The U.S. Supreme Court decision that upholds a ban on all material support to terrorist organizations would likely have meant no IRA ceasefire in Northern Ireland and no Irish peace process.
Chief Justice John Roberts found that any kind of help to a named terrorist organization, even its political wing, would "bolster the terrorist activities of that organization."
That is not necessarily so. Engaging terrorist groups and their supporters in dialogue can actually have the impact of helping end that violent campaign.
There is case history on this in Northern Ireland. If Roberts and other justices had studied what happened to the Irish Republican movement when U.S. supporters and indeed, President Clinton reached out to try and end the violence in the North, they might have come to a very different conclusion.
The American involvement involved a deep dialogue with Sinn Fein, the political wing of the IRA, to try and dissuade them from violence and move them towards a political accommodation.
It also involved the Clinton White House taking a considerable risk even when the IRA campaign was going on by giving a visa to Sinn Fein President Gerry Adams.
Such a move under this new legislation would be virtually impossible in this one size fits all kind of legislation. The Clinton White House role in the visa which led directly to the ceasefire and the Good Friday Agreement, wrought as much by President Clinton’s emissary Senator George Mitchell as any other figure, would simply never have happened.
Irish American supporters knew there was an ongoing discussion within the Irish Republican movement as to the correct way forward, whether to continue the armed campaign or create an entirely new political dimension, involving the non-violent nationalist parties in Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic.
A key persuader in that argument were Irish Americans who engaged with the Republican movement and pointed out to them the immense benefits to be gained if a political alternative was created.
The benefits included access to the U.S., involvement by the president of the United States in the negotiating process, and the ability to have their message heard throughout the world after decades of censorship.
All those arguments proved to be a very important part of the persuading process. Adams later stated that without the American involvement an IRA ceasefire and the subsequent peace process might never have happened.
Under the federal law just upheld by the Supreme Court such activities would have been illegal.
It is clear that negotiation and dialogue will not work in every process involving named terrorist organizations.
The reality, however, is that there is no sense at all in permanently shutting down the opportunity for dialogue for those who support violent means.
As the Northern Ireland peace process shows, such involvement can actually lead to the end of an armed campaign.
Yes, certain terrorist groups are outside the pale, but not all. The world is an infinitely complex place where one man’s terrorist is another one’s freedom fighter.
Within many of those terrorist groups are figure seeking a different way forward.
By shutting down any dialogue with such groups the Supreme Court is committing a major blunder. The example of Ireland is there for all to see.
12 Comments
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Switch to the desktop site to post a comment.haikued2 | Oct 25, 2010, 01:13 PM EDT
The real problem is not defining who we are talking about. The US and Western civilization is at war with RADICAL Islamic fundamentalist terrorists. It makes perfect sense to cut off all funding to those who support them. As far as the broader application of the term "terrorist" it is used as a politically correct way to not name the enemy and people want to apply it even to the men who fought the English in the American Revolution. BUNK
Ulster1 | Aug 25, 2010, 01:44 AM EDT
Because of this writer's logic, I'm starting a fund to send money to the Taliban, to help them rid THEIR COUNTRY of American occupation.
seanomelbourne | Jul 01, 2010, 07:07 PM EDT
Unionist in the north refused to talk or give equal rights to all it's citizens. Peace finally came through the barrel of a gun or as it did in 1921.The Clinton's of the world only picked up the pieces when the hard work was done.
xiyangyang | Jun 29, 2010, 09:34 AM EDT
input this URL: ( w w w , b e t t e r w h o l e s a l e r ,u s ) FREE SHIPPING FREE SHIPPING FREE SHIPPING you can find many cheap and fashion stuff (P90X only 40$$$$,headphones only 20$$$$$) (NBA NFL NHL MLB jersey) only 20$$$$$$ Handbags(Coach,ed hardy,lv,d&g) $$$$$$$$35 Jean(True Religion,ed hardy,coogi) $$$$$$$$$$$30 Sunglasses(Oakey,coach,gucci,Armaini) $$$$$$$$$$$$$12 Nike shox(R4,NZ,OZ,TL1,TL2,TL3) $$$$$$$$$$$$$32 Bikini (Ed hardy,polo) $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$18 FREE SHIPPING FREE SHIPPING FREE SHIPPING WE ACCEPT PYAPAL or CREDIT CARD PAYMENT and FREE SHIPPING YOU MUST NOT MISS IT!!! ==w w w , b e t t e r w h o l e s a l e r , u s === yreyqery5y
Kilsally | Jun 29, 2010, 04:52 AM EDT
Not quite sure the article is accurate in crediting Irish Americans with the peace process rather it was a realisation that the problem was not with the `English` or `British` but rather any settlement had to involve Northern Irish Loyalists / Protestants and that the IRA bombing campaign would neither defeat the British Army, cause a British withdrawal or cause a sudden reversal of opinion amongst Northern Unionists - the only realistic settlement was an internal Northern Irish one between Unionist and Republicans.
seanomelbourne | Jun 26, 2010, 08:09 PM EDT
Southernpride is caught in a 1922 time warp the world has moved on. Back to the point. The U.S. administration allowed low level talks between Mahmud Zahar(Hamas)and state dept. officials Tom Pickering and Rob Malley, do we have a double standard here? the hypocricy is so close it's biting me on the b-um.
dan Breen | Jun 26, 2010, 10:27 AM EDT
Free Puetro Rico................
Buffalobrave | Jun 26, 2010, 07:53 AM EDT
There's always two main ways to reach your goal if you're labeled a terrorist, 1; through dialog, 2; violence. Take away dialog and all that's left is violence.
maireadinmelb | Jun 26, 2010, 03:47 AM EDT
Great isolate people and remove them from dialogue, great way to create more terrorists!!! That will not protect anyone's citizens!! Talk about re-writing history - America the great republic, founded by what in modern terms would be deemed TERRORISM!!
shuvonn | Jun 25, 2010, 08:16 PM EDT
Is that all you ever post southernpride? Same old drivel...
GeorgeDillon | Jun 25, 2010, 01:07 PM EDT
According to these definitions, Mandela was a terrorist. Anyone who helped the African National Congress would have been in breach of the law. It's utterly stupid.
Southernpride | Jun 25, 2010, 10:12 AM EDT
This is how the Irish goverment dealt with IRA terrorists who were killing innocent Irish Catholics in 1922: 27 September – The Free State's Provisional Government puts the "Public Safety Bill" before the Dáil, setting up military courts which allow for the execution of men captured bearing arms against the state and aiding and abetting attacks on state forces. It passes by 48 votes to 18. The Irish Labour Party oppose it. All goverments are responsible for the safety of it's citizens