Freedom to Give

Wednesday, May 27, 2009

By JASON TRAHAN / Order Dallas Stickers
jtrahan@dallasnews.com

U.S. District Judge Jorge Solis on Wednesday morning handed down sentences that will likely mean two founders of the Holy Land Foundation will spend the rest of their lives behind bars for financing the terrorist group Hamas.

Shukri Abu Baker, 50, of Garland was ordered to serve 65 years in prison as sentencing began for five men convicted on charges in the largest terrorism financing case in American history. Another founder, Ghassan Elashi, 55, of Richardson, was sentenced to 65 years in prison.

Elashi maintained his innocence even as he was sentenced.

“What motivated me to this charitable work was seeing in the press, media images of Palestinians’ homes being demolished, seeing the indiscriminate arrest of Palesitnians,” he said.

“Nothing was more rewarding than … turning the charitable contributions of American Muslims into life assistance for the Palestinians. That’s what motivated me.”

Speaking to the audience and ignoring the judge, Elashi continued: “We gave the essentials of life – oil rice flour. The occupation was proving them with death and destruction. And then we are criminals. The Holy Land Foundation was to assist the Palestinians in their steadfastness against the brutal apartheid regime” of Israel.

The judge warned him to address the court and not the audience.

After Elashi wrapped up by saying that this was an “unjust political prosecution,” lead prosecutor Jim Jacks argued for the maximum sentence.

“There’s been no acknowledgment by any of these defendants regarding their connection to Hamas,” he said. “They haven’t been deterred. Their entire sentencing presentation is (that) they’re being punished for providing charity. It’s important for the court to impose a sentence that says this is not a case about punishing people for doing nice things.”

“I did it because I cared, not at the behest of Hamas,” Baker told the judge during a long address to the court where he explained why he founded what was once the nation’s largest Muslim charity organization.

Judge Solis, after cutting him off over the objections of his defense attorney, told the convicted man, “You didn’t tell the whole story. Palestinians were in a desperate situation, but that doesn’t justify supporting Hamas.”

Another defendant, Mohammad El-Mezain, 55, was sentenced to 180 months in prison, followed by three years of supervisory release after serving that time. Jurors found him guilty of providing support to Hamas, having been acquitted on 31 other charges in 2007.

“I believe I am innocent and have not committed any crime,” El Mezain said in an impassioned speech. “We believe that this is the land of the free and the land of the Constitution. We were doing the right thing at the Holy Land Foundation.”

Afterwards, Judge Solis told him: “Your function in life was raising money to support Hamas. You stated it was to help people, but the motive was to support Hamas. You state that you are innocent, but the evidence shows the opposite. You were part of this from the beginning.”

Mufid Abdulqader, 49 and a top volunteer fundraiser for Holy Land, was sentenced to 20 years in prison. Jurors found him guilty on three charges, including conspiracy to provide material support to a foreign terrorist organization; conspiracy to provide funds, goods and services to a specially designated terrorist; and conspiracy to commit money laundering.

“I was acquitted of all charges” in the first trial, said Abdulqader. “And now I’m facing a long, long prison sentence. I do acknowledge the verdict in this trial. I believe in the system. My faith has not been shaken, it’s been inspired. But it is un-American to ignore suffering and starving women and children.”

Abdulrahman Odeh, 49, of Patterson, New Jersey, was sentenced to 15 years in prison. He was convicted on the same counts as Abdulqader.

The sentences come six months after a federal jury in Dallas convicted the men on Nov. 24 of funneling more than $12 million to the Palestinian group Hamas.

It has been illegal to offer Hamas support since it was designated a terrorist organization by the Unites States in 1995.

The group has taken credit for hundreds of suicide bombings targeting Israeli civilians.
The across-the-board convictions on 108 separate charges were a major victory for the Bush administration following a 2007 mistrial of the same five men on nearly identical charges.
The men were not accused of violence.

