[News] US charity arrests raise questions regarding 'war on terror'

[News at freedomarchives.org]

US charity arrests raise questions regarding 'war on terror'

By Hussein Ibish

The Daily Star
26 August 2004

http://dailystar.com.lb/article.asp?edition_id=10&categ_id=2&article_id=7731

WASHINGTON: In a case with profound implications regarding the
nature and focus of the US "war on terror," on July 27 US
authorities arrested the leadership of one of the largest Muslim
charities in the United States, the Holy Land Foundation for
Relief and Development.

Three additional indictments handed down on Aug. 20 were said by
US authorities to also be part of efforts to stop the flow of
money from the United States to the Palestinian militant group
Hamas. A Hamas senior official who was indicted on Aug. 20, Moussa
Abu Marzook, told the Associated Press in Syria: "Hamas did not
take a penny from the Holy Land Foundation. Hamas has its own
means of funding and that is not connected to any institution in
the West."

The 42-count indictment accuses the senior officers and
fundraisers of Holy Land of using the charity to "provide
financial and material support" in excess of $12.4 million to
"Hamas-controlled organizations in the West Bank and Gaza, as well
as for direct payment to individuals whom (Holy Land) supported on
behalf of Hamas, including family members of martyrs and
prisoners." The case appears to rely heavily on information
provided by Israeli intelligence,

with federal authorities citing "critical assistance from our
foreign allies and partners."

Among the accused arrested on July 27 were Holy Land's founder,
Shukri Abu Baker, its executive director Ghassan Elashi, Mohammed
al-Mezain, Mufid Abdel-Qader and Abdel-Raham Odeh. Also indicted
were Haitham Maghawri and Akram Mishal, both said to be outside
the United States. A former fundraiser, Abdel-Jabbar Hamdan, was
also detained, and is presumed to be a material witness in the
case.

Indicted along with Abu Marzook in the second case, and arrested
on Aug. 20, were Mohammed Salah, whose Chicago-based Koranic
Literacy Institute was the subject of a controversial civil asset
forfeiture in the late 1990s, and Abdel-Haleem Ashqar, who has
previously been held on contempt of court charges for refusing to
testify in other cases. Neither man has been connected to the
charity.

John Boyd, a lawyer for Holy Land, told The New York Times: "This
is completely unfounded, and if the Holy Land Foundation is given
an opportunity to defend itself, it will be able to rebut every
charge made in this indictment.''

The American Muslim community was shocked when the federal
government in December 2001, froze the assets of Holy Land, along
with two lesser known charities. With outstanding assets estimated
to be in excess of $7 million, and having been listed as a
suggested charity on the State Department's website, Holy Land was
among with most respected American Muslim institutions.

But for years it had been the subject of accusations, mainly from
journalist Steven Emerson and his one-time associate, the
self-described "terrorist hunter" Rita Katz, that it was a "front"
or fundraising arm of Hamas-related social service organizations.
These charges were not taken seriously by many people, because of
the long history of false accusations from Emerson and his
associates against Arab and Muslim Americans.

Holy Land challenged the seizure of its assets, filing a suit in
federal court against the government in March 2002. In response,
the government declared its intention to re-designate Holy Land as
a "terrorist organization" itself, rather than merely treating it
as a supporter or fundraiser. Lawyers for the charity say they
were given two weeks to challenge the accusations in a voluminous
memo from the Justice Department. They say they declined to try to
meet what they call an impossible deadline. In May 2002, the
government officially re-classified the group a "specially
designated terrorist."

Holy Land's lawsuit proved a complete failure, as neither the
federal district court judge nor the appellate court would allow
the charity to introduce evidence challenging the government's
claims. Though these rulings created a minor uproar among legal
scholars, the Supreme Court refused to hear Holy Land's appeal and
the rulings stood.

Civil liberties groups insisted that since Holy Land had never
been allowed to defend itself, the government should either bring
criminal indictments against its leaders, or unfreeze the assets.
On July 27, the indictments came.

The accusations against Holy Land and the other charities have
created a conundrum for American Muslims regarding how to perform
their religious obligation of zakat - charitable giving - when
some of the best known charities, implicitly endorsed by the State
Department and enjoying federally-approved tax-free status, are
now accused of being criminals.

Arab-American and Muslim groups have repeatedly suggested that the
government provide some mechanism to assure Muslim donors that the
groups to which they contribute are not suspected of any crimes,
but to no avail. Additionally, the effort, spearheaded by Salam
al-Marayati, executive director of the Muslim Public Affairs
Council, to get the remaining Holy Land funds, estimated to be
about $5 million, released to a mutually acceptable third party
charity has met with little success.

Central to the Holy Land case are key civil liberties and foreign
policy issues defining development of the US war on terror.

Free speech and freedom of conscience in the United States could
be compromised if giving money to humanitarian operations overseas
run by people with the wrong opinions becomes a serious crime. Few
Americans are aware of the vast social-service network run by
Hamas in the Gaza Strip, and - like the Israeli government but
unlike many others - US authorities seem to recognize no
difference between the humanitarian, political and para-military
branches of the movement.

The indictments against Holy Land suggest the money in question
was allegedly passed to "charitable fronts" for Hamas, and in part
provided as aid for the families of its activists who were jailed
or killed. "In this manner, defendants effectively rewarded past,
and encouraged future, suicide bombings and terrorist activities
on behalf of Hamas," the government says.

If the case proves to be based solely on support for humanitarian
groups run by people with the wrong opinions or the wrong
associations, or aid to people who have the wrong relatives, then
otherwise lawful activity will be a crime more because of the
opinions being implicitly expressed than any violent acts. Since
"material support" laws were enacted, civil liberties scholars
have warned that they could develop into a form of "thought crime"
in the US.

In July, the US government was rebuffed by a jury in Idaho that
acquitted a Saudi student of "supporting terrorism" by setting up
websites that allegedly praised terrorism in Chechnya and Israel.
He was charged under a provision of the US Patriot Act makes that
makes it illegal to provide "expert advice or assistance" to
terrorists.

The recent arrests suggest that just as US foreign policy has
become difficult to distinguish from Israeli attitudes, US law
enforcement increasingly sees little difference between
nationalist groups fighting Israeli occupation and Al-Qaeda's
worldwide terrorist network.

Opponents of Israel are thus increasingly treated as opponents of
the US by American law enforcement, while the same standard is not
applied to other nationalist groups such as Irish, Basque, Tamil,
Iranian, Colombian that engage in terrorism.

The Freedom Archives
522 Valencia Street
San Francisco, CA 94110
(415) 863-9977
www.freedomarchives.org 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://freedomarchives.org/pipermail/news_freedomarchives.org/attachments/20040827/fb1f69ea/attachment.htm>