Click here for a complete transcript of the Feb. 17, 2010 event, inlcuding a question and answer session.<\/a>
\n<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\nSpeaking at the event, Stephen Vladeck, professor of law at American University’s Washington College of Law, began his remarks by provided a comprehensive history of the \u201cmaterial support\u201d laws and their interpretation throughout different legal proceedings and legislation. He concluded his comments by clarifying that this case was \u201cnot about charitable donations,\u201d but rather about \u201cother types of material support that are non-monetary that include assistance, counseling and other [types of] conduct.\u201d<\/p>\n
Following Vladeck, Shayana Kadidal, co-counsel of the Humanitarian Law Project and a senior managing attorney at the Center for Constitutional Rights, explained how the Humanitarian Law Project\u2019s works \u201cspecialize in nonviolent conflict resolution\u201d and wanted to enter into discussion with a designated group about \u201cpeacefully resolving its disputes, carrying out human rights monitoring\u2026and bringing various human rights complaints to international bodies.\u201d \u00a0Kadidal also described a common but complex situation often encountered by nonprofits and aid agencies delivering humanitarian aid to people trapped in areas controlled by a designated group. \u00a0\u201cThe LTTE (Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam) were basically the functioning government in the eastern parts of Sri Lanka\u2026these were areas heavily affected by the civil war but also devastated by the Boxing Day tsunami in 2004. As the functioning government it was very difficult to do material humanitarian aid without dealing with the LTTE in one way or another.\u201d\u00a0(see Legal Roadblocks for U.S. Famine Relief to Somalia Creating Humanitarian Crisis<\/a> for more examples of how the laws complicate humanitarian aid delivery)<\/p>\nThe final speaker, Lisa Schirch, professor of peacebuilding at Eastern Mennonite University and director of the 3D Security Initiative<\/a>, characterized the material support statute as \u201ca deterrent\u201d on humanitarian operations around the world.\u00a0As an example, Schirch described how her participation in a peacebuilding project in Afghanistan, called the Afghanistan Pathways to Peace, is complicated by the material support laws. \u201cIt\u2019s never clear to me when I\u2019m sitting with a large group of people in a room in Kabul , who in the room may be Taliban and who may not. So if we are researching the issues of what are the core grievances that need to be on the national peace process agenda\u2026and we are listening to many different people, does my listening to people who may belong to the Taliban count as material support?\u201d<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n