archive-org.com » ORG » C » CHARITYANDSECURITY.ORG

Total: 1481

Choose link from "Titles, links and description words view":

Or switch to "Titles and links view".
  • Resources | Charity & Security Network
    entire chain of events from donation to delivery of services to people in need must be protected from expropriation by terrorists and from unduly restrictive U S government enforcement policies Treasury must broaden its vision Read more about CSN Comments on Treasury s FAQ for Protecting Charitable Giving Al Haramain v Obama Decision Holds Wiretap of Charity Illegal Date May 3 2010 In a decision leaving Attorney General Holder and others in the Obama administration scratching their heads for what to do next Chief Judge Vaughn Walker of the Northern Federal District of California ruled on March 31 2010 that the Bush administration illegally wire tapped phone conversations of an Islamic charity and two American lawyers without a warrant Read more about Al Haramain v Obama Decision Holds Wiretap of Charity Illegal Multimedia resources for the Supreme Court case Holder v Humanitarian Law Project Date March 9 2010 On Feb 23 2010 the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Holder v Humanitarian Law Project HLP At issue is the constitutionality of a provision in the USA Patriot Act that makes it a crime to provide material support or resources to any group that the government has labeled as a terrorist organization Read more about Multimedia resources for the Supreme Court case Holder v Humanitarian Law Project March 1 2010 Event Civil society Security and Aid Post 9 11 Challenges Tensions and Dilemmas Date February 12 2010 On March 1 2010 the Charity and Security Network held a reception and discussion based on a new book Civil Society Under Strain Counter Terrorism Policy Civil Society and Aid Post 9 11 Kumarian Press Read more about March 1 2010 Event Civil society Security and Aid Post 9 11 Challenges Tensions and Dilemmas Legal Roadblocks for U S Famine Relief to Somalia Creating Humanitarian Crisis Date January 27 2010 The unfolding crisis in Somalia illustrates a common dilemma U S nonprofits face when trying to conduct humanitarian operations in territory controlled by entities listed as a Specially Designated Global Terrorists SDGT The humanitarian imperative to provide urgently needed food to nearly two million people in an area controlled by al Shabaab a listed SDGT conflicts with the strict liability standard against supporting terrorists that even has State Department employees fearing sanctions by the Treasury Department Now the U S Read more about Legal Roadblocks for U S Famine Relief to Somalia Creating Humanitarian Crisis Book Civil Society Under Strain Includes Chapter on U S by CSN Staff Date January 15 2010 A January 2010 book is the first comprehensive examination of the restrictive and punitive impact from counterterrorism legislation on nonprofits since 9 11 Civil Society Under Strain Counter Terrorism Policy Civil Society and Aid Post 9 11 Kumarian Press describes the threats organizations conducting humanitarian operations around the world are subjected to by unjust or overbroad anti terror laws Read more about Book Civil Society Under Strain Includes Chapter on U S by CSN Staff CSN How the Work of Charities Can

    Original URL path: http://www.charityandsecurity.org/resources?type=All&tid=All&page=19 (2016-02-16)
    Open archived version from archive


