After news that U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) was holding off implementation of the Partner Vetting System (PVS) until the agency reviews comments, more news reveals that the program will be altered to only target aid recipients in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. USAID officials met with some of the nonprofit organizations who submitted comments. At the meeting the changes to the proposed program were announced, and that it is operational but has not been implemented. USAID presented the nonprofit representatives with a power point presentation explaining the program. According to the Washington Post the materials defending the program included a reference to a report by the Palestinian Media Watch, an Israel-based organization. The report said that Al-Quds Open University (a USAID recipient) "hosts branches of the Hamas and Islamic Jihad terror organizations."

The organization said the university had received in $100,000 in 2006 in "in-kind" aid from USAID, and it also complained that USAID planned to provide $2.4 million in scholarships for about 2,000 Palestinian students without a guarantee that recipients are not "members of the Hamas or Islamic Jihad student unions, have participated in their events, or have given any support to Hamas or Islamic Jihad, including voting for them in the council elections."

The fact that the U.S. government is responding to the appeals of an organization which is concerned about the political beliefs of students who receive scholarship funds from U.S. funds and may or may not have voted for Hamas is disturbing. This politicizes aid and violates the principle of a secret ballot.

In addition, if the program is about stopping money from going to terrorists, or those associated with terrorist, shouldn't such a vetting program be applied to contractors as well?

Possibly because of last week's publicity that opposition to the proposed U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) Partner Vetting System from charitable organizations was increasing caused the Bush administration to postpone the start of the program until the agency reviews comments. The Washington Post reports that representatives of USAID's security office will meet with organizations that sent comments in response to the July 17 notice. This would be the first time that the program is actually discussed with a group of representatives who will be affected.

USAID's acting deputy administrator, James Kunder said even though the notice in the Federal Register said yesterday was the last day for organizations to comment on the proposal, comments will be accepted through the end of next month. "Kunder said in a telephone interview that it 'would be effective, but not operational' until there is 'a systematic review' of the views of the private organizations involved." However, the The Chronicle of Philanthropy ($$) reports that Harry Edwards, a spokesman for the Agency for International Development, could not confirm Kunder's comments.

Most unfortunate is the fact that groups who are rejected would not be told why. This secrecy was part of the focus covered by OMB Watch in comments submitted to USAID. The Washington Post article also cited Kunder to have said that whether the agency could confirm or deny that individuals passed the screening is still being considered. OMB Watch comments also focused on the problems with using watchlists for the vetting.

Almost a year ago FBI agents raided the Muslim charity Life for Relief and Development, taking away computers and records while nobody has yet been charged with anything and the charity continues operation. Understandably, Life for Relief is now asking for the return of nearly 200 boxes of paperwork critical to its operations. The U.S. Attorney's Office is willing to provide the records, but only if Life for Relief pays copying charges of between $21,000 and $115,000. Those charges are so high because the copies were made inside FBI offices by a company with a U.S. security clearance. The organization needs its files to complete required audits and file its tax return due in April. Further disconcerting is the fact that the government holds sealed documents that only the judge can look at which supposedly provide reasons why the charity and not the government should pay for the copying charges. Here we have a nonprofit that is working to provide humanitarian aid, and instead of using money for its intended purpose, the government is forcing them to pay for the FBI copies.

The Washington Post reports on a very alarming notice posted in the Federal Register on July 17. All organizations and nonprofits that receive or apply for U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) funds would be required to screen all who work with the charities and provide the information to the government, this includes phone numbers, date and place of birth, e-mail addresses, nationality, gender, profession, citizenship, and government issued identification (such as social security number and passport number.) The information will be collected to make sure that no one has any connection with individuals or groups associated with terrorism. The program is outlined as the Partner Vetting System (PVS). The notice is quite vague, and it leads to a number of questions. Such as, will this some day extend to all government grantees, and what is the information being screened against? The government may deny an organization based on the collected information, but may not tell the group why; another way of saying, because the government says so. In addition, the program goes into affect the day comments are due (Aug. 27), suggesting that the agency will not take into account concerns of the nonprofit community. OMB Watch plans to submit comments. The Global Health Council also opposes the PVS.

