NGO Accountability

Saudi Princes Not Liable for Terrorism from Charitable Giving

A court case that doesn't seem to have gotten much attention found that Saudi Arabia, and four of its princes, cannot be held liable in the terrorist attacks of 9/11/01, "even if they were aware that charitable donations to Muslim groups would be funnelled to Al Qaeda," the NY Sun reported, citing AP.

The case hinged on the principles of "sovereign immunity" and also the difficulty in showing that the princes knowingly intended to harm American residents.

"The bottom line is it's a difficult proof level to say someone gave money intending it to be used in a terrorist attack in the United States as opposed to merely giving it to anti-American groups and foreseeing it," AP quoted a lawyer for the plaintiffs, Justin Timothy Green. Yet he added that Al Aeda couldn't have made these attacks if they didn't have these kinds of resources to train and equip terrorists.

Understandably, this is a route the relatives of victims of 9/11 have taken to try to get some accountability for their losses; now it is closed off.

It wasn't just a matter of the difficulty of determining which money went for which activity. Said the judges of the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals:

"Even if the four princes were reckless in monitoring how their donations were spent, or could and did foresee that recipients of their donations would attack targets in the United States, that would be insufficient."

I'd love to hear more about the law that went into this decision, but the take-home is this: let's say a foundation in the U.S. gives a grant to a Palestinian group that is later found to fund a suicide-bombing attack. From what I gather, it will not be possible to take the foundation to court for this act, even if intentional, although the act could remain counter to the foundation's charter, or perhaps even be grounds to challenge its tax-exempt status -- I don't know. I look forward to finding out more about this.

What is NGO Accountability?

U.S. non-profit groups have to file a 990 form to the IRS, open to the public.

Long ago, I used to have this vision of making a worldwide civic movement called by one simple word: "Accountability".

I thought this over-arching concept would make links among movements that had become very separate, bureaucratized, and even hostile to one another, whether concerned with human rights, democracy, social justice, environment  or natural resources.

All the basic civil rights of freedom of expression and freedom of assembly would naturally be the basis for such a movement, that would not have to play the game of never taking a political position (when in fact it was taking them all the time) because it would not be strictly mandated by law in one country or morality contingent on this or that religion, but based on a kind of civic responsibility that is hard to capture sometimes by literal references to rights or morals. In this vision I had, Accountability would never fund-raise or collect donations and spend money, and thus have no need to become mired in financial, tax, and registration problems. It would try to frame the issues, and take action where needed.

I thought Accountability was a great idea, because you could pick as much or as little of it as you were prepared to handle at your level -- if you could call entire nations to account on their torture overseas or at home with media access and skilled lawyers and doctors, and you would of course seek resources to accomplish this, but as an independent entity subscribing to the overall principles of Accountability, and using this network like you would use Wikipedia or Facebook to find information and connections. If all you could do was to get your arbitrary landlord in your neighbourhood to be fair to the poor, then you'd do that much -- with help from whatever you took from Accountability -- with whatever people gave. You could enter the stream at any level, and swim as deep or as long as you wished -- or merely remain a well-wisher on the banks.

Of course, this dream was from a different era, and I suppose is typical of people from the 1960s or 1970s who look for globalistic solutions. It's hardly practical, but I still think it's a useful idea to look for ideals to create social movements that develop a sturdy capacity to address real social and political problems that do not yield so readily to hortatory references to rights or morals. You want a teenager not to seek an abortion and you exhort her not to, and yet, what was your plan for funding the raising of this child? You wanted a woman to leave her abusive husband and invoke women's rights to seek an order of protection, but what was your plan to support her now that she lost her sole source of income, her spouse? The ways to seek accountability in these situations aren't so instantly clear, our role as moralizers or rights defenders are more clear than our remedies, but it seems to me that you could begin to organize around certain principles -- accepting responsiblity, paying as you go, helping the poor, volunteering your time -- ingredients that are needed in any NGO, but aren't really themselves so studied as methods to avoid what happens in so many poor countries, especially those ravaged by war -- taking up arms, using violence, stealing, pillaging, rape as a way of life.