Rather, Holy Land contributed money to, among other things, agencies that supported survivors of suicide bombers.

Sometimes Holy Land officials sent those families money directly.

Holy Land’s supporters say the prosecution was a politically motivated product of Bush’s “war on terror” and a prime example of post-Sept. 11, anti-Islam hysteria.

Their lawyers portrayed them as pious Muslims who only wished to help their Palestinian brethren in need.

The government’s case, which was streamlined for the second trial, chronicled the founding of Holy Land in the late 1980s by Hamas supporters as the group’s primary source of fundraising in the United States.

Evidence showed that Holy Land organizers’ openly pro-Hamas rhetoric at fundraising rallies in the early 1990s was toned down after President Bill Clinton designated Hamas as a terrorist organization.

Elashi is already serving a 6 ½-year sentence in federal prison for export law violations. In the Holy Land trial, jurors found him guilty on 35 charges, including support of Hamas, money laundering and tax fraud.

Baker was born in Brazil in 1959, moved to Palestinian territory as a child and lived in Kuwait before coming to the U.S. in 1980. He served as Holy Land’s CEO. Jurors found him guilty on 34 charges, including support of Hamas, money laundering and tax fraud.

The remaining sentencings are expected to take the rest of the day.

Tuesday, July 27, 2004

WASHINGTON (CNN) — A major Islamic charity and seven of its key officials have been indicted on charges of conspiracy and supporting terrorism with millions of dollars, federal officials announced Tuesday.

A federal grand jury in Dallas, Texas, indicted the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development and its leaders. The indictment charged the organization and its officials with disguising efforts to raise more than $12 million dollars over six years to aid terrorism.

“Today a U.S.-based charity that claims to do good works is charged with funding the works of evil,” said Attorney General John Ashcroft in announcing the indictments.

Ashcroft and other senior officials said five of the seven indicted persons were arrested early Tuesday in Texas, New Jersey, and California. The two others have been declared fugitives and are believed to be overseas, authorities said.

Federal agents in the Dallas area arrested the foundation’s president, Shukri Abu Baker, and chairman, Ghassan Elashi. The two were expected to appear before a federal magistrate in Dallas along with alleged co-conspirator Mufid Abdulqader.

Authorities said another Holy Land Foundation official, Mohammad El-Mazain, was taken into custody in San Diego and a fifth defendant, Abdulraham Odeh, was arrested in Newark, New Jersey.

The two alleged conspirators still at large are Haitham Maghawri and Akram Mishal.

The 42-count indictment alleged the defendants attempted to intentionally mislead federal authorities of their fund-raising efforts on behalf of Hamas from 1995 through 2001.

The Holy Land Foundation, based in the Dallas suburb of Richardson, was virtually shut down by federal authorities who seized the organization’s assets in 2002. The FBI accused Holy Land Foundation of operating as a front for Hamas, a Palestinian Islamic fundamentalist organization that the United States and Israel call an international terrorist organization. The group operates an extensive social services network in the Palestinian territories

Within weeks after the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, the FBI identified the Holy Land Foundation as a prime source of financial support for Hamas terrorists, and said it had provided funds to family members of suicide bombers. The U.S. government froze the charity’s assets, an action upheld in court.

In what prosecutors say appears to be a coincidence, lawyers for Holy Land sent a formal complaint against the FBI to the Justice Department inspector general demanding an investigation into the FBI for distorting facts and falsifying evidence. A spokesman for the inspector general Tuesday confirmed receipt of correspondence from the Holy Land Foundation, but declined to comment.

A lawyer for Holy Land Foundation provided to CNN a copy of his letter. In it attorney John Boyd charges the FBI “fabricated a case” against the charity, when it claimed the organization financed suicide bombers. Learn more.

Investigators said lawyers who issued the complaint may have suspected indictments were coming, but had no knowledge the arrests of the defunct charity’s leaders were imminent.

