Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, January-February 2009, pages 16-17

Special Report

Verdict Against Holy Land Charity Could Have Chilling Effect on Muslim Community

By Laila Al-Arian

	Holy Land Foundation supporters demonstrate outside the Earle Cabell Federal Building and Courthouse in Dallas, Texas, Oct. 22, 2007 (Reuters/Jessica Rinaldi).

ON THE AFTERNOON of Monday, Nov. 24, a jury in Dallas, Texas found five Palestinian men guilty of more than 100 charges in the nation’s largest terrorism financing trial since 9/11.

But was this case about prosecuting terrorism, or the Bush administration’s “war on terror?”

Prosecutors never argued that the charity, the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development, or any of its officials were ever involved in violence, either through funding it or directly participating in it. Instead, they told the jury that the charity sent money to schools, hospitals and social welfare programs that were controlled by Hamas, a group listed as a terrorist organization by the U.S. State Department since 1995.

Edward Abington, the former number two intelligence official at the State Department (and ex-U.S. consul in Jerusalem), told jurors he was never told that the Palestinian charity committees supported by Holy Land were part of Hamas in the daily intelligence briefings he received. In fact, these same charities, or “zakat committees,” still receive donations from the U.S. Agency for International Development and the International Red Cross.

This was the second trial against Holy Land. Last year, the government’s case ended in embarrassment and defeat when jurors returned after 19 days of deliberations with no guilty verdicts. At least one of the defendants would have been completely acquitted had a juror not changed her mind at the eleventh hour, backing out of her decision to acquit when the judge polled the panel about their votes. Another juror later said she refused to discuss the evidence during deliberations, simply explaining that she relied on her “feelings.”

The stark differences between the two juries became apparent at the conclusion of the second trial. “Twelve good American citizens in the first trial didn’t convict anyone of anything,” Linda Moreno, one of the defense attorneys on the case, told the Associated Press. “And 12 good American citizens in the second trial convicted everyone of everything. If you can make sense of that explain it to me.” (Ms. Moreno was an attorney for my father, Sami Al-Arian, in his 2005 trial.)

Over fervent objections from the defense, the judge in the Holy Land trial allowed the prosecution to present testimony from an anonymous Israeli intelligence agent. This bizarre episode marked the first time in American legal history that testimony has been allowed from an expert witness with no identity. If the witness, who was introduced to the jury simply as “Avi,” lied or committed perjury, he faces no consequences. He is officially non-existent, after all.

Though the prosecution ostensibly limited their case to Palestinian charities operating in the present day, most of the evidence presented to the jury involved the general activities of Hamas, and dated back decades. With its propaganda-like quality, the evidence was clearly intended to provoke an emotional response. For example, jurors were repeatedly shown videos of grisly suicide bombings that none of the defendants were in any way connected to, or accused of planning.

William Neal, who served on the first Holy Land jury, raised disturbing questions about the prosecution’s tactics in an interview with Dallas radio station KRLD 1080. “They never proved—they kept trying to show us stuff around the case, not the case. They presented to the jury, you know these committees, these organizations controlled by or on the behalf of Hamas, but they kept showing us blown-up buses and they kept showing us little kids in bomb belts re-enacting Hamas leaders,” he said. “It had nothing to do with the actual charges. It had nothing to do with the defendants.”

I went to Dallas a week before the verdict to cover the case, and found a group of Holy Land supporters a block away from the federal courthouse where the case was being prosecuted. There, I met Diane Baker, a 62-year-old ordained minister with blonde hair and a rail-thin frame. On her lunch break from her job as a hospice chaplain, she came to the vigil wearing blue hospital scrubs and her colorful reverend’s stole.

“When we carry the burden of others, we wear this,” she said, pointing to the cloth wrapped around her neck. “There were days when I left the courtroom with tears in my eyes, but I’m hopeful.”

I called Diane a day after the verdict and asked her how she felt. “I was shocked,” she said. “And I felt a great deal of grief, especially for the families, who I know.” Speaking of the defendants, she said, “These people have done what their hearts have called on them to do.”

Hadi Jawad, a member of the Hungry for Justice coalition, an umbrella group of Holy Land supporters, said the U.S. government has taken sides in the Palestinian-Israeli conflict through their prosecution of the Holy Land Foundation.

“It’s about demonizing an entire people—in this case, the Palestinian people,” Jawad told me. “They’re saying that they’re not worthy of aid and help, even when they’re destitute, hungry and need medical attention.”

Holy Land was the largest Muslim charity in the United States when the Bush administration shut it down in December 2001. On the heels of the Sept. 11 attacks, Bush, Ashcroft and company wanted to show they were fighting the “war on terror” by pointing to the Holy Land case, and the arrest of its five officials. In an unusual move, prosecutors unveiled the list of more than 300 unindicted co-conspirators, something that is kept secret under normal legal protocol. Many of those on the list were respected Muslim leaders who were shocked to find they were under suspicion for involvement in terrorist acts.

