Hosts Celeste Carey and Cecil Prescod speak with Stephen Vladeck, Professor at Washington College of Law, American University about "Free Speech, Peacemakers and the Supreme Court."
On Tuesday, Feb. 23, the Supreme Court heard a one hour oral argument for Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project (HLP) to determine whether several key terms in the definition of prohibited material support of terrorism violate the First and Fifth amendments. The case marks the first ever challenge to the Patriot Act at the Supreme Court level and addresses the overbroad scope of the prohibition on "material support" to listed terrorist organizations, which effectively criminalizes peacebuilding programs of U.S. organizations in conflict zones around the world.
Stephen I. Vladeck is a Professor of Law at American University Washington College of Law, where his teaching and research focus on federal jurisdiction, national security law, constitutional law (especially the separation of powers), and international criminal law. A nationally recognized expert on the role of the federal courts in the war on terrorism, he was part of the legal team that successfully challenged the Bush Administration’s use of military tribunals at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, 548 U.S. 557 (2006), and has co-authored amicus briefs in a host of other lawsuits challenging the U.S. government’s surveillance and detention of terrorism suspects. Vladeck has also drafted reports on related issues for a number of organizations, including the First Amendment Center, the Constitution Project, and the ABA’s Standing Committee on Law and National Security, and he is a senior editor of the peer-reviewed Journal of National Security Law and Policy.
Vladeck is a regular contributor to PrawfsBlawg http://www.prawfs.com, and National Security Advisors (http://www.natseclaw.com); is the Chair of the Association of American Law Schools’ Section on National Security Law, and Chair-Elect of the Section on New Law Professors; and is admitted to practice in the State of New York, Third Department.
Comments
Who's the Terrorist?
Thanks for a fascinating discussion. I'd like to add my point of view as an international observer of the 2006 Palestinian Legislative elections. Although there were nine political parties involved in that process, seven of whom won seats, the world media boiled it down to a contest between Hamas, branded by the State Dept. as terrorists, and Fatah, gifted by the US with a $1.5 Million contribution in violation of Palestinian law.The contest was much more varied and subtle. I frequently heard representatives of both Hamas and Fatah, often sitting in the same room, say that whatever the outcome of the elections, all Palestinians were united in opposition to Zionism and support of the right of the Palestinian people to a home. Both of these parties has an armed wing; Fatah's was slightly larger. Hamas was more popular because they had active charitable services and because Fatah was seen as having been corrupted by US money.Of course Hamas won more seats in the election, which was judged to be free and fair by all observers, and most of their elected leaders have since been arrested by Israel. There is a popular song in Palestine that asks the question "Who is the terrorist?" Most people in the Middle East believe the US and Israel are terrorist states.