Ashcroft harshly criticized the funds allegedly provided to suicide bomber families.

“The defendants effectively rewarded past — and encouraged future — suicide bombings,” Ashcroft said.

The attorney general was joined by senior officials from the FBI, Internal Revenue Service, and Department of Homeland Security, as well as the U.S. attorney from Dallas, in announcing the indictments at a Justice Department news conference.

Writing to the HLF 5

Send a letter to the Holy Land Five.

You can find the most up to date location of where federal prisoners are from this bureau of prisons link.

To locate and find inmates, and to write to them you need their Inmate Name & Register Number:

Ghassan Elashi 29687-177
Shukri Abu-Baker 32589-177
Mufid Abdulqader 32590-177
Mohammad El-Mezain 92412-198
Abdulrahman Odeh 26548-050

At present here is how to address label envelopes to the HLF 5 where the prisoner locator says they are:

Ghassan Elashi 29687-177
USP MCCREARY
U.S. PENITENTIARY
P.O. BOX 3000
PINE KNOT, KY  4263

Shukri Abu-Baker 32589-1775
USP BEAUMONT
U.S PENITENTIARY
P.O. BOX 26030
BEAUMONT, TX 77720

Mufid Abdulqader 32590-177
FCI Seagoville
FEDERAL CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION
P.O. BOX 9000
SEAGOVILLE, TX  75159

Mohammad El-Mezain 92412-198
FCI Oakdale II
FEDERAL CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION
P.O. BOX 5010
OAKDALE, LA  71463

Abdulrahman Odeh 26548-050
FCI Beaumont Low
FEDERAL CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION
P.O. BOX 26020
BEAUMONT, TX  77720

In general, it is good to avoid sending things like stickers or staples or paper clips. Three or four sheets of paper are not a problem and often political material does get through. It is good to write your address on at least one of the letters since sometimes envelopes are delivered, and sometimes just the contents. Put a return address on the envelope too though.

All Muslims are terrorists—that’s what prosecutors and a witness insinuated Wednesday, Sept. 24, 2008 during the third day of the Holy Land Foundation retrial after the jury left for the day. It quickly became more apparent than ever before that the five defendants are being targeted for the religion they follow.

Individuals who often use statements such as these—By God. Thank God. In the name of God, the Most Beneficent, the Most Merciful. Peace be Upon You. God Willing. May God Bless You. And Praise be to God—are Islamists, which makes them Muslim Brotherhood members, which makes them anti-Israeli, which in turn makes them terrorists, argued government witness Atef Shafik, a senior language analyst for the FBI.

“Persons who speak that way are persons who are Islamists,” prosecutor Jim Jacks told U.S. District Judge Jorge Solis as he pushed to include Shafik’s obviously bias perspective to the jury. “The way we speak gives away who we are.”

When asked to define Islamists, Shafik said, They are devout Muslims who follow the Sharia Law. They refer extensively to religious texts, such as Quran and Hadith. And they call for the destruction of Israel.

His sources for his conclusion, he explained, are the media and the fact that he lived in Egypt the first 27 years of his life.

Defense attorneys made it clear that Shafik, who is Christian, was no expert on Islam. Defense attorney Theresa Duncan said Shafik’s words expressed pure bigotry and were clearly “an attack on Islam.”

Judge Solis said he would make a ruling Thursday morning on whether Shafik’s perspective could be presented to the jury.

Five hours earlier, defense attorney Joshua Dratel—who represents Mohmmad El-Mezain—began his cross-examination of government witness Matthew Levitt. He clarified several points. First, Levitt wrote sections of his book while working at the Department of Treasury. Second, Musa Abu Marzook’s brother is in the Palestinian Authority—not Hamas.

Third, Levitt has never been to a zakat committee. Fourth, after a lot of controversy regarding Edward Said’s decision to throw a rock, Columbia University defended him on grounds of free expression. And fifth, the second Intifada resulted in nine times more Palestinian deaths than Israeli deaths.

