Falsely Accusing the Innocent
of Terrorism
By Heather A. Cayless, 02.15.07
Jennifer was only 13 years old when the Lord’s Resistance Army (LRA) raided her village and took her captive. The LRA was an army of child soldiers led by Joseph Kony. They terrorized Ugandan villages capturing the children and quickly turning them into killing machines. Victims reported being forced to steal or damage property, abuse dead bodies, mutilate victims and kill their own family.
Jennifer was held by the LRA for six months, during which time she was given as a wife to one of the leaders. She was forced to cook, gather food and wash clothes. One day, Jennifer escaped. After she fled the rebel camp, she spent months going from refugee camp to refugee camp searching for her family. Every time she went out in search of her loved ones, she risked being caught and killed by the LRA rebels.
Unable to find her family and still fearing for her life, Jennifer applied for refugee status in the U.S. She needed a place where she would be safe, protected from the LRA and the nightmares that still plagued her. Tragically, Jennifer was denied protection in the U.S. because the judge decided that she had provided material support to terrorists by cooking and washing clothes for her captors.
In another country, a young man was barred from the U.S. for his alleged material support to a terrorist organization. Miguel watched as his family was brutally murdered by the United Self-Defense Forces of Columbia (AUC). He was taken captive and forced to join other villagers in a march through the mountains of Columbia. Along the way the AUC arbitrarily shot and killed various marchers and made other captives dig road side graves; sometimes the rebels would shoot the diggers as they dug graves. Late one night Miguel escaped and fled to Ecuador. Even in another country, Miguel was followed and feared for his life. He applied for refuge in the U.S., but a court determined that the grave digging he did while captive was material support for terrorists and denied him entry.
In 2001, Congress passed the U.S. Patriot Act. In 2005, they passed the Real ID Act and amended the Immigration Nationality Act. The combined language of these three laws created what is referred to as the material support bar. The purpose of the material support bar was to promote domestic security by stopping the flow of terrorists who attempt to enter the U.S. through asylum or refugee status. Tragically, the language that was intended to protect us is hindering us. Our government cannot distinguish terrorists like Ziad Jarrah, one of the 9-11 hijackers, from true refugees like Miguel and Jennifer.
The material support bar severely limits the government’s ability to combat terrorism due to its imprecise definitions. The problems are in the broad generalizations of terrorist, terrorist organization, support, and the lack of a duress clause. Support is not just intentionally giving money to a known terrorist group. It has been interpreted by the courts to include ransom money paid to kidnappers and personal valuables stolen by terrorist groups. This broad definition of support led to both Jennifer and Miguel being barred from the U.S.
The lack of a duress clause is also deeply troubling. If a family is forced to give money, cows, personal valuables, or other material support, or face a brutal death, the law denies them entry into the U.S. The fact that their material support was taken under threat of death isn’t even acknowledged. These people are not terrorists; they are victims of terrorists. They have experienced persecution the likes of which you or I will never know. Yet, our laws deny them entry into one of the few places they would truly be safe.
The vague definitions falsely implicate victims and freedom fighters in terrorist activities. There is no distinction made between groups like al-Qaeda and those fighting against their government for democracy, like the Burmese Chin National Front. Victims like Jennifer and Miguel are, according the law, considered a threat to our national security. The material support bar is hindering our foreign policy. It’s hurting our ability to effectively combat terrorism and making us more vulnerable by ostracizing our allies in the war on terror.
There are people who want to bring immense harm to U.S. citizens. It is foolish to think otherwise. To effectively protect U.S. citizens and continue to bring freedom and democracy to countries around the world, we need to make some changes.
First, we need to define who the terrorists are, what terrorist activity is, and what it means to give support to such groups. Second, we need to make exceptions for women, children, and men who are held against their will, forced to give their homes, their possessions, and at times their lives, to terrorists. Most important, we need to show the Iraqi’s, Vietnamese, Cubans, and countless others that we really are on their side. We are fighting for their safety, protection, and freedom.
