material support

Summary of the Supreme Court’ Ruling in Humanitarian Law Project: Provision of Advocacy and Training in Nonviolent Peaceful Conflict Resolution Violates Terrorism Material Support Laws

in
Date: 
August 31, 2010

On June 21, 2010, the United States Supreme Court in Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project, et al. struck a blow to the American nonprofit sectors’ commitment to resolving international conflicts through peaceful and nonviolent means. In a 6-3 decision, the Court rejected the Humanitarian Law Project's (HLP) claims that challenged the constitutionality of provisions of the material support to terrorism law that prohibit a broad range of interactions with listed terrorist groups, including attempts at peace building. (See 18 U.S.C. § 2339B). This summary reviews the Court’s majority and dissenting opinions and notes issues to be addressed in developing better procedures.

Congressional Research Service Issues Report on Material Support Laws

in
Date: 
August 16, 2010

A July 19, 2010 report entitled Terrorist Material Support: An Overview of 18 USC 2339A and 2339B, by the Congressional Research Service offers a descriptive summary of the material support laws, the procedural history of the Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project case, and the process under which an organization is designated as terrorist by the U.S. Department of State. There is notably no discussion of the U.S. Department of Treasury’s authority to designate an organization or individual pursuant to Executive Order 13224 – an authority frequently invoked to designate organizations and entities. The footnotes cited in the report offer a valuable roadmap of cases involving charges of material support to terrorism, a subsection of which include unsuccessful constitutional challenges to the validity of 2339B.

Congressional Report Says Dept. of Defense Contracts Funding Afghan Insurgents

in
Date: 
July 16, 2010
Author: 
Suraj K. Sazawal

On June 21, 2010, the same day the Supreme Court upheld a federal statute that bans training in nonviolent dispute resolution as support to listed terrorists groups, a Congressional report was released saying U.S. taxpayer dollars are being funneled from the U.S. army contractors to insurgents, including the Taliban. What sense does it make to punish humanitarian groups who want to train terrorist groups to turn away from violence, but knowingly allow millions of dollars to flow uninterrupted to a designated terrorist group the U.S. military is battling everyday in Afghanistan?

Legal Roadblocks for U.S. Famine Relief to Somalia Creating Humanitarian Crisis

in
Date: 
January 27, 2010
Author: 
Suraj K. Sazawal

The unfolding crisis in Somalia illustrates a common dilemma U.S. nonprofits face when trying to conduct humanitarian operations in territory controlled by an organization listed as a Specially Designated Global Terrorist (SDGT). The humanitarian imperative to provide urgently needed food to nearly one million people in an area controlled by al-Shabab, a listed SDGT, conflicts with the “strict liability” standard against supporting terrorists that even has State Department employees fearing sanctions from Treasury. Now the United States government (USG) response to the famine in Somalia is forcing it to confront the same onerous hurdles current national security laws create for nonprofits.    

Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project: Addressing the Impact of Material Support Laws on Peacebuilding Programs

in
Date: 
June 21, 2010

On June 21, 2010, a divided U.S. Supreme Court upheld a federal statute that bans support to designated terrorist organizations, even when that support involves using international law to resolve disputes through nonviolent means. In Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project (HLP), the court ruled 6-3 that U.S. organizations and citizens teaching nonviolent methods of conflict resolution toward sanctioned terrorist groups could face criminal charges. David Cole, an attorney representing HLP and others in the case said, “We are deeply disappointed. The Supreme Court has ruled that human rights advocates, providing training and assistance in the nonviolent resolution of disputes, can be prosecuted as terrorists."

Analysis: Congressional Report Says Dept. of Defense Contracts Funding Afghan Insurgents

in
Date: 
July 16, 2010

On June 21, 2010, the same day the Supreme Court upheld a federal statute that bans training in nonviolent dispute resolution as support to listed terrorists groups, a Congressional report was released saying U.S. taxpayer dollars are being funneled from the U.S. army contractors to insurgents, including the Taliban. What sense does it make to punish humanitarian groups who want to train terrorist groups to turn away from violence, but knowingly allow millions of dollars to flow uninterrupted to a designated terrorist group the U.S. military is battling everyday in Afghanistan?

Supreme Court’s Humanitarian Law Project Ruling Fails the Common Sense Test

in
Date: 
June 29, 2010
Author: 
Kay Guinane & Suraj K. Sazawal

Imagine a school where the principal’s rules prevent a teacher from telling a bully to stop picking on another child. That is essentially what the Supreme Court told U.S. peacebuilding groups in its June 21, 2010 decision in Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project (HLP).

Material Support and the Need for a Sensible Humanitarian Exemption

in
Date: 
July 7, 2010

Laws that prohibit "material support" to listed terrorist organizations only exempt religious materials and medicine. That means medical services or non-medicinal necessities such as clean water are prohibited, as are tents, blankets, food and more. In other words, it is legal to give someone a pill, but illegal to provide clean water for swallowing it. There is no justification for this ongoing blockade of humanitarian aid.  

Department of State’s Foreign Terrorist Organizations (FTOs)

in
Date: 
July 2, 2010

Foreign Terrorist Organizations (FTOs) are foreign organizations that are designated by the Secretary of State. As of January 19, 2010:

Nonprofit and Legal Experts Respond to Supreme Court Ruling in Humanitarian Law Project Case

in
Date: 
June 21, 2010

On June 21, 2010, a divided U.S. Supreme Court upheld a federal statute that bans support to designated terrorist organizations, even when defined to include conflict mediation, human rights training and peace-building efforts aimed at turning terrorist groups away from violence. That same day the Charity and Security Network (CSN) and the Constitution Project (CP) held a press conference to comment on the ruling. An audio file of the entire teleconference, including reactions to the decision and a question and answer period from national media, is available here.