  • Resources | Charity & Security Network
    the counterterrorism laws and policies applied to U S nonprofits by the federal government Read more about The Disconnect U S Doesn t Follow the State Department s Guiding Principles on Non Governmental Organizations KindHearts Settlement Ends Litigation Date September 16 2009 On May 1 2012 lawyers for KindHearts for Charitable Humanitarian Development the Ohio based charity shut down pending investigation by the Treasury Department in February 2006 announced a settlement agreement with Treasury ending the litigation on terms favorable to the charity In 2009 the federal district court for the Northern District of Ohio ruled that the process Treasury used to shut the charity down while investigating alleged ties to terrorism violated the constitution and ordered further proceedings on what remedy Treasury should provide Read more about KindHearts Settlement Ends Litigation Summary of Economic Sanctions Laws and Regulations Authorizing Treasury to Shut Down Charities Date September 15 2009 The legal authority for the Department of Treasury to designate a person or organization as a Specially Designated Global Terrorist SDGT or freeze assets pending investigation is based on laws providing for economic sanctions against foreign nations going back to the Trading With the Enemy Act in 1917 and ending with the Patriot Act Read more about Summary of Economic Sanctions Laws and Regulations Authorizing Treasury to Shut Down Charities Comments of Nonprofit Organizations on Proposed Partner Vetting in USAID Acquisitions Date August 25 2009 Comments of Nonprofit Organizations on Proposed Partner Vetting in USAID Acquisitions United States Agency for International Development RIN 0412 AA63 August 25 2009 Read more about Comments of Nonprofit Organizations on Proposed Partner Vetting in USAID Acquisitions Examples of Negative Impact of U S Counterterrorism Laws on Charities and Philanthropy Date July 1 2009 U S counterterrorism laws and policies have had negative impacts that make it more difficult for charities and grantmakers to operate and in some cases block donations for charitable programs from being used at all The examples below based on news reports and OMB Watch publications illustrate this collateral damage Changes in policy can support the work of charities which often addresses the root causes of terrorism without diminishing public safety Read more about Examples of Negative Impact of U S Counterterrorism Laws on Charities and Philanthropy July 1 2009 Panel Event Dilemma for US NGOs Counterterrorism Laws vs the Humanitarian Imperative Date July 1 2009 The legal constraints national security laws impose of U S charitable organizations cause tensions with international law and codes for humanitarian aid and development programs The standards and principles expressed in the Geneva Conventions and International Red Cross Code of Conduct could be emulated by the U S and incorporated into future polices This panel discussion featured NGO leaders and experts from the U S who shared their expertise on humanitarian codes charitable groups and donors affected by U S laws and regulations Read more about July 1 2009 Panel Event Dilemma for US NGOs Counterterrorism Laws vs the Humanitarian Imperative Selective Enforcement Charities Targeted for

    Original URL path: http://www.charityandsecurity.org/resources?type=All&tid=All&page=20 (2016-02-16)
    Open archived version from archive

  • First Unitarian Church of Los Angeles v. National Security Agency: Nonprofit Lawsuit Against the NSA
    trier of fact would find that there is no question of material fact If there is a question of material fact then the question must proceed to trial Complaints The NPOs have brought five claims against the federal government Count I Violation of First Amendment Freedom of Association The NSA s acts are violating the NPOs freedom of speech and freedom of association by chilling individual participation and action The Supreme Court has recognized the vital relationship between freedom to associate and privacy in one s associations particularly where a group espouses dissident beliefs NAACP v Alabama ex rel Patterson 357 U S 449 462 1964 7 Freedom of association protects against all government interference that may induce members to withdraw from the association or dissuade others from joining Id at 462 63 The government can only curb the freedom of association if the restriction is content neutral and is the least restrictive means of furthering a compelling governmental interest Roberts v U S Jaycees 468 U S 609 623 1984 8 The NSA s Associational Tracking Program has infringed upon a diverse group of organization s freedom of association All of the NPOs make and receive phone calls in furtherance of their mission and opinions including advancing their political beliefs There can be a chilling impact on groups if they know thier communication can be tracked by the government Count II Violation of Fourth Amendment Illegal Search and Seizure Defendants are violating NPOs reasonable expectation of privacy in their telephone communications information The government argues that according to the Supreme Court in Smith v Maryland there is no expectation of privacy for the telephone metadata Smith v Maryland 443 U S 735 1979 The NPOs argue that the scope of Smith which allowed for two weeks of phone records collections is vastly different then the five years of data allowed by the ATP The NPOs also argue that subsequent legislation has since recognized such metadata as inherently private and requires phone companies to not provide the government with communication records without legal process or consent from the customer Count III Violation of Fifth Amendment Lack of Due Process Defendants are violating plaintiffs due process rights by collecting this information secretly and providing no process in which to seek redress to adequately protect the NPO s interests Due Process protects the right to information privacy includes avoiding disclosure of personal matters Whalen v Roe 429 U S 589 591 93 1977 The NPOs also argue that Section 215 which allows the government to collect bulk phone record data is unconstitutionally vague since it does not provide any clear standards for collection Violation of 50 U S C 1861 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act provides for collection of business records and tangible things as part of an authorized investigation as long as such investigation is not conducted solely upon basis of activities protected by the First Amendment 50 U S C 1861 a b The government argues

