Trial Against U.S. Muslim Charity Begins
Holy Land Foundation…Dispelling the Myths
By Dennis Lormel
The U.S. based charity Holy Land Foundation (HLF) went on trial this week, along with seven individuals who were principals of HLF. They were indicted in 2004 for providing material support to terrorists, namely to HAMAS. The trial began with the jury selection phase. Thus far, the trial has generated moderate media coverage. As it progresses, the trial will garner more intense coverage. This is an extremely complex and document intensive case. The trial should last a minimum of five months. To date, the media coverage has spawned a series of myths that warrant being dispelled.
The bottom line is that HLF did in fact fund HAMAS. HAMAS is a masterful organization at exploiting and manipulating charities for financial and logistical support, as well as for recruitment and marketing, in the sense of winning the hearts and minds of the Palestinian people.
The term “Islamophobia” has been described by media and Islamic organization sources as the catalyst for this investigation and trial. Make no mistake about it; this trial is not about ethnic discrimination or political motivation. This trial’s sole consideration is the willful disbursement of funds by HLF to HAMAS, a terrorist organization. Islamic groups espousing “Islamophobia” or political motivation are providing a disservice to their constituencies. Islamic groups must stand up and honestly recognize the fact that their charities are vulnerable to exploitation by terrorist groups and have historically served as a significant source of funding for terrorists. It’s incumbent on the Islamic community to police its charities and ensure donations intended for charitable purposes are in fact used for charitable purposes and not in any way to support terrorism. Islamic charities serve a vital role and provide much needed relief to the poor and destitute.
There have been reports that the HLF case was driven by political pressure brought to bear by the Israelis. There is absolutely no truth to this allegation. This investigation was initiated by the FBI, specifically based on the predication that HLF was providing funds and other support to HAMAS. The Israelis have cooperated with the investigation but have no influence over the investigators or prosecutors.
Distinctions have been drawn between the social and military wings of HAMAS. As a result, it has been theorized that providing funds to the social or charitable wing of HAMAS should be acceptable because humanitarian aid is provided to the needy. The unfortunate reality is that no such distinction can be drawn. HAMAS, the organization, the entire organization, must be recognized and treated as a terrorist organization. Regardless of the use of funds, under all circumstances, HAMAS, the terrorist organization benefits. This is a heart wrenching and unfortunate reality for those who truly need aid. HAMAS must be held responsible for this because of the manner in which they use charities to support their terrorist activity. The U.S. government has rightly taken a hard line in this regard.
A theme gaining traction in the media has been that there is pressure on the government to win this trial. The government has suffered setbacks in two recent cases, which possessed similarities to this case. First was the Sami Al-Arian case in Tampa. Al-Arian was tried on charges of providing material support to the Palestinian Islamic Jihad. He was acquitted of certain charges and there was a hung jury concerning other charges. Al-Arian ultimately accepted a guilty plea to lesser charges. The second case occurred in Illinois where two subjects were found not guilty for providing material support to HAMAS. The reality is, neither of those cases factor into the HLF case. The prosecutors and investigators are focused specifically on HLF. Those other cases are irrelevant with respect to this case. Another case, which hasn’t been mentioned in this context, was the Infocom case, which was related to HLF. In Infocom, five brothers, including Ghassan Elashi, a subject in the HLF case, were convicted in Dallas for conducting business with Libya and Syria, known state sponsors of terrorism. They were also convicted for financial dealings with a longtime HAMAS operative.
Despite the fact that HLF did provide funding and support to HAMAS, obtaining a conviction in this matter will be a challenge for the government. As mentioned earlier, this is an extremely complex and document intensive case. This is where the “lawyering” comes into play. The prosecutors must prove their charges beyond a reasonable doubt. The defense attorneys must create questions and doubts to sway the jury for acquittal. They must establish doubt to the government’s argument that the subjects knowingly provided material support. In cases of such complexity, it is difficult to gauge how the jury will respond. The prosecutors should attempt to simplify the case as much as possible.
