let us see what love can do

Up In Alms — Jury Deliberating On Holy Land Foundation Trial
Thursday, September 27, 2007
By Nathan Diebenow,
Associate Editor Lonestar Iconoclast

Verdict Could Change Charity Standards

DALLAS, Texas — A guilty verdict in a federal trial ending this week in Dallas may scare humanitarian aid organizations away from helping people in need in the most war-torn areas of the world, like the Middle East.

This potential flight hinges upon the question: should the U.S. government stop the flow of charity if an employee or volunteer of an aid organization has links to a designated terrorist group at any stage of aid delivery?

A 12-person jury is currently deliberating on the issue along with the fate of five defendants who worked for the Richardson-based Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development (HLF), which was the largest Muslim charity in the country at one time.

The trial was expected to take at least three months in U.S. District Judge A. Joe Fish’s court. But the jury’s decision could come as early as this week after eight weeks of testimony.

The United States government, though, seemed to take its sweet time in bringing HLF to court in the first place. The FBI started secretly monitoring its leaders’ activities in 1993. Then, three months after the attacks on Sept. 11, 2001, President George W. Bush closed the non-partisan, non-profit organization by executive order. A 42-count indictment against HLF finally came down in July 2004.

HLF is in essence accused of indirectly funding a designated terrorist organization via faith-based yet non-partisan grassroots committees in the occupied territories of Palestine (the West Bank and Gaza). While the U.S. government dropped allegations that HLF’s resources went to purchase weapons, federal prosecutors argue that HLF’s alms were intentionally redirected to support the families of terrorists.

The defense contended, however, that such favoritism runs counter to the nature and structure of charity distribution in the Muslim world. Zakat (the Arabic word for charity) is one of the five holy sacraments of the Islamic faith in part because the religion’s founder, the Prophet Muhammad, was himself an orphan. Muslims place such a high standard on charity that they perform it without prejudice and pretension.

Charity distribution for Muslims, hence, comes in the form of independent "zakat committees." The idea behind them is that they must operate in a non-partisan fashion, like impartial juries, to distribute aid; otherwise, they would lose credibility among people by taking sides with the latest political wind, according to the defense.

Through the course of its 12-year existence, HLF collected over $57 million for such people in need as those living in Turkey after a string of earthquakes, Bosnia/Serbia during their war, and Oklahoma City, Okla. after the bombing of a federal building.

The defense in its closing arguments said that HLF’s heads, CEO Shukri Abu Baker and president Ghassan Elashi, did everything in their power to keep their non-profit compliant under U.S. law. John Bryant, a former U.S. congressman who HLF hired as a lawyer, however, testified that even he was refused a "white list" of zakat committees from the federal government. HLF has said that the U.S. government froze $5 million of its assets when it closed its doors in 2001.

The controversial USA Patriot Act was used to designate HLF as a supporter of terrorism, yet the Treasury Department has failed to designate any of the local Palestinian zakat committees or the five defendants as terrorists. Both the state of Israel and the Palestinian Authority, which was run by HAMAS’s sworn political enemy, Fatah, have yet to revoke the licenses of the zakat committees in question, noted the defense. It added that the U.S. Agency for International Development also gave funds to a Palestinian hospital aided by HLF at the same time.

According to its indictment, HLF gave $12 million in aid to zakat committees in Palestine that in turn distributed resources to members of HAMAS, an organization designated as terrorist by the Treasury Department in 1997. Moreover, federal prosecutors asserted that HAMAS is an arm of the Muslim Brotherhood, a 79-year-old organization that seeks to spread its brand of Islam across the world.

For support of this conspiracy, two FBI agents, a former Treasury Department analyst who once worked for the FBI as a terrorism analyst, and two anonymous Israeli military intelligence agents testified on the behalf of the prosecution. In addition, evidence such as key chains, posters, and documents taken by Israeli Defense Forces from raids on Palestinian zakat committees listed in HLF’s indictment was presented.

The defense did its best to prevent witnesses with concealed identities into the courtroom. It had noted that allowing them would violate the defendant’s civil liberties, i.e. their right to face their accuser. In the end, Edward Abington, the former envoy to the U.S. diplomatic mission to Palestine, told the jury that the U.S. intelligence sector discounts intelligence from Israel as unreliable — propaganda at best.

But the prosecution continued its attack, noting the familial and social ties of HLF workers (the defendants) and HAMAS members: HLF’s New Jersey fundraiser Abdulrahman Obeh had financially supported the child of a HAMAS operative; HLF fund-raiser Mufid Abdulqater was the half brother of a HAMAS leader; and Elashi is the cousin of the wife of another HAMAS leader.

To illustrate this conspiracy to the jury, federal prosecutor Barry Jonas compared the Muslim Brotherhood to the owners of the Dallas Cowboys, had the popular NFL football franchise been designated a terrorist organization. HLF in this case would be the same as the offensive line.

Linda Moreno, Elashi’s attorney, took issue with metaphor, noting that the prosecution had failed to show evidence that the Palestinians themselves attributed HLF’s aid to HAMAS. Abington, a near-fluent Arabic speaker, also testified that after visiting all the zakat committees in question during his tenure, only one was controlled by HAMAS to his knowledge during the time of HLF’s allegedly illegal activities, 1995 to 2001.

The prosecution, undaunted, highlighted a string of videos in attempt to connect HLF to HAMAS. Some of videos showed pro-HAMAS skits performed by children in Palestine while others depicted HLF volunteers on stage dressed like members of HAMAS and Zionists, people who believe and push for a Jewish homeland in Palestine. The defense pointed out that the videos were filmed outside the time of HLF’s allegedly illegal activities. Besides, the content of the videos is protected by the First Amendment under political speech, they added. The prosecution argued that the defendants and the witnesses called to testify on their behalf should have known about HLF’s links to HAMAS.

The HLF case has already stifled activities of Muslims in America from political speech to charity work — this despite the fact that no Muslim charities have ever been convicted of financing terrorism. In handling the case, the federal government caused a bitter stir among the Muslim community by releasing a list of 300 "unindicted co-conspirators," many of whom include national mainstream Muslim organizations.

But the possible consequences of the HLF case reach deeper than the Muslim world. Civil libertarians worry that the case might change the precedent of anonymous accusers and the use of foreign evidence in court and the freedoms of religion and association in the United States.

Above all, the state of the international charity network remains in flux with the so-called "war on terror." Last May, several charities including OMB Watch, the American Civil Liberties Union, and Grantmakers Without Borders responded to a report published by the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration.

The letter to Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson said that the Treasury should respect charities as a counter-balance to terrorist activities. Moreover, the Treasury should pay heed to more powerful aid granting institutions, such as the World Bank, which accounted for $350 million in terrorist funding in 2002, according to the Council on Foreign Relations.

The TIGTA report claimed that charities are a "significant sources of alleged terrorist activities." The responders countered saying, "Treasury needs to recognize that charities are part of the solution and not part of the problem."