Friday, October 26, 2007

Aaron Mannes in the Jewish Week on HLF Trial

The New York Jewish Week ran an article that included my thoughts on the Holy Land Foundation mistrial.

As it happens, years ago I debated Ed Abingdon (a key witness for the defendants) at a pair of events in Las Vegas and Reno on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. After his diplomatic service he was a consultant to the Palestinian Authority. He was always cordial and very smooth. No doubt the jury found him impressive.

No Convictions in Hamas Terror Case
Trial linking U.S. Arabs to terrorists ends with acquittals and mistrial.

by Jonathan Mark
Associate Editor

The Bush administration is losing “the war on terror,” at least in the courtroom.
For the third time in less than two years, the Justice Department couldn’t convince a jury on even one of 197 charges attempting to link radical American Moslems to Hamas, resulting in acquittals and a mistrial last week for leaders of a Texas-based charity that has been openly sympathetic to the Gaza-based terrorists.

The government was attempting to prove that the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development—at one time the largest Islamic charity in the United States — had been funneling $12 million to Hamas-controlled Palestinian agencies. The defense claimed Holy Land was simply supporting humanitarian causes in the face of Israeli “oppression.”

On Monday, in a Dallas court, Holy Land’s former chair, Mohammed El-Mezain was acquitted on 31 counts and the jury stalemated, resulting in a mistrial, on one count – the key charge of whether El-Mezain provided material support to a foreign terrorist organization. After deliberating for 19 days, the divided jury couldn’t reach a verdict for the Holy Land’s former chief executive Shukri Abu Baker, former chair Ghassan Elashi, operatives Abdulrahman Odeh, Mufid Abdulqader and the Holy Land Foundation as its own entity.

The government plans to retry the case.
Mark Briskman, the Dallas-based regional director of the Anti-Defamation League said, “I think the jury was overwhelmed” by the complexity of the government’s case. “I’ve looked at virtually all the evidence” — wiretaps, money transfers, documents — “and at times I was nearly overwhelmed, it was difficult to sort out, and I’ve been following [Holy Land] for ten or twelve years; imagine a jury made up of people who are totally unfamiliar [with Palestinian and international financial, political and military networks].”

Daniel Pipes, of the Middle East Peace Forum, said, “It seems to me that asking jurors to decide on 197 counts — complex counts — may be just too much. At a certain point you can be overwhelming the jury,” a complaint echoed by numerous other observers of this trial and the other recent anti-terror cases that failed to convict.

Adding to the haze in the Holy Land case, said terrorist expert Steven Emerson, was the fact that “some of the documentary evidence was in foreign languages.” He also noted the success by defendants, in this and other trials, to convince American juries that the Palestinian terrorist war against Israel is one of “liberation,” simply a “dispute between only Israelis and Palestinians, rather than seeing it as part of the radical Islamic fundamentalist war against the west.”

Aaron Mannes, a terrorism expert at the University of Maryland, told The Jewish Week that, by and large, juries seem to be more receptive “when the United States itself is directly targeted,” such as cases relating to the two World Trade Center attacks; with juries more reluctant to decipher the ambiguities of the financial trail of a West Bank infirmary or Gaza social center that might also be a terrorist front.

Robert Chesney, a professor at Wake Forest University law school, whose specialty is national security law regarding the threat posed by terrorism, told The Jewish Week that the case did not indicate anything faulty with the basic statute prohibiting financial support for terrorist groups. Rather, the government presented “a mountain of evidence of some kind, but having a huge amount of evidence isn’t always the issue if it doesn’t directly tie into these specific defendants, which I assume was the jury’s sense, from the way the jury was having trouble.”

This mistrial was the third consecutive high-profile terrorist case in which juries seemed to have that same problem. In 2005, after a six-month trial, Florida college professor Sami Al-Arian, Islamic Jihad’s top man in America, pleaded guilty to a lesser terrorist charge, with acquittal or mistrial on the major terrorism charges. He is now being jailed for refusing to testify before a Virginia grand jury investigating Islamic charities, similar to Holy Land. In a second case, in Chicago this February, the government failed to convict two alleged Hamas activists on terrorist charges, convicting them only on obstruction of justice.

Chesney pointed out that the Justice Department is having some success with non-Palestinian cases that are lower profile: “The same day [of the Holy Land verdict] they got a guilty plea from someone accused of supplying material support for a Columbian terrorist organization.”

Ironically, the Holy Land defendants’ best witness for rebutting the government came from the government: Edward Abingdon, U.S. consul general to Jerusalem from 1993 to 1999. Abingdon testified that Holy Land monies did indeed go to humanitarian relief.

The prime witness for the prosecution was an Israeli agent, only identified as “Avi” who testified that many of the Holy Land beneficiaries were Palestinian schools and institutions controlled by Hamas.

But Abingdon told the jury that he found Israeli agents to be unreliable, they had an “agenda” to provide “selective information to try to influence U.S. thinking.” He questioned the legitimacy of evidence linking Holy Land to Hamas that was seized by Israel in West Bank raids in 2002.

Holy Land was founded in California in the 1980s, moved to the Dallas area in 1992, and FBI surveillance began in 1993, when a wiretap revealed the group was supporting Hamas attempts to derail the Oslo accords. It became illegal to financially support Hamas in 1997. Holy Land was shut down by the government in the wake of 9-11.

Although the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), named as an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land case, has frequently charged that American Muslims are targets of suspicion and even hatred, what is clear from the three recent federal cases is that juries are not automatically siding with the government.

2 comments:

Muslims Against Sharia said...