InterAction, a coalition of U.S.-based foreign aid groups including many that receive USAID funding, will have to deal with this head on and has sent a letter to the Chief Privacy Officer at USAID asking that the plan be withdrawn. The letter also points to the other numerous concerns, such as the possible infringement upon privacy laws in other countries and the possibility that the lives of those working in some areas may be put at risk. "If they are perceived to be extension of the U.S. intelligence community, terrorist attacks against them can only increase."

The InterAction letter also addresses there has not been any verified need for the program. "USAID has not demonstrated a need for such a system. There is no evidence that USAID funds are flowing to terrorist organizations through NGOs. The Office of the Inspector General has reported repeatedly that it has found no such diversion in exercising its oversight of programs in USAID's sensitive West Bank/Gaza portfolio. Nor has it reported finding such diversions elsewhere. Neither has any other competent authority. There is no statutory basis for the PVS or any similar system outside of, arguably, the West Bank and Gaza. The fact that Congress has not required such measures elsewhere indicates the proposed system has not been deemed necessary by our national legislature. Nor is it required by Executive Order 13324."

The Pentagon has said it will shut down its TALON anti-terrorism database that had been criticized for including information on antiwar protesters and other peaceful activists. "The Quakers can sleep easier." Read the ACLU press release here.

In June the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) released the October 2002 "Presidential Advance Manual" which outlines instructions for staff to deter potential protestors from President Bush's public appearances. The Washington Post is just now reporting on the manual the ACLU obtained as part of a lawsuit filed on behalf of two people arrested for refusing to cover their anti-Bush T-shirts at a Fourth of July speech.

It directs the White House advance staff to ask local police "to designate a protest area where demonstrators can be placed, preferably not in the view of the event site or motorcade route." . . . To counter any demonstrators who do get in, advance teams are told to create "rally squads" of volunteers with large hand-held signs, placards or banners with "favorable messages." Squads should be placed in strategic locations and "at least one squad should be 'roaming' throughout the perimeter of the event to look for potential problems," the manual says

The case involving government spying on the charity, Al-Haramain Foundation has received a lot of blog coverage in light of the contradictory and perplexing claims made by the government lawyers. For example, how can the argument be accepted that national security concerns require that the lawsuits be dismissed when, as Judge Margaret McKeown accurately stated that a lot is known about the surveillance program; "We know quite a lot." And as the Washington Post reported, late in the proceedings, McKeown complained of feeling "like I'm Alice in Wonderland." Read the New York Times story here.

Meanwhile, in a separate case involving the same defunct Islamic charity, the former director pleaded not guilty to federal conspiracy and tax fraud charges after returning voluntarily to the United States to fight the allegations. A federal lawsuit has been filed seeking to remove the Oregon chapter of Al-Haramain from the federal terrorism list.

The National Association of Muslim Lawyers, the National Association of Criminal Defense Attorneys, and Muslim Advocates sent a letter to Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales objecting to the U.S. government's decision to create and publish a large list of unindicted co-conspirators in the Holy Land Foundation trial. Releasing the names goes against the Department of Justice's guidelines. The letter said that the list could certainly hinder charitable donations to Muslim organizations, further damaging Muslim Americans role in civil society. Many are unsure how to proceed with legal recourse to have their name or organization removed from the list. Furthermore, those on the list have not been charged with anything. Consequently the publication of the list has created a public smear campaign of these individuals and organizations and could potentially be damaging in the future especially if Holy Land is convicted.

The New York Times addresses the letter in this article, Muslim Groups Oppose a List of 'Co-Conspirators'". "Before the judge's order, however, the prosecution, while acknowledging that the list was unusually long, maintained that the names of the organizations would have come up in the trial anyway. Defense lawyers accused the Justice Department of using the list to create the aura of a vast conspiracy where none existed."

The letter sent to Attorney General Gonzales states, "Of particular concern is the apparent categorization of persons and entities based on activities that are facially protected under the constitution --- freedom of association and freedom to exercise religious belief --- for supporting the charitable activities of a registered 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization that, until the Fall of 2001, was perceived as a mainstream, legitimate charitable institution in the United States by its donors and volunteers. Therefore, it appears that well-intentioned persons and entities could very well be unfairly implicated in the government's prosecution of the Holy Land Foundation, without notice and an opportunity to challenge the allegations."

