But after a conversation last night wherein I was asked my opinion on the issue, I got to thinking seriously about it again. I've come to my senses and remembered that I don't trust my government to act in a manner that is either sensible nor logical, and I hold no hope that this will get properly sorted out on its own.
For those of you who haven't come across this yet, here's the dish. The material support clause is included in the Patriot Act as follows (taken from wikipedia:
...to commit an act that the actor knows, or reasonably should know, affords material support, including a safe house, transportation, communications, funds, transfer of funds or other material financial benefit, false documentation or identification, weapons (including chemical, biological, or radiological weapons), explosives, or training:
(aa) for the commission of a terrorist activity;
(bb) to any individual who the actor knows, or reasonably should know, has committed or plans to commit a terrorist activity;
(cc) to a terrorist organization described in Clause (vi)(I) or (vi)(II); or
(dd) to a terrorist organization described in Clause (vi)(III), unless the actor can demonstrate that he did not know, and should not reasonably have known, that the act would further the organization’s terrorist activity.
The clause is illogical for many reasons, and its application has led to controversy on other occasions as it simply leaves to much room for interepretation, and has led to people being punished for associating with people who may have committed acts of terrorism.
But, it gets even worse as it has been applied to those seeking asylum. I think this little bit from a report of the Refugee Council USA accurately describes and illustrates the absurdity:
...the "material support" bar to admissibility has been applied to ethnic minority refugees and asylum seekers from Burma, many of whom are fleeing religious persecution. These refugees have been denied protection because they have contributed to ethnic and religious organization that my be associated with sub-groups that oppose the repressive Burmese authorities. While these parent groups and sub-groups are not designated by the State Department as FTOs [terrorist organizations], the activities of certian associated sub-groups that advocate the overthrow of the military rulers of Burma have been construed as "terrorist activity" as broadly interpreted from the INA definition modified by the Real ID Act.
A few of the articles out there have stated that certain groups have been labeled as terrorist organisations, but I think its vital to point out that they haven't actually. Technically, there are no groups in Burma which are designated as terrorist groups, although if you follow the INA's definition, the Burmese Junta does fit the bill. In fact, so does the US government.
There are, however, so many things wrong with this situation. The matter is and has been researched and discussed by various organizations and lawyers - with a Harvard team visiting Malaysia and Thailand in February to research the impact of this situation on refugees, so it seems as if it is currently in an 'under-consideration' phase. In fact, the Secretary of Homeland Security, the Secretary of State and the Attorney General already have the power to waive the application of this clause to certian individuals or groups. They have yet to exercise this power, and the campaign is on to convince them to get to it, as reportedly 9,500 refugees in Thailand, and 1,300 in Malaysia have had their cases and/or resettlement held up because of it.
There are a few sample cases of individuals who have, or would be rejected under the current interpretation of the clause here. The Refugee Council has called on the government to establish a reasonable interpretation of the clause and establish a system to "facilitate the admission of refugees and granting asylum where the circumstances under which the alleged support is provided is involuntary, inadvertant, or otherwise excusable." I would go so far as to say the Patriot Act is a load of crapola that should be scrapped altogether, but that may be asking for too much.
The problem is that providing a waiver for certian groups of refugees doesn't necessarily eliminate the designation of activities being carried out in the course of a legitimate struggle against a brutal dictatorship as "terrorist activities". Because, concievably, if the waiver is not applied to Burma as a whole, but rather to those who only provided insignificant, inadvertant, or involuntary support, then what about those who had provided significant and deliberate support? What about ex-soldiers?
While in Malaysia I interveiwed a two men who had been imprisoned for 4 years, for assisting Shan rebel leaders to the Chin border to meet with CNF leaders there. Four years in a Burmese prison left them with obvious physical and psychological truama, and they were not able to work in Malaysia. With the current situation, they could be barred from the US for the exact same reason as they were imprisoned by the Burmese government and for which they became refugees in the first place. However, they would easily fall within the waiver of 'inadmissability' if someone ever gets around to it. But what about my other friend, who was a soldier in the CNA? He was abducted not too long ago by officers at the Burmese Embassy, who threatened his life and robbed him before they released him. Would he, as a former soldier, be eligible under the waiver? It's reasonable to expect that he might not be.
Which leads me to the startling hypocracy of this clause, and the Patriot Act in general. The US is a country that glorifies its own soldiers and the honor of serving in the military. We are a nation built on a revolution, whose founding fathers were insurgents. The US government supports the revolution in Burma, even passing an act requiring the support of the democratic resistance there. And yet, the Patriot Act, and some members of congress, would apparently deny the right of individuals there to bear arms in the protection of their own freedom against despotic governments. So, it's good enough for us, but sorry, you're going to have to engage in non-violent political activities only, or, you know, just go along with the wholesale destruction of your country.
The concern here should go further than the risk of a refugee being denied resettlement because they shared a bowl of rice with an officer of the Chin National Front, or the Karen National Union, appalling as such a situation is. By all rights, as the armed wings of the state political groups fighting for federal democracy, the CNA and the KNU have more legitimacy than the Tatmadaw itself. Even if an individual had given thousands of dollars to the CNF, even if he were an officer serving in the CNF, or the chairman himself, he should be welcomed by the freedom lovers that run this country.
If the definition of "terrorist activity" is so broad as to include actions committed by democratic governments, then the definition risks becoming tautological, does it not? The CNA engages in armed combat to overthrow a military dictatorship - they have committed terrorist acts. The US government engages in armed combat to overthrow a military dictatorship - they're liberators. The Burmese junta engages in murder, torture, forced labor, genocide, assassination, kidnappings - and they are not terrorists. Only by virtue of being a national government. In fact, US sanctions mean that supporters of the government are not allowed into the country. But now supporters of opposition groups are not allowed into the country. The material support clause doesn't need to be reconsidered, the entire section on terrorism along with our own incompetent beauracratic logic needs to be reconsidered.
Ranting aside, this is an issue worth acting on. The Friend's Committee on National Legislation has a letter that was sent to the Secretary of Homeland Security, Michael Chertoff, back in January. Meetings are still being held on the issue, so its still worthwhile to send in an opinion. If you are so motivated, you could write your own letter, or paraphrase this one, and send it in to the relevant honorable secretaries, or your own representatives. Or, you could wait until I write or find a current letter/petition and post it here for your use. Does anyone know of one, perhaps?
Here are a few other links on the issue, which doesn't only affect Burma, (nor just Christians):
Testimony on "Material Support" and humanitarian assistance
Bill of Rights Defense Committee - Testimony of David Cole on Material Support.
http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2006/03/burma-refugees.html
Report on activities under Burmese Freedom and Democracy Act
LIRS Background document on material support
http://www.christianfreedom.org/messages.aspx?id=617
Persecuted Christians "terrorists"?...