fundraising for terrorists

[Allan Adler]

Someone raised the issue with me that some Americans were sending money
to Sinn Fein and that the US government was not preventing them from doing
so, until the events of 9/11/2001 made it necessary for greater cooperation
in such matters. I don't know much about this particular fundraising,
which may have been in part from selling certain newspapers, or about how
unusual it was in comparison with fundraising for terrorist groups in other
countries besides the UK. But I'm interested in certain general legal
questions raised by such a situation.

I'd like to know what authority the US government had, under US law, before
9/11/2001 to prevent groups in the US from collecting money to send to
terrorists in other countries.

One law that occurs to me is the Neutrality Act, about which I know nothing
but which sounds like it would be relevant. But maybe it also matters whether
there was some kind of official finding that the money was going to an
actual group of terrorists, rather than to, say, a political party which
happened to by very sympathetic to the terrorists.

At the other end of the timeline might be the demise of the HUAC, which
might have taken an interest in foreign objectives of domestic groups.
So, if that demise had an effect on the regulation of such fundraising
activities, that would also be good to know.
--
Ignorantly,
Allan Adler <a...@zurich.csail.mit.edu>
* Disclaimer: I am a guest and *not* a member of the MIT CSAIL. My actions and
* comments do not reflect in any way on MIT. Also, I am nowhere near Boston.

[Stan Brown]

Fri, 20 Oct 2006 08:31:21 -0400 from Allan Adler
<a...@nestle.csail.mit.edu>:

> I'd like to know what authority the US government had, under US law, before
> 9/11/2001 to prevent groups in the US from collecting money to send to
> terrorists in other countries.

It may or may not have ha authority to prevent the *collection*, but
it's had authority to prevent the *sending* since 1789. The
Constitution gives Congress the right to regulate commerce with
foreign nations.[1] Sending money to foreigners certainly qualifies.

[1] Art I sec 8, third clause

--
If you e-mail me from a fake address, your fingers will drop off.

I am not a lawyer; this is not legal advice. When you read anything
legal on the net, always verify it on your own, in light of your
particular circumstances. You may also need to consult a lawyer.

Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA
http://OakRoadSystems.com

[Allan Adler]

Stan Brown <the_sta...@fastmail.fm> writes:

> Fri, 20 Oct 2006 08:31:21 -0400 from Allan Adler
> <a...@nestle.csail.mit.edu>:
> > I'd like to know what authority the US government had, under US law, before
> > 9/11/2001 to prevent groups in the US from collecting money to send to
> > terrorists in other countries.
>
> It may or may not have ha authority to prevent the *collection*, but
> it's had authority to prevent the *sending* since 1789. The
> Constitution gives Congress the right to regulate commerce with
> foreign nations.[1] Sending money to foreigners certainly qualifies.
> [1] Art I sec 8, third clause

So Congress could pass a law saying that money can't be sent to a particular
terrorist organization. OK. Congress could also pass a law authorizing the
Executive to create an agency to regulate the sending of funds abroad to
terrorist organizations, including the authority to decide which foreign
organizations are terrorist. I think I understand that.

What about the part of my question that dealt with whether such legislation
was in effect from, say, the 1970's to before 9/11/2001?

[John F. Carr]

In article <0j8pj21j5t3dter3e...@4ax.com>,

Allan Adler <a...@nestle.csail.mit.edu> wrote:
>
>So Congress could pass a law saying that money can't be sent to a particular
>terrorist organization. OK. Congress could also pass a law authorizing the
>Executive to create an agency to regulate the sending of funds abroad to
>terrorist organizations, including the authority to decide which foreign
>organizations are terrorist. I think I understand that.
>
>What about the part of my question that dealt with whether such legislation
>was in effect from, say, the 1970's to before 9/11/2001?

The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996
is the source of the ban on support of designated foreign
terrorist organizations. It is important to realize that
this law applies to a particular list of organizations
maintained by the executive, and the criminal penalties
apply even if designation as a terrorist organization was
incorrect.