In addition, the Council on American-Islamic Relations, or CAIR, which is on the list, has filed a brief charging that the listing violates the uncharged parties' First and Fifth Amendment rights and asks for its name and all others to be removed from the list. "By publicizing CAIR and other Muslim advocacy groups as unindicted co-conspirators, the government has significantly impaired groups engaging in protected free-speech activities by depriving those named groups of any due process rights that they would have had at trial." And read this editorial which cites the list as a "McCarthyite political move."

Jon B. Eisenberg who is suing the government on behalf of the charity Al-Haramain Islamic Foundation, had to write an appellate brief in a government office supervised by a Justice Department security officer. The charity Al-Haramain says they were illegally wiretapped by the National Security Agency (N.S.A). Al-Haramain and two of its lawyers were mistakenly given proof that their international communications were the subject of N.S.A. eavesdropping in the spring of 2004, and that document is the center of an appeal that will be heard on Wednesday by a panel of three federal judges. How the court deals with the document, which the government quickly recovered leaving the lawyers with a "mental copy," may have great ramifications on future rulings on the legality of the wiretapping program. A New York TimesSelect ($$) article, "A Case So Shielded One Side Is in the Dark," describes the high level of security that Eisenberg and others have experienced.

''We were not allowed to keep a copy of what we wrote,'' Mr. Eisenberg continued. ''Our drafts were retained by the security officer for shredding. We were allowed to print out five copies of the final document: one for each judge, one for the government attorneys, and one to be retained'' in a Justice Department safe. ''Not even the judges' staff attorneys will be permitted to see the document.''

So, it's like this,'' he said in the e-mail message. ''Yesterday, under the auspices and control of my litigation adversaries, at their offices and on their computer, I wrote a brief, of which I was not allowed to keep a copy, responding to arguments which I was not permitted to see, which will be met by a reply which I will not be permitted to see.

Read the USA Today coverage which states; "The charity's lawyer scoffs at the often surreal lengths the government has taken to keep the Document under wraps."

Shortly before Congress left for their August recess, Rep. Zack Wamp (R-TN) introduced HR 3348, the United Nations Economic and Social Council Accountability Act of 2007. The bill calls on the Secretary of State to withhold funds from the UN unless it removes consultative status for all charitable organizations with any terrorist connections. While it directs the UN to investigate such organizations, it seems to conclude that the designation of an organization by the US or the UN is irrefutable. This should point the discussion back to the problem that there is a lack of due process and transparency in the designation process. The U.N. NGO committee is now reviewing the matter.

According to the New York Sun; "The effort comes amid reports that a humanitarian organization awarded 'consultative status' by the U.N. Economic and Social Council, the Saudi Arabia-based International Islamic Relief Organization, has separately been designated by the Treasury Department and the United Nations as being a front for Al Qaeda."

We have followed the Chiquita Brands International case and its intentional funding of Colombian terrorist organizations because of the apparent double standard that is applied to for profit companies compared to charities. More news has now surfaced which unfortunately details that the U.S. Justice Department knew of the company's payments. In April 2003 a board member of Chiquita disclosed to Michael Chertoff, then assistant attorney general and now secretary of homeland security, about the company's payments and clear violation of anti-terrorism laws. Allegedly, Chertoff told the Chiquita representatives that the activity was illegal, but they should wait for more feedback; "Chertoff acknowledged that the matter was complicated, and said that he would get back to them after conferring with other administration officials." Chiquita's executives were convinced that after the meeting with Chertoff and lacking any further response, the government had not clearly demanded that the payments stop. Now federal prosecutors are deciding whether or not to charge many former Chiquita company officials for approving the illegal payments. Lawyers for Chiquita claim that their clients did not intentionally break the law, but believed they were waiting for an answer from the government officials.

So here we have to greatly reiterate an important point, stressing the clear disparity in regards to the treatment of charities suspected of having links to terrorism and a company that admitted to funding terrorists. Federal action in cases involving the three largest U.S.-based Muslim charities appears to be based on questionable evidence. What is even more distressing is that with the case of Chiquita, the U.S. government knew about the payments. The attorney general of Colombia, Mario Iguaran denied claims that the company was a victim of extortion and said the company knew its payoffs were used to fund operations against peasants and union workers.