Emerson, a Jew who gets it
A perspective of a moderate Muslim

At the risk of sounding anti-Semitic, I want to say this: either American Jews are completely clueless about the internal struggle inside Islam or they are so cowardly, that they are even afraid to voice their opinion. Or maybe it's a combination of both.

Every time there is a development that involves radical Islam, be it a Mayor of New York attending an Islamist parade, DOJ's officials attending an Islamist conference, or a protester being sued for having the balls to expose an Islamist-sponsored event at an amusement park, the American Jewish community is as quiet as a church mouse. It's like it is not even there.

The effect of this silence is devastating. Not for the Jewish community, not yet. That time is still to come. The silence affects the American Muslim community. Every time moderate Muslims are ignored and Islamists are legitimized (by either direct support from government representatives or silent support of the ADL), radicals gain ground. In the current PC climate, moderate Muslims have pretty much no choice but to keep their mouths shut.

Luckily for us, not everyone in the Jewish community is like that. There are some Jews that are speaking out. One of them is Steven Emerson, who has been warning the West about the dangers of Islamic fundamentalism since before PanAm 103. Most of his current work is focused on exposing the radicals masquerading as the moderates – those radicals who are embraced by the DOJ and the Pentagon, by the mayor of New York Bloomberg (Rudy would never get into bed with terrorist supporters) and the Treasury Department, by the State Department and the Department of Homeland Security, by the Congress and the White House.

There is a war of ideas within Islam, and moderate Muslims are losing. Most of Muslim clergy and Muslim establishment are paid for by the Wahhabis. Moderate Muslims are being run out of Mosques and community centers, and in many cases are physically threatened. Moderate Muslims have no place in the media or public debate, because the place reserved for Muslims is filled by Islamic radicals, who attempt to make criticizing anything Islamic a taboo. According to the Islamists, a Muslim can do no wrong.
1. When a non-Muslim criticizes Islam or Muslims, he/she is an Islamophobe.
2. When a Muslim criticizes Islam or Muslim, he/she is not a real Muslim, therefore see #1.

This is a tactic used by "moderate" Muslims, the darlings of the government and the media. But how can you call someone who praises bin Laden, or has ties to Hamas, or calls for the elimination of Israel, or wants to replace the Constitution with the Koran a moderate? They are anything but moderates, however nobody except for a few people like Steven Emerson seems to notice that. But even when the Emersons of America appeal to the public, they are often being dismissed as alarmists and racists. Well, they are anything, but. You don't have to be a clairvoyant to predict the future when it comes to expansion of radical Islam and extinction of moderate Muslims. All you need to do is get your heads out of the sand.

Why our government is so forgiving and forgetful when it comes to individuals or organizations with known terrorist ties and anti-American views is beyond me. Why the Jewish leaders are so timid when it comes to the subject of radical Islam is incomprehensible.

I thank God every day for people like Steven Emerson, because they are the last glimmer of hope for moderate Muslims.

K.M.

Original post

Anonymous said...

酒店喝酒,禮服店,酒店小姐,酒店領檯,便服店,鋼琴酒吧,酒店兼職,酒店兼差,酒店打工,伴唱小姐,暑假打工,酒店上班,酒店兼職,ktv酒店,酒店,酒店公關,酒店兼差,酒店上班,酒店打工,禮服酒店,禮服店,酒店小姐,酒店兼差,暑假打工,酒店小姐,台北酒店,禮服店 ,酒店小姐,酒店經紀,酒店兼差,寒假打工,酒店小姐,台北酒店,禮服店 ,酒店小姐,酒店經紀,酒店兼差,暑假打工,酒店小姐,台北酒店,禮服店 ,酒店小姐,酒店經紀,酒店兼差,寒假打工,台北酒店,禮服店 ,酒店小姐,酒店經紀,酒店兼差,暑假打工,酒店小姐,台北酒店,禮服店 ,酒店小姐,酒店兼差,暑假打工,酒店小姐,台北酒店,禮服店 ,酒店小姐,酒店經紀,酒店兼差,寒假打工,酒店小姐,台北酒店,禮服店 ,酒店小姐,酒店經紀,酒店兼差,暑假打工,酒店小姐,台北酒店,禮服店 ,酒店小姐,酒店經紀,酒店兼差,寒假打工,酒店小姐,台北酒店,禮服店 ,酒店小姐,酒店經紀,酒店兼差,暑假打工,酒店小姐,禮服店 ,酒店小姐,酒店經紀,酒店兼差,寒假打工,酒店小姐,禮服店 ,酒店小姐,酒店經紀,酒店兼差,暑假打工,酒店小姐,禮服店 ,酒店小姐,酒店經紀,酒店兼差,寒假打工,酒店小姐,禮服店 ,酒店小姐,酒店經紀,酒店兼差,暑假打工,酒店小姐,酒店傳播,酒店經紀人,酒店,酒店,酒店,酒店 ,禮服店 , 酒店小姐,酒店經紀,酒店兼差,暑假打工,招待所,酒店小姐,酒店兼差,寒假打工,酒店上班,暑假打工,酒店公關,酒店兼職,禮服店 , 酒店小姐 ,酒店經紀 ,酒店兼差,暑假打工,酒店,酒店,酒店經紀,酒店領檯 ,禮服店 ,酒店小姐 ,酒店經紀 ,酒店兼差,暑假打工, 酒店上班,禮服店 ,酒店小姐 ,酒店經紀 ,酒店兼差,暑假打工, 酒店上班,禮服店 ,酒店小姐 ,酒店經紀 ,酒店兼差,暑假打工, 酒店上班,