he nature of human rights activism in the US. Citing the law that criminalizes material aid to terrorists, the Supreme Court thus prohibited the provision of medical aid, human rights monitoring and conflict resolution assistance to groups considered to be terrorist.

It may sound innocuous, but the Court’s decision could have grave implications. On Sept. 24, and in the months since, the law has been invoked against activists in the US. A total of twenty-three activists from Minnesota and Chicago have been subpoenaed and had their homes raided by the FBI for alleged links to foreign terrorist organizations. Several of the activists were engaged in work related to Colombia, Palestine and labor solidarity. Some were members of a group called the Anti-War Committee.

As part of the subpoenas, they were ordered to appear before grand juries to testify about any knowledge they had about the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia or the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, both designated as foreign terrorist organizations by the State Department. So far, all have invoked their Fifth Amendment rights, and refused to testify.

The fiasco has cast light on what has become an increasingly dangerous environment for voices of dissent in the US. A recent report by the Justice Department described some of the more disturbing realities dissenting advocates face. “The FBI extended the duration of investigations involving advocacy groups or their members without sufficient basis,” according to the Justice Department, and their “names were maintained on watchlists as a result and [their] movements and interactions with law enforcement were tracked.” Perhaps more alarmingly: “in some cases, the FBI classified some investigations relating to nonviolent civil disobedience under its ‘Acts of Terrorism’ classification.”

Indeed, on Jan. 13, 2011, Democracy Now! revealed that an FBI informant had infiltrated the Anti-War Committee. The agent, “Karen Sullivan,” didn’t just inform, but even helped organize the group.

Grand juries of the type invoked against the Minneapolis and Chicago activists have historically been used against the activist community. “The Nixon Justice Department began using grand juries as a very specific kind of tool: to go after activists,” said Phyllis Bennis, a veteran peace activist. “They would empower a grand jury, and begin investigating very broadly—fishing expeditions,” she said, “and they would subpoena the people they wanted to get rid of, who were problems, who were organizing protests, et cetera.”

If any contact with terrorist organizations is considered to be aiding terrorism — as the Supreme Court seems to believe — then a whole host of other problems arises. In These Times reporter Jeremy Gantz recently noted that the African National Congress was listed as a terrorist organization until 2008. He wondered whether that makes terrorists out of former anti-apartheid activists and the Nobel Committee that awarded Mandela the peace prize.

Gantz also cites op-eds from Hamas spokespersons that were published in papers like the New York Times and Washington Post. Are these flagship American newspapers guilty of terrorism as well?

Our government says that the terrorists we’re fighting only understand violence. To keep this narrative intact, it’s in their interest to disrupt and silence activists who suggest otherwise. It’s worth noting that US Attorney General Eric Holder argued in favor of the Supreme Court ruling, and has been a party to the continuing subpoenas. That suggests this is more than just a court decision, but a tactic actively pursued by the Obama administration.

In the Nixon era, those who refused to testify were granted immunity, thus undermining their Fifth Amendment protections and allowing them to be jailed for up to a year for refusing to testify — effectively neutralizing them. Perhaps the goal of today’s campaign is also to silence activists. “It’s about this kind of chilling impact, which is clearly at least part of the strategy,” Bennis said. These groups have already been infiltrated and informed on, which suggests the goal of the subpoenas is intimidation, not information-gathering.

The Supreme Court ruling represents an escalation of our nation’s war against terrorism. Not only are we waging war against enemy countries; by harassing peace activists, we are waging war on people who simply want to end war. It’s not just Muslim-Americans who have to face intimidation, detention and surveillance anymore. So where will it stop?

It’s in the hands of those willing to speak out. “If they don’t have to pay a political price for this, they’ll keep doing it,” Bennis said. “I think we have to keep doing our work, and not allow ourselves to be intimidated by this kind of attack.”