The Patriot Act expanded the list of prohibited activities
to include expert advice or assistance. That new clause
was found unconstitutionally vague as applied to at least
one organization.

http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/fs/37191.htm
http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title9/91mcrm.htm
http://www.ruskinmoscou.com/article-USA-patriot-act.htm

--
John Carr (j...@mit.edu)

[David Ames]

Allan Adler wrote:
> Someone raised the issue with me that some Americans were sending money
> to Sinn Fein and that the US government was not preventing them from doing
> so, until the events of 9/11/2001 made it necessary for greater cooperation
> in such matters. I don't know much about this particular fundraising,
> which may have been in part from selling certain newspapers, or about how
> unusual it was in comparison with fundraising for terrorist groups in other
> countries besides the UK. But I'm interested in certain general legal
> questions raised by such a situation.
>

Such cases aare ordinarily prosecuted by the United States Attorney.
The office in your district may or may not offer to discuss matters
with you.

David Ames

[Allan Adler]

j...@mit.edu (John F. Carr) writes:

> The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996
> is the source of the ban on support of designated foreign

> terrorist organizations.[snip]

> The Patriot Act expanded the list of prohibited activities
> to include expert advice or assistance. That new clause
> was found unconstitutionally vague as applied to at least
> one organization.

So, there was no legal basis before 1996?

[Allan Adler]

"David Ames" <world...@juno.com> writes:

I don't understand your answer. I asked about the relevant law prior to
2001 and you talk about the US Attorney and various district offices.
Apples and oranges. Furthermore, your reply doesn't make it clear whether
you are answering my historical question or whether you are giving me
current advice about a present situation you think I might be dealing with.
Let me emphasize that this entire question arose in the context of a discussion
on soc.atheism about the legal status of fundraising in the past (i.e. decades
ago) as it affected Sinn Fein in the UK and other terrorist groups in other
countries. It is entirely historical and largely hypothetical.

Regarding one aspect of my original question that seems not to have been
addressed: what legal challenges might other countries, trying to deal with
terrorist groups, have raised to fundraising for those groups in the US?
Certainly they could discuss the matter with the US government, but, for
example, did they have the option of suing in US courts? Since some fundraising
is not obviously fundraising, e.g. selling a newspaper and sending the proceeds
abroad, this touches on a lot of issues, apart from the fact that the Supreme
Court has held the donation of money to be an instance of free speech.

[John F. Carr]

In article <9ro3k21p7vi43hohf...@4ax.com>,

Allan Adler <a...@nestle.csail.mit.edu> wrote:
>j...@mit.edu (John F. Carr) writes:
>
>> The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996
>> is the source of the ban on support of designated foreign
>> terrorist organizations.[snip]
>> The Patriot Act expanded the list of prohibited activities
>> to include expert advice or assistance. That new clause
>> was found unconstitutionally vague as applied to at least
>> one organization.
>
>So, there was no legal basis before 1996?

This is not an area I know a lot about. Google found this page:

http://www.bordc.org/resources/cole-materialsupport.php

in which the speaker noted the difference between the 1996 AEDPA
provision on support for designated terrorist organizations,
which does not require any intent to support terrorism, and
18 USC 2339A, which requires specific intent to support terrorism.
According to Lexis-Nexis section 2339A was created by the Violent
Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, Pub. L. 103-322, so
it is two years older than the AEDPA.

I don't know what would have been done prior to 1994.
Based on numbering, I would expect section 2339 prohibiting
harboring terrorists to have been enacted prior to 2339A,
but it seems to have been added by the Patriot Act several
years later. Possibly persons could only have been charged
with aiding and abetting terrorism before 1994, under the
general rule of 18 USC 2(a) which makes accessories before
the fact liable for a crime committed by another.

Where I wrote "terrorist" and "terrorism" the law is actually
quite specific and the hypothetical "reasonable person" could
figure out what activities and organizations may be supported.
(But as I wrote, there is uncertainly over what forms of
support are legal.)

--
John Carr (j...@mit.edu)

[Stuart A. Bronstein]

Allan Adler <a...@nestle.csail.mit.edu> wrote:

> I'd like to know what authority the US government had, under US
> law, before 9/11/2001 to prevent groups in the US from collecting
> money to send to terrorists in other countries.

I don't specifically know. But I do know that raising money for the
IRA (which was classified by the British government as a terrorist
organization) was very common, and I never heard of anyone prosecuted
(or even dunked in water) for doing so.

Stu