[wvns] HOLY LAND FEDERAL WITNESSES UNCALLED

Prosecutors rely on FBI and Israeli testimony to make their case
against the charity. The defense begins Tuesday.

HOLY LAND FEDERAL WITNESSES GO UNCALLED
Greg Krikorian
Los Angeles Times
9/2/07
http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/asection/la-na-holyland2sep02,1,4823623.story

The Justice Department's decision not to call additional witnesses in
its prosecution of an Islamic charity for alleged ties to terrorism
suggests it is resting its case on the strength of contested documents
and the testimony of FBI agents and Israeli security officials.

The U.S. District Court trial resumes Tuesday in Dallas with the
defense beginning presentation of its evidence.

Over the last six weeks, prosecutors have presented a mountain of
financial records seized from offices of the Holy Land Foundation for
Relief and Development in the U.S. and zakat charity committees in the
West Bank and Gaza.

The records, authorities allege, show that the now-defunct foundation
and five of its former officials knowingly sent millions of dollars
overseas to support terrorism, not to help the needy.

The prosecution says the money went to organizations under the control
of Hamas militants.

The charge has been denied by the defendants, all but one of whom are
U.S. citizens.

In addition to hundreds of exhibits, the government took the
extraordinary step of allowing two Israeli agents to testify
anonymously in a closed courtroom to buttress claims that the zakat
committees were widely known as fundraising fronts for Hamas.

The most important testimony to date, in fact, has probably been from
an officer of the Shin Bet, Israel's domestic security agency.

Identified only as Avi, he maintained that Hamas' financial survival
relied on the worldwide fundraising of such organizations as Holy Land.

"This network was formed by design; it wasn't created out of the
blue," he testified.

In pretrial documents, prosecutors identified more than two dozen
other potential witnesses including, most notably, Mohamed Shorbagi, a
former Holy Land representative in Georgia who pleaded guilty last
year to aiding Hamas; and Abdulrahman M. Alamoudi, a naturalized U.S.
citizen and founder of the American Muslim Council, who admitted to
participating in a Libyan plot to assassinate the crown prince of
Saudi Arabia.

With a gag order in place, prosecutors could not comment about why
they did not call the two men as witnesses, and attorneys for the
government and the defense could not speculate on what effect that
could have on jurors.

But clearly, authorities are betting they will not need the insiders
to make their case -- a bet that always carries risk, according to
legal experts.

"Sometimes you need an insider to make that critical link between the
criminal activity and the knowledge of the defendants" about a crime,
said USC law professor Heidi Rummel, a former assistant U.S. attorney.

Loyola law professor Laurie Levenson, also a former federal
prosecutor, agreed: "Often you want the insider to explain things and
put the whole case together for the jury."

But Rummel and Levenson stressed that the wrong informant can also do
far more damage than good to a case, particularly if jurors conclude
that the witness is untrustworthy or only testifying because of a plea
bargain.

"As a general matter, most prosecutors prefer a clean case [without
the need for] informers who can be somewhat culpable in a crime and
carry baggage," Rummel said.

The government could call the witnesses after the defense presents its
case, but only if they are brought in to rebut defense testimony.

So the government may lose the insiders as potential witnesses, Rummel
said, if the defense doesn't present evidence the insiders are
qualified to rebut.

According to court documents, defense attorneys expect to call several
former U.S. officials to testify that Holy Land officials either had
no links to Hamas or could not have known that any money being sent
overseas might go to extremists, if it even did.

Edward Abington, former U.S. consul general in Jerusalem, is to
testify that it was not contrary to U.S. policies for American
charities to work with Palestinian zakat committees, according to
defense papers filed before the trial began.

Defense papers also say that Frank R. Anderson, former chief of the
CIA's Near East Division, is to testify that Holy Land's practice of
providing money to Palestinian charities did not constitute "reward"
for terrorism, recruitment for Hamas, or recruitment for any terrorist
activities -- contrary to the government's allegations.

And former Rep. John Bryant (D-Texas), Holy Land's lobbyist for three
years, is to testify that the organization, once the nation's largest
Muslim charity, spent years trying unsuccessfully to have the
government identify which overseas organizations should not receive
funds because of connections to terrorism.

In a 2005 interview with The Times, Bryant said that during his time
working with Holy Land, he became convinced "political chicanery" was
behind the attacks on the organization.

"I've been a lawyer since 1972, and every lawyer has represented a
client at one time or another who is not innocent," Bryant said.

"Well, I studied Holy Land's operation. I learned the culture. I went
to talk to the [government] agencies. And I could never figure out why
people were talking about them that way.

