OpEdNews Op Eds

Did You Give at the Office?

By (about the author)     Permalink       (Page 1 of 2 pages)
Related Topic(s): ; ; ; ; ; ; ; , Add Tags Add to My Group(s)

View Ratings | Rate It

opednews.com Headlined to H3 7/25/08

Become a Fan
  (11 fans)

In the name of "Global War on Terror," the U.S. Government is waging war on non-governmental organizations by applying "shortsighted, undemocratic policies" that are "constraining the critical activities of the charitable and philanthropic sectors, stifling free speech, and ultimately impeding the fight against terrorism."

This is the conclusion of a new white paper prepared by two prominent organizations, OMB Watch and Grantmakers Without Borders. OMB stands for the government's Office of Management and Budget, the White House office responsible for devising and submitting the president's annual budget proposal to Congress.

The report charges that the government views nonpro?ts as "conduits for terrorist funding and a breeding ground for aggressive dissent." It accuses the courts of being "overly deferential" to the U.S. Treasury Department, which is responsible for conducting programs designed to stem the flow of money to terrorist organizations. It contends that federal agencies "ignore nonpro?ts' calls for change," and says, "Congress has not utilized its oversight powers to review counterterrorism programs."

The result, the report says, is that U.S. nonprofit organizations have been forced to "operate within a legal regime that harms charitable programs, undermines the independence of the nonpro?t sector, and weakens civil society." 

The report says that the U.S. nonprofit community today "operates in fear of what may spark (the government) to use its power to shut them down."
 
Kay Guinane, Director of Nonprofit Speech Rights at OMB Watch, noted that the current approach to counterterrorism as it relates to nonprofits and foundations is ultimately counterproductive.  She told me, "In order to preserve the rights of all nonprofit organizations, and indeed, the rights of all people, all levels of government must conduct their counterterrorism activities in a way that consistently protects liberty and civil society. Otherwise, Americans and others lose safeguards that were designed to protect us all from creeping tyranny."

The report -- Collateral Damage: How the War on Terror Hurts Charities, Foundations, and the People They Serve -- asserts that "current counterterrorism policies are based on a flawed legal regime and broad, vague definitions; the policies rely on flawed assumptions about terrorism and nonprofits; and the policies are abused by the government to engage in unconstitutional, political use of surveillance powers."

The Treasury Department's Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) is the target of much of the report's criticism of the government's approach. After the September 11th terrorist attacks on the U.S., Congress gave the government sweeping new powers to crack down on not-for-profit organizations that were using their charitable status as cover for funneling funds to terrorist groups.

These powers include the authority to designate any charity as a material supporter of terrorism. This action demands virtually no due process from the government, denies the target to see the evidence against it, and can result in freezing of a charity's assets, effectively shutting it down. Since 9/11, the government has shut down dozens of charitable groups, but only three have ever been charged and brought to trial for supporting terrorist causes. None has been convicted.

The report explains that current counterterrorism financing policy allows the funds of designated charitable organizations to sit in frozen accounts indefinitely. Treasury's 2006 Terrorist Assets Report estimates that  $16,413,733 in assets from "foreign terrorist organizations", which include charities and foundations, have been frozen since 9/11.

The laws that authorize the designation and freezing of assets do not provide any timeline or process for long-term disposition, so they remain frozen for as long as the root national emergency authorizing the sanctions lasts. To date, no blocked funds have been released for charitable purposes, despite  several requests, the report claims.

It also asserts that the government has used its surveillance powers against charitable groups for political purposes. It charges, "In addition to providing aid and services to people in need, charitable and religious organizations help to facilitate a free exchange of information and ideas, fostering debate about public policy issues. The government has treated some of these activities as a terrorist threat. Since 9/11, there have been disturbing revelations about the use of counterterrorism resources to track and sometimes interfere with groups that publicly and vocally dissent from administration policies."

In 2005, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) launched its Spy Files Project and uncovered an intricate system of domestic spying on U.S. non-pro?ts largely condoned by expanded counterterrorism powers within the USA PATRIOT Act.

The report finds that "U.S. counterterrorism laws have made it increasingly difficult for U.S.-based organizations to operate overseas. For example, after the 2004 tsunami, U.S. organizations operating in areas controlled by the Tamil Tigers, a designated terrorist organization, risked violating prohibitions against 'material support' when creating displaced persons' camps and hospitals, traveling, or distributing food and water."

For aid organizations like the International Red Cross, compliance with U.S. counterterrorism laws can force NGOs to violate standards of neutrality in their work.  The Principles of Conduct for the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement and NGOs in Disaster Response Programmes  state, "The humanitarian imperative comes ?rst. Aid is given regardless of the race, creed or nationality of the recipients and without adverse distinction of any kind. Aid priorities are calculated on the basis of need alone."

In some cases, the report declares, counterterrorism laws have caused nonpro?ts to pull out of programs. For example, in 2003 Rockefeller Philanthropy Advisors suspended funding for a Caribbean program designed to "kick-start a ?ow of American charity" to that region because of an inability to comply with Treasury Department regulations.

Professor David Cole, a constitutional law expert at the Georgetown University Law Center, said, "The legal regime employed in the name of cutting off terror financing gives the executive branch a 'blank check' to blacklist disfavored individuals and groups, imposes guilt by association, and lacks even minimal attributes of fair process."

Next Page  1  |  2

 

http://billfisher.blogspot.com

William Fisher has managed economic development programs in the Middle East and elsewhere for the US State Department and the US Agency for International Development. He served in the international affairs area in the Kennedy Administration and now (more...)
 

Share on Google Plus Submit to Twitter Add this Page to Facebook! Share on LinkedIn Pin It! Add this Page to Fark! Submit to Reddit Submit to Stumble Upon

Go To Commenting
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.

Writers Guidelines

Contact Author Contact Editor View Authors' Articles

Most Popular Articles by this Author:     (View All Most Popular Articles by this Author)

The Silence of the Sheep

Liberties Lost Since 9/11

Law Professors Outraged by Senate Vote on Indefinite Detention

BAHRAIN: UNION LEADERS ON HUNGER STRIKE

Feel Safer Now?

The Torture Memos: Rationalizing the Unthinkable -- A Must-Read.

Comments

The time limit for entering new comments on this article has expired.

This limit can be removed. Our paid membership program is designed to give you many benefits, such as removing this time limit. To learn more, please click here.

Comments: Expand   Shrink   Hide  
No comments