This is an extremely important case. However, regardless of whether there are prosecutions or acquittals, actions already taken against HLF and other charities have definitively disrupted the flow of funds to terrorists. In December 2001, HLF assets were frozen. In and around that time frame, the assets of other charities were also frozen. These actions had a chilling effect on charitable giving to like charities. The indictment and trial in the HLF case continue the deterrent created by the asset freezes. The disruptions achieved have diminished the flow of funds to terrorists. Consider the current HAMAS financial state. If HAMAS still had access to a funding mechanism such as HLF, it would have been extremely beneficial. Fortunately, they don’t.
Should the government lose this trial, they will receive harsh criticism and in a sense validate some of the myths addressed above. It will also cause the government to take a step back to seriously reevaluate prosecutive theory and investigative methodologies. Should the government win this case, they should leverage the sense of credibility achieved in this matter and use it to work with the Islamic community to address the areas of vulnerability, such as charities, exploited by terrorists. Meaningful dialogue is an important step in this process.
Win or lose, the government should reevaluate prosecutive theories and investigative methodologies in cases of this nature. They should identify mechanisms that work best and develop new mechanisms to better address future challenges. From the stand point of lessons learned, training curriculums should be developed for prosecutors and investigators to enhance their skills and abilities in handling these challenging and complex cases.
Be respectful of others and their opinions. Inflammatory remarks and inane leftist drivel will be deleted. It ain’t about free speech, remember you’re in a private domain. My website, my prerogative.
If you can't handle using your real email address, don't bother posting a comment.
This is a good step forward. However, I believe that CAIR and the ACLU must also be scrutinized as well. They’re dangerous front groups, antithetical to our way of life.
July 27th, 2007 at 9:34 pmthe stupid thing about this is that you could also reign in individual mosques under the same pretense based on admissions by terrrorist orgnizations such as the taliban that they use islamic donations earmarked for the poor(zagat) to fight their war in afghanistan. I read such an admission in an MSM article about the war in afghanistan. The taliban commander mentioned this just off hand and the MSM continued on without even noticing. Why? because when muslims dont want you to know the real meaning of something they use the arabic transliteration rather than english translation.
this article included is naive to think or suggest that Islamic “charities” should be on the lookout for being used by terrrorists. they know they are being used, it is willing, because lying “in order to guard yourself” is permitted in the quran. when an organization or the MSM use unfamiliar transliterated words , like zagat, kafir,taqiyya, kitman,nashk,etc , it is for the very reason to conceal their true intentions. therefore, all of islam should be under suspicion, and the MSM will never hold them accountable as longas we continue to separate terrorist groups from mainstream Islamists who support them with their prayers, time and money. they are working together, some unknowingly, but most know exactly whats up. lets stop being so naive, and when you see an unfamiliar reference , do the research or ask the right questions and watch them dodge your question, obfuscate or otherwise lie, it is a way of life in islam!
July 27th, 2007 at 10:03 pmThere is nothing wrong with charities per se. In our culture feeding the poor, etc is acceptable. But these people have perverted the word and turned it into an excuse to fund murder and mayhem in the jihadi world.
It is a clever ruse that plays well in the MSM, because the MSM is totally unaware that these underground jihadists are using our freedom and our systems against us.
And the ACLU and like-minded fools are playing this game to the hilt. They are participating in a fraud, because that is what the ACLU is all about. They are wolves in sheeps clothing masquerading as avengers of people who have been slighted by “the man”. When in truth all they are is a bunch of self-hating anarchists who could give a damn about freedom and liberty. They are the devils own minions. So of course they’ll represent the Jihadis. Birds of a feather…
July 28th, 2007 at 5:01 amI have no idea if HLF is guilty or not, I’ll wait to see what the trial reveals. What I do know is that the FBI & AUSA (prosecutor) handed them grounds for appeal on a silver platter before the trial even began. When arguing over what evidence should be presented, the judge reviewed the FBI’s claim that they had wiretapped HLF and had many recordings of conversations of them discussing terrorism and sending money to terrorists. The FBI even provided transcripts of the recordings.
This rare, sharp judge (maybe considering the FBI’s history of playing fast and loose with evidence or maybe it was the FBI’s insistence on only presenting the transcripts instead of the tapes) took the extraordinary step of demanding to hear the tapes himself. Guess what? Not one single word was on the tapes about terrorism or sending money to terrorists, and the transcripts were complete fabrications. So the judge has barred the transcripts from being used as evidence, the judge is ticked off at prosecutorial misconduct (the same thing that doomed the Chicago terrorists’ trial), and the HLF has a really solid basis for appeal, since the FBI’s entire tree of evidence is built on those “transripts”.
