While I cannot comment on the lawsuit or on the underlying facts, I do believe that it is worthwhile to point out the absurdities of the current US policies on controlling terrorist financing.

First of all the standard of proof is “Reason to Believe”. This standard was rejected by the Supreme Court in the Guantanamo case. Under this principle, a newspaper article, intelligence from a foreign source or an anonymous allegation can be used to designate an individual or organization as a supporter of terrorism. As long as the government has ANY reason to suspect ties to terrorism, no matter how flimsy or how well refuted, the designation will stand. Because some allegations and evidence are secret there is limited opportunity to contest or refute some charges (there are many cases where the charges are unstated). Since 911 no organization designated as a supporter of terrorism has been cleared, despite statements of the 911 Commission and other bodies casting doubt on the validity of some designations. In addition, no individual or organization designated as a supporter of terrorism has been convicted of criminal charges relating to terrorism although several have been indicted. On the other hand, several organizations so designated have been cleared by European authorities but remain on the US list of designated entities.

There is no right to independent appeal, and the right to counsel is limited to those who are given a special licence by the Office of Foreign Assets Control. As a final assault on due process, an individual or organization may be designated as a supporter of terrorism simply as a result of “links” to another organization or individual who is listed even though those links may have predated the listing of the linked individual.

Whatever the merits of issues raised in the NSA lawsuit, it is clear that the US needs to reform its laws relating to terrorist financing to provide for more transparency and establish due process safeguards. By targeting Muslim organizations (mostly charities) the US runs the needless risk of appearing to be waging a war on Islam. Ironically, targeting established charities has resulted in an increased flow of cash contributions to crisis areas – not a step forward in the effort to control financial support for terrorist organizations.

Mainstream philanthropic organization in the US and Europe are becoming increasingly united in their opposition to US policies, laws and regulations in this ares, both for the reasons I have stated as well as for other considerations. Reform in this area would provide increased security and gains for the US in terms of public diplomacy.

Thanks for the opportunity to post.

Wendell