"I never, ever heard a conversation that suggested in any way that
they had an illegal intention of any kind," said Bryant. "Their board
members were a bunch of old fuddy-duddies. They were bunch of regular
folks. I don't recall any hot-blooded ideologues in sight."

greg.krikorian @ latimes.com

===

The vague definition of "effective support" for terror in the Holy
Land Foundation trial creates a zero-tolerance policy that can be
applied to any type of support - even moral - for beleaguered Muslims
overseas.

TX: HIGH STAKES IN TEXAS MUSLIM CHARITY TRIAL
Shahed Amanullah
7/19/07
http://www.altmuslim.com/perm.php?id=P1952_0_24_0

Casual observers of US attempts to shut down Muslim charities might
have an image in their head: funds solicited by Muslim charities for
basic needs such as food, traded instead in shadowy back alleys for
Kalashnikovs. It would be hard to blame them, given efforts by the
authorities to paint US Muslim charities as being financiers of
terrorism over the years, particularly since 9/11. This week, the
trial involving the most high-profile charity, the Texas-based Holy
Land Foundation, began, and the stakes for both the US legal fight
against terror financing and charitable institutions among US Muslims
are high.

"There is no distinction," explained former Attorney General John
Ashcroft in 2004 when shutting down the HLF, "between those who carry
out terrorist attacks and those who knowingly finance terrorist
attacks." But was the HLF, not to mention scores of other shuttered
charities, acting in such a manner? The prosecution isn't arguing that
donated funds went to militant purposes, only that worthy donations
such as medical care and food "effectively reward[ed] past, and
encourage[d] future suicide bombings and terrorist activities". The
charities argue that their only crime was to provide relief services
to a group of people, some of whom could have sympathized with
terrorism without their knowledge. "They are trying to establish that
using widely accepted methods of getting humanitarian aid to the
Palestinians is criminal," said John Boyd, a defense lawyer. "If that
is what you think, then put them on the list and say we can't give
them money."

Both sides have now spent over six years preparing for the case, and
if previous trials are any indication, US authorities are likely
sparing no expense to make their point. The bar for the prosecution is
certainly high - authorities must show that HLF knowingly sent money
to Hamas-controlled charities. (As of now, the only proven links to
Hamas are the family relationships between HLF and Hamas officials.)
Criteria like this is why no US Muslim charity has been convicted of
supporting terrorism since the crackdown began in 2001 (though certain
individuals associated with some charities have been sent to prison on
various offenses). If the al-Arian case is any indication (the
government spent $70m in preparation on terrorism charges but did not
receive one conviction), the prosecution has a tough sell ahead of it.
Indeed, the case is so riddled with tension that fear has caused three
potential jurors to opt out.

Regardless of the outcome, Muslims will almost certainly be left with
even fewer options for charities, especially those involving
Palestinian beneficiaries. The barrier to entry for Muslim charities
is so high that few have been created in the past five years to
replace the many charities that exited the market. In the absence of
any kind of verification program - the Treasury Department has
steadfastly refused to certify Muslim charities as being "terror-free"
despite pleas from various quarters of the Muslim-American community -
the lingering innuendo and conjecture (along with threatened legal
costs and closure of operations) will mean that many existing
charities will shut down permanently rather than take the risk of
being charged (which will, of course, be seen as a sign of guilt and
vindication by some).

If the prosecution succeeds in the HLF case, it will mark a line in
the sand that no Muslim-American dare cross. The vague definition of
"effective support" for terror creates a zero-tolerance policy that
can be applied to any type of support - even moral - for beleaguered
Muslims overseas. The message will be clear to Muslim-Americans - even
if you are resolutely against terrorism, and are willing to take
transparent measures to ensure your aid does not fall into the wrong
hands, you must divorce yourself completely from the plight of the
Muslim world.

Shahed Amanullah is editor-in-chief of altmuslim.com.

===

TEXAS MUSLIMS SAY CASE IS POLITICAL
Family speaks of a decade of searches, interrogations, arrests
Jason Trahan
Dallas Morning News
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/world/stories/DN-holylandsider_16met.ART.State.Edition1.4354bf8.html

Family speaks of a decade of searches, interrogations, arrests

For many North Texas Muslims, the Holy Land Foundation investigation
is a saga fueled by prejudice.

FILE/Staff photo
In July 2004, Ghassan Elashi and his four brothers were convicted in
federal court of conspiracy to make illegal computer shipments to
Libya and Syria. He is serving a 61/2 year sentence. At left is his
wife, Majida Salem.Local Muslim leaders have long decried the
government's "witch hunt" of what they say was a charitable foundation
dedicated to helping Palestinian refugees caught up in the
Arab-Israeli conflict.

