Why Criminalise Dialogue with Terrorists? By Andy Carl and Sophie Haspeslagh Open Democracy, July 2010 UK Parliamentarians, the US Congress and the European Parliament need to take a closer look at the aspects of counter-terrorism legislation that have an adverse impact on mediation The US Supreme Court decision in 'Holder v Humanitarian Law Project' last month confirms that it is illegal for US citizens, or organizations receiving US funding to support negotiated peace settlements by training or advising a conflict party that is on the US State Department’s terrorist list. At the same time, the US and British governments have been calling for inclusive, political solutions to the conflicts in Iraq, Afghanistan and Somalia (not to mention supporting peace processes in Nepal, the Philippines and Sudan). To achieve this, someone has to talk to ‘terrorists’ and armed groups will need to join the political process. The unintended consequences of the Supreme Court’s decision are to make mediation and successful peace process that much harder. And the human costs of these missed opportunities are simply not being counted: civilians’ lives lost, relationships antagonized, and violent conflict prolonged. For the armed groups themselves, like the Free Aceh Movement (GAM) in Indonesia or the Sudan People’s Liberation Movement (SPLM/A) in Sudan,