Post-2003 elements that must be added to consideration :
Peacebuilding and the Material Support Act
The Material Support Act prohibits “ provid [ ing ] material support or resources … knowing or intending that they are to be used in preparation for , or in carrying out [ acts of terrorism ].” This act was first enacted as Title 18 38 of the United States Code in 1994 , and thus was on the books at the time of the 2003 invasion of Iraq . Until 2001 , however , it went largely unnoticed . In 2003 , the act had little apparent bearing within any of the recorded discussions or on the differences between ORHA and the CPA ’ s actions .
The law ’ s original intent is entirely laudable — namely to keep American resources from ending up in the hands of those engaged in terrorism and transnational crime . In the years since its inception , however , it has become simultaneously broader , more far-reaching and tending towards worrisome nebulousness as far as its definition of terrorism and the requirements for proof that a particular party is engaged in illegal activities .
In 2010 , the US Supreme Court ruled against the Humanitarian Law Project in Holder v . Humanitarian Law Project 39 , asserting that the Non-governmental organization ( NGO )’ s work to provide training on peaceful conflict resolution to the Kurdistan Workers ’ Party and Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam violated the Act ’ s definitions of training and providing expert assistance and advice . In meetings and research interviews conducted by this author , peacebuilding NGO
29