{"id":1580,"date":"2018-08-16T08:37:58","date_gmt":"2018-08-16T12:37:58","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/charityandsecurity.org\/?p=1580"},"modified":"2020-08-05T10:59:51","modified_gmt":"2020-08-05T14:59:51","slug":"npos_pushback_misinformation","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/charityandsecurity.org\/news\/npos_pushback_misinformation\/","title":{"rendered":"Nonprofits Push Back Against Misinformation in House Hearing on Muslim Brotherhood"},"content":{"rendered":"
The Charity & Security Network (C&SN) responded to misinformation in statements about nonprofit organizations (NPOs) made in a\u00a0July 11 hearing\u00a0<\/a><\/strong>in the National Security Committee of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee in an Aug. 14\u00a0letter<\/a><\/strong>, saying such statements \u201cinaccurately and unfairly portray the U.S. charitable sector as a source of terrorist financing. Such statements undermine the important work U.S. NPOs do around the world and fail to recognize the high levels of transparency, oversight and good governance they employ.\u201d The letter addressed three main problematic themes from the hearing in detail:<\/p>\n In addition, Islamic Relief USA, which was a special target of misinformation and mischaracterization of facts, published a\u00a0rebuttal<\/a><\/strong>\u00a0on its website. The C&SN letter noted that, \u201cOverall, the hearing gave the impression that Muslim NPOs are to be targeted based on their ethnic and\/or religious associations, rather than on conduct that threatens national security.\u201d<\/p>\n Law enforcement and NPOs have been successful in protecting the charitable sector from terrorist financing abuse.<\/strong><\/p>\n C&SN\u2019s\u00a0letter<\/a><\/strong>\u00a0noted that witnesses disagreed about what conclusions can be drawn from the fact that no U.S. NPOs have been shut down by the Treasury Department since January 2009.\u00a0 Johnathan Schanzer of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies called for a \u201creinvigoration\u201d of the designation system, while Amb. Daniel Benjamin, former Counterterrorism Coordinator at the State Department in the Obama administration, noted that DOJ \u201cis watching\u201d and would prosecute if violations were taking place.<\/p>\n The letter strongly supported Benjamin\u2019s interpretation, noting the strong good governance measures employed by NPOs, the high degree of transparency and government oversight. It also cited Treasury\u2019s 2015 National Terrorist Financing Risk Assessment, which found that sham charities and fraud, not legitimate NPOs recognized by the U.S. government, are the main threat relative to the nonprofit sector.<\/p>\n The Holy Land Foundation prosecution is an outlier, not a model for law enforcement.<\/strong><\/p>\n In the hearing Schanzer suggested that the Muslim Brotherhood be listed as a terrorist organization so that \u201cinsert quote.\u201d\u00a0 The\u00a0letter<\/a><\/strong>\u00a0pointed out unique and serious problems with the prosecution of the Holy Land Foundation, pointing out that it was tried and convicted without representation, making the case \u201can inappropriate model for future law enforcement.\u201d<\/p>\n Another major misrepresentation of fact in the testimony relates to the \u201cunindicted co-conspirator list\u201d from the Holy Land case as a credible source of information on U.S. NPOs that may support terrorism. The letter points out that prosecutors admitted the list was created solely for technical legal reasons and that there would be no prosecution.\u00a0 Because prosecutors did not seal the list as required by Department of Justice policy, it became public and is repeatedly used by Isamophobic groups to create a false impression that the list is based on evidence of wrongdoing. In fact, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals held that the list should not have been published, that the groups on the list were denied due process when it was, since it was \u201cunaccompanied by any facts providing a context for evaluating the basis for the United States Attorney\u2019s opinion.”<\/p>\n\n