thank you your honors please the court my name is david cole i represent humanitarian project the last time this panel to review the material support statute it held that the statute raised serious constitutional concerns on constitutional law it is broader than the statute that you were before in significant respects it has more value than the statute that you were reviewed before in significant respects and it still imposes vicarious criminal liability without any showing that the individual non or intended that his or her support with further any terrorist activities it's broader than it was before because the statute  in general knowledge about the political geography of terrorist organizations would be a specific skill i am not sure what the principle was that grew that distinction i'm not sure how anyone could teach geography without teaching the specific skills the geography entails the expert advice and assistance provision now requires would be provider of any sort of assistance or advice to address whether their advice or assistance is derived in some way the court did in schools which is to interpret the statute to require some showing that the individual who provided that shooting or provided that expert advice or provided those services either money or intended tha prior panel in this in this case rejected the first amendment challenge because it's the statute deals with conduct not association but the distinction between conduct in association might make some little distinction between a family group and domestic group if it's clear that we could not do this with respect to operation rescue or greenpeace could we go with respect and use the international i don't think so a british based group i think it would be just travel to cuba or have trade with cuba that's not an imposition of vicarious criminal liability they designate cubical whatever reason they wanted as if you don't have to find the cuban gave them some criminal activity serious criminal liability it's criminal form and there's no  subject matter limits and therefore they criminalized honestly rootless array of training advice our services and the like the government i felt it was somehow inappropriate for us to identify rejected that argument because it's you know the court of first panel here issued a decision rejecting certain claims and the this court in vankin affirmed those that decision this court s i want to donate one hundred thousand dollars to the tamil tigers i'm going to write on the check do not spend a penny of this for terrorism i have groucho ism i'm very much against terrorism they want to train the tamil tigers which by the way remember we're not trying to not extremely dangerous murderous terrorist organizations these are not just simply humanitarian organizations i clients want to train them to make god presentations united nations congress also want to get at another very serious problem with terrorist organizations which is that this can enable at people who are supporting hamas in running kindergartens because many of these organizations if not all tie together it's not that the tamil tigers have an edge over here that has beat the statute in so clearly they can and they need legal advice and representation on challenging and indeed they have to do is note that there have been a whole batch of challenges in fact one of the organizations to the tam want these organizations congress wants to know if they file for example an amicus brief here that would be a criminal act just because congress wants these organizations to be radioactive we don't on their behalf of why they should or should not be included but after a dozen nations if you make the arguments on their behalf the united states your future emitted from a lack you know wrong because you can try to convince a secretary of state you can hire a specific example of when they hire somebody and i guess i think i understand your answer you think they have united states that are not violating the law if they participate in the designation challenge process but any other activity is a violation the statute a criminal act administration and the bush administration following it made that decision as well we keep policy determination that there aren't good terrorists we're now drawing a distinction and determining that if an organization is a terrorist organization terrorist organizations to make presentations to the un to television newspaper we do not want u s persons assisting these organizations excepting as congress specifically has provide money convincing cubans that castro is bad and wrong and the united states is their friend you can be criminally prosecuted because the the the employer go on trade with cuba well there's a very broad range  activity if if the channels hikers are going to be convinced to give up terrorism we hope to accomplish by other means we're not hoping to accomplish it by u s persons training them in how to be why this is a decision for the political branches this is for congress and the president to make a fluent policy determination as we know from any number of decisions from the supreme court in this court where we have complex foreign policy decisions something unconstitutional in fact i have to say i found that part of the brief sort of somewhat offensive the notion that it's trivializing what is the extremely important in series especially with organizations like answer suppose you train somebody in medical services how to treat broken arms obviously that can have wonderful application if somebody got hit by a tsunami and on broke because also have application when they drove terrorism like building a bomb well what about driving a truck through know it driving a truck overwhelmingly is used for peaceful purposes but it's also used for driving truck bombs work you could even say i train somebody in how to shoot because i wanted them to give a shit in self defense when those sure i can army let's say it is attacking them i want to beat them to do to protect their family and their village well fine so is training of our allies around the world our allies dead you know the united states is a nation of immigrants and so we have large communities here of people who are connected to foreign countries and the people in the united states were providing massive amounts of money to terrorism by groups like the tamil tigers who were on the real ira all sorts of groups and so other countries were coming  entirely independently of the group in providing it with all kinds of support but you don't you don't do it in consultation with how you protect in doing that but how do you provide human rights training through group without consulting with it in some way or another first of all the exemption provision all it says is you want be prosecuted for personnel under the current you can't be held liable for for under the person our expert advice and  have nothing to do with a person that night and exemptions which can be granted or not based on whole range of activities have nothing to do with the first amendment so no content based distinction that's written right into the regulations  the only cases they cite are cases that allow for embargoes on trade with foreign nations and my point is simply that there is a big difference between and bargo on a foreign nation and embargo on a political organization that happens to be fungibility anything one goes to support a group will somehow support it's only likely there was not one word of testimony about one terrorist organization to support that notion and most certainly was no finding the providing human rights advocacy training