They say the investigation and the trial of Holy Land and seven of its
organizers is a product of "Islamophobia," which was the focus of a
conference last weekend in Dallas sponsored by the Council on
American-Islamic Relations.

"This politically driven indictment will break new ground and
potentially make new law by attempting to criminalize humanitarian
aid," said Khalil Meek, president of the Plano-based Muslim Legal Fund
of America, which is helping pay for the Holy Land defendants' attorneys.

For the family of Ghassan Elashi, the trial is the latest in more than
a decade of troubles with the federal government. Investigations have
included interrogations, searches, arrests and the wiretapping of
conversations.

"The trial has taken over my thoughts during the day and my dreams
during the night," said Noor Elashi, daughter of Mr. Elashi and a
reporter at the Fort Worth Star-Telegram.

Prosecutors accuse Mr. Elashi and his co-defendants of using
Richardson-based Holy Land to funnel millions of dollars to the
terrorist organization Hamas.

But for the 21-year-old, the case is about her father's name and
reputation.

"While I'm driving, while I'm working, while I'm eating, it's all I
think about," she said. "I keep asking myself, 'How can my father and
the other co-defendants be accused of supporting heinous acts of
violence when all they did was feed, clothe and help educate
Palestinian orphans and widows?' "

Today's trial is the third involving her family members. In 2004 and
2005, her father and uncles defended themselves against accusations
that they did business with terrorist nations by shipping computer
equipment to Syria and Libya.

Defense attorneys argued that the government's accusations were
overblown because the men were Muslim and amounted to nothing more
than minor export violations that should have been handled with a fine.

They were also accused of having financial dealings with a
high-ranking Hamas member, Mousa Abu Marzook, who is married to a
cousin of the Elashis. The family says the money was actually an
annuity investment in InfoCom by Mr. Marzook's wife. She used the
monthly proceeds to pay living expenses, attorneys for the brothers said.

The juries returned convictions in both trials.

"It's unimaginable that a man who loves America so much would face
such tribulations in the country he now calls home," Ms. Elashi said.

Ms. Elashi said her father was uprooted from his childhood Palestinian
home in 1967, along with his parents and four brothers. The family
settled in the U.S. about 25 years ago and has called it home since.

"America is the only home that my five siblings and I have ever known
– from my brother who lives and breathes skateboarding, to my teenage
sister, whose favorite show is Gilmore Girls."

The Council on American-Islamic Relations, the nation's largest Muslim
advocacy group, says even it has become a target since it was included
on a list of unindicted co-conspirators filed by the Holy Land
prosecutors.

Typically, prosecutors identify a person or a group as an unindicted
co-conspirator so that their statements, or those of people involved
in the listed organizations, about the defendants can be used in court
without them being considered hearsay, which is not permitted in trial.

Mr. Meek, who is active in the local CAIR chapter, said also on the
government's co-conspirator's list is the nation's largest Muslim
educational source, the Islamic Society of North America, and the
North American Islamic Trust, the country's largest holding company of
deeds to about 300 mosques, Islamic centers and schools in the U.S.

"They're implicating mainstream, moderate Muslim voices all over the
country," said Mr. Meek. "This is a politically driven crusade."

In March, a legal flap further fueled criticisms of prejudice by
Muslims. Defense attorneys found that summaries of government wiretap
transcripts detailing Holy Land officials' conversations falsely
attributed anti-Jewish comments to Holy Land Foundation leaders.

"Even Jesus Christ had called the Jews and their high priests ... the
sons of snakes and scorpions" reads one summary quotation, which is
not in the transcript.

"This is beyond incompetence," said Lawrence Davidson, a professor of
Middle Eastern history at West Chester University in Pennsylvania.

"It's not a crime that's motivating this," said Dr. Davidson, who is
Jewish. "They want to prevent the Muslim community from gaining
influence."

Justice officials have said they're investigating how the transcript
errors occurred, but they declined to publicly comment about the Holy
Land case.

For Ms. Elashi, her family's ordeal is a cautionary tale for all
Americans.

"I was raised to cherish such a place that accepts people regardless
of their religion or ethnic origin," she said. "Now we're being
persecuted for those two reasons."

===

CAIR: SCRUTINIZED FOR YEARS, FOUNDATION FACES TRIAL
Jack Douglas Jr.
Fort Worth Star-Telegram
http://www.star-telegram.com/dallas_news/story/169670.html

A 14-year-long investigation, which sent FBI agents around the world,
wiretapping phones and hiding in surveillance vans, is scheduled to
come to a head on Monday in Dallas when the Holy Land Foundation for
Relief and Development goes on trial, accused of helping to fund
terrorism while simultaneously doling out charity assistance to sick
children and needy schools.