In trials, when the cops (or FBI) begin their case with Evidence A, and then from there proceed to Evidence B, C, D, E, F, etc., if Evidence A is found to have been gathered illegally or if it is found to be fatally flawed (like transcripts of tapes where the transcripts make a serious allegation that’s not on the tapes), then Evidence B, C, D, etc., can be labeled “fruit of the poisoned tree” and even though B, C,D, etc may be valid, it could (and often is) thrown out.
When the FBI goes after terrorists, they have GOT TO make sure they do everything “by the book”, being factual, not violating rights (wait a minute before you scream), and then the court has to make sure of the same things, so that once the terrorists are convicted, the conviction can hold up through the appeals process! For example, this is why the judge in the Massuoui (?) judge was so meticulous and exacting in his trial, why it took so long - she made absolutely sure that his conviction would survive appeals.
Bottom line — For God’s sake, Get The Terrorists! But do it right, so that they stay in prison, so that the appellate courts don’t turn them loose to walk free again in society, to plot more attacks. Lock them up and do it right so that they never again see freedom !!
July 28th, 2007 at 5:27 amTwo other observations - as to the “unindicted co-conspirators” that is so often cited in articles against CAIR (don’t know if that was done here or not): There were allegedly 900 “unindicted co-conspirators” so I’m thinking three possibilities:
1) For all the talk about this, I’ve not seen anyone present any documentation that lists the unindicted co-conspirators. I always prefer to see the documentation, it is far more believable than rumors.
2) If true, then this could be a reference to those who contributed to HLF, which for years maintained a very respectable reputation. The contributors may or may not have known of any terrorist-related activities. When you give to United Way (for example) do you first investigate every charity that United Way funds? Most people don’t.
3) If true, and if the unindicted co-conspirators DID know of HLF’s sending funds to terrorists (if that is what HLF did), then the AUSA may be waiting to first get a HLF conviction, then building on that conviction, work on indicting the unindicted co-conspirators.
There are an awful lot of “ifs” here: IF there really are 900 unindicted co-conspirators; IF HLF was indeed sending money to terrorists; IF HLF can be convicted of that; IF HLF’s conviction can withstand appeals; IF the prosecutor (AUSA) can prove that the unindicted co-conspirators knew of HLF’s illegal actions; IF the AUSA feels there is enough evidence to bring charges against the co-conspirators; IF the co-conspirators can be found guilty. It wouldn’t be an impossibility, but if any one of those IFs fails, then the co-conspirators are going to remain free and be considered not guilty.
I’d really like to see this alleged document from the AUSA that says there are 900 unindicted co-conspirators and who they are. If anyone knows if this document is in the public domain and where to find it, please let me know.
July 28th, 2007 at 5:39 amOne more thing. This organization isn’t about Islam and helping out the poor. This organization is a carefully disguised criminal enterprise and should be treated as such.
July 28th, 2007 at 6:10 amThis is all anyone needs to know. Anyone who thinks otherwise of HLF is just plain blind.
From the FBI website:
The Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development (HLF) is registered as a nonprofit humanitarian organization that has conducted fund-raising activities in the United States. In December 2001 the Department of Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) designated HLF as a Specially Designated Terrorist (SDT) based on information that HLF provided material support to HAMAS. InfoCom, a computer company and Internet Service Provider closely associated with HLF, is being investigated for providing material support to terrorism and multiple violations of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act for illegal shipments to state sponsors of terrorism. FBI investigation has determined that InfoCom is facilitating the HLF’s fund-raising efforts via their computer support and may be assisting HAMAS via covert communications. As a result of a superceding indictment related to the InfoCom investigation, the Dallas Division arrested four suspects who had been indicted for terrorist related charges. Two additional suspects were also indicted, however, they are in fugitive status and remain at large. The four individuals arrested on these charges are expected to go to trial in the immediate future. It is important to note that one of the fugitives is Mousa Marzook, the Deputy Head of the HAMAS Political Bureau and a Specially Designated Terrorist.
July 28th, 2007 at 4:41 pm