    Original URL path: http://www.charityandsecurity.org/print/1230 (2016-02-16)
    Open archived version from archive

  • Nonprofit Groups’ Lawsuit Challenging NSA Spying Set for April 2014 Hearing
    the nonprofits concerns and said the bulk collection of phone metadata is unconstitutional and should be discontinued The Charity Security Network is one of the nonprofit plaintiffs The nonprofits brief argues that the mass collection of phone metadata called the Associational Tracking Program infringes on First Amendment rights of association and expression and that the government has failed to show it uses the least restrictive means of achieving its investigative objectives It also argues that the program is beyond what Congress authorized in the Patriot Act The government argued that the nonprofits have not been sufficiently harmed to have standing to sue The brief responds that they have ample evidence to support the allegation that government has collected all domestic phone records including plaintiffs records It also points out that the First Amendment may be violated even when the government may not intend to suppress those rights In a Jan 27 2014 blog 5 about the case EFF explains the history of freedom of association under the First Amendment citing the Supreme Court s 1956 ruling in NAACP v Alabama where it ruled that the state could not force the NAACP to turn over its membership list The court said Effective advocacy of both public and private points of view particularly controversial ones is undeniably enhanced by group association as this Court has more than once recognized by remarking upon the close nexus between the freedoms of speech and assembly It is beyond debate that freedom to engage in association for the advancement of beliefs and ideas is an inseparable aspect of the liberty assured by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment which embraces freedom of speech This Court has recognized the vital relationship between freedom to associate and privacy in one s associations Inviolability of privacy in

    Original URL path: http://www.charityandsecurity.org/print/1178 (2016-02-16)
    Open archived version from archive

  • Holy Land Foundation (HLF) Leaders Ask Court to Vacate Sentences, HLF Not Included in Motion
    stresses that a central issue in the case was whether or not the zakat committees HLF funded were controlled by Hamas and if so that the defendants were aware of that fact Because Hamas is listed as a Foreign Terrorist Organization the material support prohibition applies to any entity it controls The motion points out that the defense attorneys Did not challenge the government s expert witnesses who made conclusions about Hamas control but did not offer factual basis for them Did not call a key witness in the second trial which resulted in convictions that was called in the first trial which resulted in a hung jury This was Prof Nathan Brown of George Washington University s Political Science and International Affairs Department who had conducted extensive research on zakat committees and had visited one of those at issue in the case In the first trial he testified he found nothing to indicate it was controlled by Hamas Did not call officials of the zakat committees to provide evidence The motion included several affidavits from such officials stating that Hamas does not control them The motion said in the trial that neither side called any witnesses who were on the Zakat Committees worked at the Committees or had any personal business transactions with the Committees Thus there was no evidence at all as to how the Zakat Committees operated how decisions were made how they received and distributed aid or who actually controlled or directed the activities of the Committees p 31 The motion reviews some of the expert witness statements that some members of the Zakat committees were members of Hamas In response the motion notes An examination of the evidence with a proper application of the law will show that Hamas did not control these committees any more than the fact that a person is a member of the Republican party and is an officer of Walmart means that the Republican party controls Walmart The evidence simply shows that Zakat Committees were composed of community leaders some of whom were Hamas sympathizers and some of whom were not p 36 Entrapment Zakat Committees Not on Terrorist List The defendants motion argues that the defense attorneys should have pursued an entrapment defense because the Treasury Department rejected the defendants request for guidance after Hamas was listed and the Zakat committees they funded were never put on the terrorist list Citing case law that says entrapment occurs when the government causes an offense by someone not ready or having intent to commit a crime the motion provides details of the defendants various attempts to communicate with the government about their work after Hamas was put on the terrorist list in 1995 This includes a phone call between two defendants that was taped by the government p 18 20 The motion says The facts establish that the HLF defendants were attempting to comply with the law and that the government deliberately misled them into thinking they were doing so This