The founders and top officers of the Richardson-based Islamic charity,
once the largest of its kind in the United States, are accused of
being the financial and social-service arm of Hamas. Supporting Hamas
is against federal law because the United States has declared it a
terrorist group.

Holy Land Foundation officials and their supporters contend that they
were raising money to help Palestinian families and orphans. From the
outset, Islamic leaders decried the Holy Land prosecution as an
anti-Muslim witch hunt promoted by the pro-Israel lobby in the United
States.

Jury selection is scheduled to begin Monday, and the trial is expected
to take about five months.

The case has generated headlines worldwide. Some Muslims see it as an
attempt by some U.S. prosecutors and politicians to fan fears about
the threat of terrorism posed by Muslim and Islamic groups.

Federal prosecutors acknowledge it will not be an easy trail to follow
as they try to prove that the foundation hurt people instead of
helping them.

"This case presents unusual facts and is unlikely to be within the
common experience or knowledge of an average juror," prosecutors said
in a brief filed with the court in May.

Defense lawyers countered by saying that the government's case is hard
to understand only because it's based primarily on hearsay evidence.
And they took issue with what they said were the prosecution's plans
to introduce statements from people who are not expected to show up in
court.

If that happens, the defense lawyers said in their brief, it would
violate their clients' "Sixth Amendment right to confront the
witnesses against them."

'Islamophobia'?

The case has been a cause celebre for American Muslims since federal
agents first staged a raid a week before 9-11. A federal task force
raided the Infocom Internet services company, which was associated
with and across the street from the Holy Land Foundation in
Richardson. Two months later, the government froze the charity's
assets, totaling millions of dollars.

Contributions to Muslim charities nationwide dropped sharply in wake
of the raid.

The government says it is simply working to cut off the funding
sources for Hamas militants and their suicide bombers. In prior court
appearances tied to the Holy Land Foundation, prosecutors have argued
that people contributing to the foundation should have known they were
helping Hamas terrorists.

Muslim leaders say federal authorities are playing on people's fears
and prejudices, which they call "Islamophobia."

"The Muslim community is watching this very closely," said Parvez
Ahmed, national board chairman of the Council on American-Islamic
Relations, based in Washington.

Local and national Muslim organizations have recently formed a
coalition, Hungry for Justice, which plans to blog about the trial
daily, and representatives of the Muslim community will be in the
courtroom each day, Ahmed said.

He said all they want is a fair trial and to ensure that the "American
Muslim community is not intimidated into silence."

===

CAIR: MUSLIM CHARITY LEADERS ON TRIAL FOR ALLEGEDLY AIDING TERRORISTS
David Koenig
Associated Press
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/tx/4971793.html

One of the most prominent anti-terror prosecutions of the past decade
opened Monday as government lawyers and those representing leaders of
a Muslim charity began quizzing potential jurors.

The men on trial in federal district court aren't accused of being
terrorists. Rather, they are charged with funneling millions of
dollars to the militant group Hamas, which allegedly used some of the
money to support the families of suicide bombers in the Middle East.

Although the FBI investigated the men and the charity in the 1990s,
the Bush administration raised the profile of the case since Sept. 11.
President Bush announced the seizure of the charity's assets in a Rose
Garden news conference three months later, in December 2001.

Defense lawyers say the men and the charity, the Holy Land Foundation
for Relief and Development, helped build hospitals and schools for
Palestinians living under Israeli occupation but are not connected to
Hamas.

The defendants and their supporters claim the prosecution is based on
anti-Arab bias.

The trial before District Judge A. Joe Fish is expected to last
several months. Prosecutors and defense lawyers are expected to lay
out the case in opening statements next Monday. . .

The political overtones of the case run deep.

Parvez Ahmed, chairman of the Washington-based Council on
American-Islamic Relations, said the Bush administration was trying to
silence Muslim opposition to Israeli policy and stop aid to
Palestinian children by closing Holy Land.

"It has put a chill on First Amendment rights of Muslims in this
country," Ahmed said. "It's caused Muslims to question, will donors be
criminalized?"

*********************************************************************

WORLD VIEW NEWS SERVICE

To subscribe to this group, send an email to:
wvns-subscribe@yahoogroups.com

NEWS ARCHIVE IS OPEN TO PUBLIC VIEW
http://finance.groups.yahoo.com/group/wvns/

Need some good karma? Appreciate the service?
Please consider donating to WVNS today.
Email ummyakoub@yahoo.com for instructions.

To leave this list, send an email to:
wvns-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/wvns/

<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/wvns/join

(Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
mailto:wvns-digest@yahoogroups.com
mailto:wvns-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
wvns-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:

http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/