches choose to redress the harms suffered as a result of terrorism . . . the victims in these cases will continue to be unwitting participants in a meaningless charade."

Appellate Court Upholds Hamas Supporter's Sentence

A Hamas supporter who refused to tell a federal grand jury what he knew about the terrorist group's activities in the U.S. will serve his full 11-year prison sentence for contempt of court and obstruction of justice, an appellate court ruled Friday.

The 7^th Circuit Court of Appeals rejected all claims by Abdelhaleem Ashqar that a federal judge improperly added a "terrorism enhancement" to his sentence in November 2007.

Ashqar argued that the judge should not have considered evidence about his Hamas support because jurors acquitted him of racketeering in his trial. But the opinion from Judge Diane P. Wood dismissed that:

"This argument fundamentally misunderstands the meaning of an acquittal. The jury found not that Ashqar was innocent, but that a reasonable doubt existed about his guilt. Because the district court found Ashqar's intent by a preponderance of the evidence, its finding does not contradict the jury's verdict. Sentencing courts routinely rely on acquitted conduct to increase a defendant's sentence, and this reliance does not violate the Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial."

During his sentencing hearing, Ashqar acknowledged that his refusal to answer grand jury questions, despite a grant of immunity, stemmed from his desire to stay loyal:

"I don't want to become a traitor or collaborator. I don't want to turn against my people."

His appeal also argued that the government had not sufficiently proved his contempt was part of an attempt to promote a terror-related crime. The 7^th Circuit rejected that, too:

"Promoting a crime includes helping and encouraging that crime, and one way of furthering a crime is to try to prevent the government from finding out about it."

Ashqar's cause was championed by a number of Islamist groups in America. The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR)-Chicago blasted the sentence as "excessive" and "politically-motivated." Then-Muslim American Society President Esam Omeish wrote to Judge St. Eve before the sentencing to urge leniency:

"Never at any time did I sense a radical tone and an extremist agenda in his words or actions. He has never and from what I saw can never aide or abet any terrorist or help finance any act of terror, simply because he does not believe in violence and extremism as a way to voice disenfranchisement or disagreement."

Fellow defendant Mohammed Salah, an acknowledged Hamas member, also was acquitted of racketeering. He was sentenced to 22 months in prison after being convicted of lying in a civil suit concerning Hamas support.

High Court Set to Tackle Clarity of Anti-Terror Law

The United States Supreme Court has agreed to review the constitutionality of a statute banning "material support" to terrorists. The case, Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project, et al., is the latest iteration of a decade-long fight brought by groups seeking to provide support services to the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam, a designated Foreign Terrorist Organization.

Both the District Court for the Central District of California and the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit have already held that three components of the statutory definition of material support—"training," "expert advice or assistance," and "service"—are unconstitutionally vague. In asking the Supreme Court to review the lower court's findings, the Justice Department explained that the law "is a vital part of the Nation's effort to fight international terrorism" and that the specific provisions are not unconstitutionally vague. The government's brief explained, "each of these terms has an established meaning and is readily understandable by persons of ordinary intelligence."

Since 2001, the United States has charged approximately 120 defendants with violation of the material support statute. Many of those cases have involved the provisions in question, and more than half of those cases ended in conviction. Although two lower courts have struck down this important anti-terror law, the Supreme Court's grant of certiorari provides an opportunity to clarify that this statute is not only necessary, but lawful.

Although a date hasn't been set for oral arguments yet, the Court will receive written and oral arguments during its current term. In addition to the briefs by the named parties, this case will likely result in a large number of amici briefs on behalf of both the government and the individuals challenging the law.

Newer Postings   |   Older Postings