    Original URL path: http://www.charityandsecurity.org/print/1143 (2016-02-16)
    Open archived version from archive

  • Al Haramain v. Treasury: Successful Constitutional Challenge to Unlimited Treasury Power to Shut Down Charities
    as a meaningful opportunity to respond In addition the court ruled that freezing the groups assets amounts to a seizure under the Fourth Amendment Judge Garr King also ruled that the term material support of terrorism in Bush s Executive Order 13224 4 which grants the Secretary of Treasury power to designate SDGTs is unconstitutionally vague In addition to pursuing charges against the charity the government also pursued money laundering and tax evasion charges against Pete Seda the head of AHIF OR He was convicted in late 2010 and began his 33 month prison sentence 5 in February 2012 On Feb 1 2004 Treasury s Office of Foreign Assets Control OFAC designated Al Haramain charities in six countries to its list of Specially Designated Global Terrorists SDGT Other AHIF organizations remained unlisted including those based in Oregon and Saudi Arabia After raiding AHIF OR and seizing its assets in February 2012 OFAC issued a press release announcing the freeze but did not state the reasons for it or obtain a court order authorizing it The Fifth Amendment s due process clause requires the government to provide notice and an opportunity to be heard before depriving a person or organization of their property The Court determined there was a violation of AHIF Oregon s due process rights because Treasury failed to provide notice for eight months between the time it froze AHIF s assets pending investigation in February 2004 and the designation of the organization as an SDGT in September 2004 Additionally the Court found a potential violation of AHIF Oregon s Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable seizures The judge ruled that the freezing order against AHIF Oregon did constitute a seizure and unless the government s actions were reasonable the government violated the Fourth Amendment However it has not yet

    Original URL path: http://www.charityandsecurity.org/print/245 (2016-02-16)
    Open archived version from archive

  • Appeals Court Finds Treasury's Procedures in Shutting Down Charity Unconstitutional | Charity & Security Network
    the Fourth Amendment so that a court order is required The court also ruled that a group that wishes to engage in joint communications with AHIF OR may do so distinguishing the facts from the Supreme Court s decision in Holder v Humanitarian Law Project The court found that OFAC s reliance on classified evidence without providing a summary or access to the evidence for counsel with a security clearance violated due process OFAC s failure to provide notice of the charges violated due process OFAC s freeze was a seizure requiring a warrant and probable cause and therefore violated the Fourth Amendment The criminal prohibition on coordinated advocacy with AHIF Oregon violated the First Amendment rights of a community group that sought to advocate in coordination with AHIF Oregon distinguishing Holder v HLP largely on ground that AHIF Oregon is a domestic group with frozen funds and there is no evidence supporting concerns that advocacy with it will undermine the government s national security concerns The Due process errors were harmless because there is nothing AHIF could have done to refute the evidence supporting its designation Issues Humanitarian Access Material Support Financial Action Task Force FATF Financial Access Peacebuilding

    Original URL path: http://www.charityandsecurity.org/node/644 (2016-02-16)
    Open archived version from archive

  • U.S. Will Not Seek Supreme Court Review of Due Process Ruling in Al Haramain Case
    unconstitutional On Feb 27 2012 the Ninth Circuit denied 3 a Department of Justice petition for re hearing After getting a thirty day extension to make a decision the Solicitor General who represents the government in Supreme Court proceedings declined to file for review by the June 29 2012 deadline This leaves the Ninth Circuit s decision in place as the last word on the constitutional issues putting Treasury in

    Original URL path: http://www.charityandsecurity.org/print/832 (2016-02-16)
    Open archived version from archive



  •