Resources

115th Congress - Bill Tracking

Date: 
May 11, 2017

Charity & Security Network is tracking the following bills during the 115th Congress:


Senate:

S. 68: Muslim Brotherhood Terrorist Designation Act of 2017
Introduced January 9

S 358: Stop Terrorist Operational Resouces and Money Act (STORM Act)
Introduced February 13

 

House of Representatives:

H.R. 377: Muslim Brotherhood Terrorist Designation Act of 2017 (companion to S. 68)
Introduced January 9

 

Studies/Reports Overview and Topic List

Date: 
August 24, 2015

The Charity and Security Network has created a number of abstracts of reports and studies relevant to our membership, with links to the original reports. Here you will find a list of these abstracts, organized by topic, including counterterrorism, financial access and remittances, humanitarian aid, material support and more.

You can also go directly to the most recent reports and studies

Analysis Overview and List of Topics

Date: 
May 13, 2013

The Charity & Security Network has prepared analysis on a number of topics relevant to our members, including Enabling Environment for Civil Society, Partner Vetting System, Material Support and Humanitarian Aid, as well as discussion of U.S. Departments of Treasury and State policies. Here you will find a list of topics and links. 

List of Experts

Date: 
June 2, 2012

The Charity and Security Network provides a list of experts with policy, legal and field experience on how national security laws impact nonprofits and the people they serve. To invite them for press interviews, conferences or other speaking events, please contact us

UK Study Seeks Reconciliation of Humanitarian, Counterterrorism Goals

Date: 
May 11, 2017

A new study from Chatham House and the Royal United Services Institute in the UK finds that humanitarian objectives are often stymied by counterterrorism laws designed to prevent assistance or funds going to non-state armed groups. Humanitarian Action and Non-state Armed Groups: The UK Regulatory Environment asserts that to resolve this conflict, the UK government needs to adopt a clear, unified approach to reconciling its humanitarian and counterterrorism priorities. 

The report finds that the licensing system under sanctions regimes is opaque and ineffective, recommending that the UK government seek humanitarian exemptions, as well as simplify and expedite its domestic licensing system. It also notes that although the government cites prosecutorial discretion in asserting that there is no need for additional guidance around potential criminal penalties for incidental payments to listed groups, "prosecutorial discretion is insufficient comfort for humanitarian actors anxious to avoid breaking the law and the wide offences have a 'chilling effect'." 

Two UK government has dismissed recommendations to explore the possibility of introducing exceptions to counterterrorism legislation for humanitarian activities. It argues that legislative change would create a loophole open to exploitation. The Chatham House study recommends that this option should be explored further, with consideration of foreign laws and international instruments. 

The report also addresses the global phenomenon of bank de-risking and its impact on humanitarian aid organizations. The report authors urge the UK government to move proactively to counter this trend and to engage in international dialogue aimed at finding solutions. 

Read the full report

Brennan Center Report Examines CVE in the Trump Era

Date: 
May 11, 2017
Author: 

Although Trump's hostility towards Muslims has been well-documented in the press, countering violent extremism programs initiated during the Obama administration, while couched in neutral terms, set the stage for a focus xclusively on Muslims. 

This, despite the fact that empirical data show that violence from far right movements results in at least as many fatalities in the U.S. as attacks inspried by al Qaeda or the Islamic State, notes a March 2017 report from the Brennan Center for Justice, Countering Violent Extremism. In addition to stigmatizing Muslim communities as inherently suspect, it also creates serious risks of flagging innocuous activity as pre-terrorism and suppressing religious observance and speech, the report explains. "These flaws are only exacerbated when CVE programs are run by an administration that is overtly hostile towards Muslims, and that includes within its highest ranks individuals known for their frequent and public denunciations of a faith that is practiced by 1.6 billion people around the world," the report states. 

The report asserts that future CVE programs are unlikely to achieve security benefits, and meanwhile carry the risk of "damaging critical relationships between law enforcement and Muslim communities, further undermining the goal of preventing terrorism." As such, the report recommends a shift towards a framework that sees American Muslims as a source of strength rather than suspicion. 

Read the full report

Study Finds Insufficient Justification for PVS Rollout

Date: 
May 10, 2017

There is insufficient justification for a global rollout of the U.S. government's Partner Vetting System (PVS), according to a December 2016 Policy Paper from InterAction, Partner Vetting Independent Assessment: Insufficient Justification for a Global Rollout

Partner vetting is an additional due diligence procedure used by the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) and the U.S. Department of State to ensure that foreign assistance does not inadvertently benefit terrorists or their supporters. The paper is primarily concerned with the role of U.S. nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) in the vetting system, and supports three general conclusions. First, implementation of the PVS pilot was not consistent enough to form the bases for a global program. Second, direct vetting wasn't sufficiently implemented. Third, the significant number of critiques could, if addressed, alleviate some of the negative consequences of PVS. Therefore, InterAction has recommended that the USAID and State extend the PVS pilot for another three years, and to implement direct vetting as well as the recommendations made in the policy paper. 

The recommendations include create a formal system to exempt vetting in certain circumstances, including humanitarian emergencies; exempt small sub-awards; exempt beneficiaries; and exempt awards for the sensitive work of democracy, rights and governance.

Read the full paper

 

Pages