Mustafaa Carroll, the director of the Dallas chapter of the Council of American-Islamic Relations, warned the Holy Land verdict could send a chilling effect over America’s already traumatized Muslim community. “Muslims are concerned about how this is going to affect them,” he told me. “By criminalizing charity, it may even have an impact on American charities in general. People are really afraid.”

Laila Al-Arian is a Washington, DC-based journalist. A graduate of the Columbia Graduate School of Journalism, she has written for The Nation, United Press International, Huffingtonpost.com and the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs. The author, with Chris Hedges, of Collateral Damage: America’s War Against Iraqi Civilians (Nation Books), she can be reached at This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it . Copyright © 2008 Independent Media Institute. All rights reserved. This story can be viewed online at: <http://www.alternet.org/story/108740>.

SIDEBAR

Project SALAM Launched to Document Targeting of Innocent Muslims

On a Saturday afternoon in late August 2008—three months before the second trial of the Holy Land Foundation defendents ended in their conviction—some three dozen Americans gathered at the Albany School of Law in upstate New York to launch a project to monitor and document the post-9/11 prosecution of Muslims on terrorist-related charges. As Stephen Downs, attorney for Yassin Aref (see Sept./Oct. 2007 Washington Report, p. 19), explained: “We have all become aware that the Justice Department and the FBI have started a systematic campaign to frame innocent Muslims of serious criminal charges. Innocent Muslim leaders have been framed and sent to jail for 15 or 30 years based on fabricated evidence and scare tactics.”

Among the goals of Project SALAM—Stop Accusations and Lies Against Muslims—are to:

• Document and identify each case in which a Muslim was framed by the government;
• Identify the common tactics used by the government to entrap Muslims or fabricate evidence;
• Identify the agents and government lawyers who perpetrated illegal acts resulting in Muslims being framed;
• Compensate the victims for their suffering and unjust prosecution; and
• Document the post-9/11 breakdown of the rule of law in America and its impact on the Muslim community.

The afternoon’s keynote speaker was Lynne Stewart, attorney for Egyptian Sheikh Omar Abdul Rahman, who was charged with “conspiracy” to blow up New York City landmarks, including the Holland and Lincoln Tunnels. Stewart recalled former Attorney General Ramsey Clark calling her in 1994, after the judge for the sheikh’s trial, current U.S. Attorney General Michael Mukasey, refused to allow attorney William Kunstler to represent him. Stewart agreed to meet with her potential client. “The sheikh and I hit it off,” she said. “We liked each other, and we were interested in each other.”

Her proposed defense for what she described as “informant-driven” charges—“We’ve seen this pattern over and over,” she noted—was to argue that Sheikh Abdul Rahman was acting as a religious leader. As such, she planned to explain to the jury, he could not refuse to answer any question put to him by a fellow Muslim. She also planned to inform the jurors of the true meaning of jihad as a personal struggle for spiritual perfection.

But Mukasey denied that defense, ruling that it would “just confuse the jury.” Stewart described that moment as “one of the few times I’ve wept in a courtroom.”

Stewart enumerated the lessons she learned defending Sheikh Abdul Rahman: the importance of media coverage (she cited Kunstler’s observation that “there are only two kinds of press: bad press and no press”); that the government will attempt to bring in Osama bin Laden whenever possible (in her case, by showing Al-Jazeera TV footage of Bin Laden standing in front of a banner reading “Free Sheikh Omar”); that a jury trial is essential; that the jury must not be anonymous—hence frightened—but that jurors instead must be “at ease with themselves”; the importance of sharing knowledge about government strategies, such as the use of informants; and the crucial role of the community. “There’s nothing worse than an empty courtroom,” Stewart explained.

Project SALAM’s Web site, <www.projectsalam.org>, is now up and running. In addition to links to several well-known cases, instructions on how to obtain medical records from a federal prison—the result of determined and painstaking detective work by Bob Elmendorf—and a summary of government tactics against targeted individuals, it features a database containing the names of some 425 people accused of or imprisoned on terrorism-related charges. The list is not limited to Muslims—as evidenced by the appearance on it of Lynne Stewart’s name. Facing up to 30 years in prison, she is appealing her conviction on four counts of aiding and abetting a terrorist organization in conjunction with her defense of Sheikh Abdul Rahman, who is now serving a life sentence.

By clicking onto “Database,” interested individuals can learn how to “adopt” defendants, research their cases, contribute to the database—and help document the U.S. government’s targeting of innocent Muslims and their supporters. This important effort is not limited to the theoretical upholding of our constitutional rights, as Stewart knows only too well. “When they come for the Muslims in the morning,” she explained, “they’ll be back for us at night.”

—Janet McMahon

< Prev		Next >