Material Support

Material Support Overview

Date: 
January 26, 2012

Headlines & Opinion

Resources

Famine in Horn of Africa

Humanitarian Law Project (HLP) case

Reports

Material Support and the Need for NGO Access to Civilians in Need

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.  

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

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."

Charity and Security Network Principles to Guide New Policies

The following ten principles should guide the U.S. government's approach to fixing national security rules and policies that create problems for legitimate charities, development programs, grantmakers, peacebuilding efforts, human rights advocacy and faith-based organizations:

Deadly Combination: Disaster, Conflict and the U.S. Material Support Law

Date: 
May 2, 2012

The politicization of disaster response in conflict zones obstructs timely and effective aid delivery and also jeopardizes the safety of aid workers. A new report from the Charity & Security Network, Deadly Combination: Disaster, Conflict and the U.S. Material Support Law, considers two cases: The 2011 famine in Somalia and the summer 2010 floods in Pakistan. In both cases, by giving priority to military objective, the U.S. impaired effective aid delivery by humanitarian organizations, exacerbating the hardship caused by disasters.

The current U.S. government response to disasters occurring alongside terrorist organizations is, at best, a 'wink and nod' gesture that allows for limited access for humanitarian groups (and no legal protections) and, at worst, a blanket ban on any humanitarian operation.

Professor: U.S Law Prevents Aid from Reaching Somalis

Date: 
April 22, 2012

When war-torn Somalia was ravaged by famine last year some observers were quick to blame al-Shabaab for blocking humanitarian assistance from reaching civilians in southern Somalia. Ken Menkhaus, professor of political science at Davidson College, says it was not the only reason.

"There are plenty of western countries, including my own government, who would like to see the conversation stop right there and say it was all al-Shabaab’s fault." The other bottleneck, Menkhaus said, was U.S. policy which "de facto criminalizes any transactions in southern Somalia." Humanitarian organizations were forced to suspended food aid delivery to the millions of people trapped in drought- struck areas controlled by al-Shabaab for fear of violating the Patriot Act. 

Recent forecasts indicate that Somalia could soon be facing another food crisis in the country this year. Common sense reforms would allow aid groups to operate without fear of prosecution and help avoid another humanitarian catastrophe, he said.

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 an organization listed as a Specially Designated Global Terrorists (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.    

The Sahel Does Not Have to be the Next Somalia

Date: 
February 15, 2012
Author: 
Suraj K. Sazawal
 
Less than two weeks after the UN announced the famine in Somalia over, another massive crisis affecting upwards of 10 million people is looming on the continent. Early indicators point to food shortages across the Sahel region, with people at particularly high risk in Niger, Mauritania, Burkina Faso, Mali, Chad, and parts of Nigeria and Senegal. Several governments have already declared states of emergency and requested international assistance. Aid agencies are also calling for immediate action to avoid another humanitarian disaster in the region, but the worst drought in decades is not the only obstacle they face.

Legal Uncertainty Shrinks Humanitarian Space

Date: 
April 9, 2012

Could a conflict mediator be sentenced to prison for 15 years for having taught people connected to a listed terrorist group how to use peaceful means to resolve their grievances? That is what is feared by humanitarian, peacebuilding and civil rights’ organizations since the Supreme Court upheld a broad interpretation of the ban on “material support” to a foreign terrorist organization in June 2010.

Since then, many non-state actors, including employees of international aid groups and U.S. military personal, are uncertain as to whether their non-violent activities could result in criminal prosecution under U.S. law. In Engaging for Peace: What Are the Legal Limits to Working with Terrorists?, Noah Bialostozky, an attorney at White & Case, says the uncertainty created by the Supreme Court’s decision demonstrates the need for further legal clarity to “to ensure an appropriate balance between the isolation and engagement in terrorism prevention strategies.”

The Complexities of Engaging with Armed Groups

Date: 
March 27, 2012

The decision to talk with an armed group about finding non-violent solutions comes with significant dilemmas and risks for mediators.  The safety of the mediators involved is an obvious risk, but there are also legal consequences for individuals or groups that run afoul of broad laws that prohibit most contact with members of a listed terrorist group. Despite these concerns, many humanitarian groups and conflict mediators believe that the best way to bring violent conflict to an end is by addressing the instability’s root causes and to not exclude any major party from the peace process. In Engaging with armed groups, Teresa Whitfield draws on experience and case studies to explain the potential benefits and challenges to mediation practitioners considering engagement with a listed terrorist group, and says no one-size-fits-all formula exists for deciding whether to engage or not.