InUnited States law,providing material support for terrorism is acrime prohibited by theUSA PATRIOT Act and codified intitle 18 of the United States Code. Penalties include fines and up to 15 years in prison, per section2339A, and up to 20 years if the convictknows that the organization supported was designated as a "terrorist organization" by the US State Department, per2339B. Moreover, the sentence can be increased to "any term of years" or life "if the death of any person results," where 'the term “person” means any individual or entity capable of holding a legal or beneficial interest in property'.[1] The four types of support described are "training," "expert advice or assistance," "service," and "personnel."
In June 2010, theUnited States Supreme Court upheld the law in an as-applied challenge in the caseHolder v. Humanitarian Law Project, but also left open the door for other as-applied challenges.[2] The defendants in the case had sought to help theKurdistan Workers' Party inTurkey and theLiberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam learn means of peacefully resolving conflicts.[3][4]
The material support provisions have been criticized by rights groups as violating the First Amendment, as they criminalize activities like the distribution of literature, engaging in political advocacy, participating in peace conferences, training in human rights advocacy, and donating money and humanitarian assistance, even when the support is intended only to promote lawful and non-violent activities.[5] The provisions are vague and wide-ranging, and impose guilt by association by punishing people not for their own acts but for the acts of those they have supported.[5] The Secretary of State's power to designate groups as terrorist has also been criticized as being too broad, giving the Executive too much discretionary power to label groups as "terrorist" and criminalize their supporters.[5] The American Civil Liberties Union note that: "Federal 'material support' and conspiracy statutes allow the government to secure convictions without having to show that any specific act of terrorism has taken place, or is being planned, or even that a defendant intended to further terrorism."[6]
David D. Cole, in his bookTerrorism and the Constitution, stated that:
... after lying virtually dormant for its first six years of existence, the material support law has since 9/11 become the Justice Department's most popular charge in antiterrorism cases. The allure is easy to see: convictions under the law require no proof that the defendant engaged in terrorism, aided or abetted terrorism, or conspired to commit terrorism. But what makes the law attractive to prosecutors—its sweeping ambit—is precisely what makes it so dangerous to civil liberties.[7]
ProfessorJeanne Theoharis describes the measures in equally critical terms:
Material support laws are the black box of domestic terrorism prosecutions, a shape-shifting space into which all sorts of constitutionally protected activities can be thrown and classified as suspect, if not criminal. Their vagueness is key. They criminalize guilt by association and often use political and religious beliefs to demonstrate intent and state of mind.[8]
US SenatorPatrick Leahy sent a letter toAttorney GeneralEric Holder andSecretary of StateHillary Clinton regarding humanitarian relief in Somalia in 2011. "I have long urged reform of our laws governing so-called material support for terrorism. The current law is so broad as to be unworkable. Aid workers trying to provide relief to starving Somalis fear they could be prosecuted if some of it were to end up in the hands ofal-Shabaab, an al-Qaeda affiliate that controls parts of Somalia. And so while the situation in Somalia grows more desperate each day, with children dying needlessly, the delivery of food and medicines is hampered, first by al-Shabaab, which is denying access to broad swaths of Somali territory, and secondly, by our overly restrictive laws. The Secretary of State has the power to grant exemptions where the purpose is not to engage in terrorist activity. She should use that authority immediately to ensure aid can reach as many Somalis as possible."[9]
![[icon]](/mt/?noimg=&dark=on&url=http%3a%2f%2fen.m.wikipedia.org%2fwiki%2fFile%3aWiki_letter_w_cropped.svg) | This sectionneeds expansion with: More details & references. You can help byadding missing information.(April 2011) |
The following people have been charged or convicted of providing material support for terrorism under this law.
In September 2010, theFederal Bureau of Investigation raided activists in Minneapolis and Chicago, seizing computers, cell phones and files and issuing subpoenas to some targeted individuals to appear before a federal grand jury. The FBI agents were seeking evidence of ties to foreign terrorist organizations, including theRevolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia and thePopular Front for the Liberation of Palestine.[19][20] Attorneys linked the raids to theHolder v. Humanitarian Law Project decision.[21][22]
in January 2016, social networking serviceTwitter was sued by the widow of a U.S. man killed in theAmman shooting attack, claiming that allowingISIL to use the platform constituted material support of a terrorist organization.[23] The lawsuit was dismissed underSection 230 of theCommunications Decency Act, which dictates that the operators of an interactive computer service are not liable for content published on the service by others.[24]
During theSyrian Civil War a naturalized U.S. citizen ofBosnian origin joinedISIL and died while fighting. In 2015, six Bosnian residents of the U.S. were charged with providing material support for terrorism.[25][26] The six sent funds ranging from $150 to $1,850, and also "U.S. military uniforms, tactical clothes and gear, combat boots, military surplus supplies and other items from businesses in St. Louis" in August 2013.[27][28]
According to the plea agreement, from about March 2000 through at least December 2003, Warsame conspired with others to provide material support to al Qaeda in the form of personnel, training, and currency. Specifically, in March 2000, Warsame traveled to Afghanistan where he attended an al Qaeda training camp outside Kabul. In the summer of 2000, he then traveled to the al Faruq training camp, where he received further training and met Osama Bin Laden. Warsame subsequently worked at an al Qaeda guesthouse and clinic.