Prosecutor Barry Jonas started redirect examination of Levitt by making a bizarre argument: Just because zakat committees are not blacklisted on the Treasury Department’s list, doesn’t make the entity legitimate. “The government doesn’t have a white list,” Levitt said. Jonas then asked Levitt about the purpose of bypass roads, to which Levitt replied, If Jewish settlers pass through, they will be fired at by Hamas attacks.
Jonas concluded by addressing a couple of weak questions.

Are Israeli sources inherently bad? Jonas asked. site

No.

There’s also been praise for your book, not just criticism.

Yes.

Defense attorney John Cline did a brief re-cross examination of Levitt. Then defense attorney Nancy Hollander, who was the last one to re-cross, made one point clear: Levitt knew about Jamal Hamami’s association with Hamas and he mentioned him a few times in his Hamas book. Yet Levitt did not know until he testified in last year’s HLF trial that Hamami was invited to the U.S.

Second Witness

The entire testimony of Marcial Pereeo took less than half an hour. Pereeo, who also testified last year, spoke about tapes he coincidently found dug up in his backyard. His house was previously owned by Fawaz Mushtaha, a member of the same Palestinian band as defendant Mufid Abdulqader.

Pereeo said he found the tapes between one and two feet underground while he was getting his backyard leveled. He put them in the trash, but took them out soon after his neighbor old him the previous homeowner was raided and under surveillance. So he contacted FBI agents, who went to his home and collected the remaining videos. At this point, some jurors and courtroom visitors looked around with puzzled faces.

Third Witness

Paul Matulic, a staff member of the U.S. Senate Intelligence Committee, testified about a couple letters he received through Senator Warren Hatch’s office while he served as Hatch’s foreign policy advisor. The letters were from a Hamas spokesman requesting help in the release of Musa Abu Marzook who was arrested at JFK airport in July 1995. He dismissed one letter, but he sent another letter to the Department of Justice and the FBI because of one line that he saw as a “potential threat”: “Serious repercussions could ensue as a result.”

Defense attorneys argued that Musa Abu Marzook lived in the U.S. for more than a decade before his arrest. He traveled using his real name. And after several months of detention, Abu Marzook was released without charge and deported to Jordan.

Matulic was also a witness from last year’s trial.

Fourth Witness

Atef Shafik, the FBI language analyst mentioned above who also testified last year, was the government’s next witness. For nearly an hour, prosecutor Jim Jacks asked Shafik about his background and job description. Born in Ciaro, Egypt, Shafik immigrated to the U.S. at age 27. He has worked with the FBI for a little over 10 years and can distinguish between the various Arabic dialects. He pointed out each defendant in the courtroom and said he can recognize all of their voices.

Shafik will continue his testimony on Thursday, where jurors will likely hear intercepted phone calls between some of the defendants.

The Holy Land Foundation was the largest Muslim charity in the United States. Founded in 1989 in Culver City, Calif. near Los Angeles and based in Richardson, Texas, the foundation provided relief to Palestinian refugees in Lebanon, Jordan and occupied Palestine. It also aided other countries including Bosnia, Albania, Chechnya, Turkey and the United States, where its officials were involved in helping victims of Texas tornadoes and the Oklahoma City Bombing. They also provided continuous volunteering and services in the Dallas-Fort Worth area. By 2001, it’s annual budget reached about $14 million.

The U.S. government shut down the foundation in December 2001 and in July 2004 a federal grand jury released a 42-count indictment that accused the organization of providing money to entities linked to the Palestinian militant group Hamas. Holy Land Foundation deny any ties to Hamas and insist that feeding Palestinian women and children is not only legal, but a moral duty that no government has the right to interfere with.

As we’ve shown in our Counterpoints to the Case, the Holy Land Foundation is not being accused of providing funds to HAMAS, nor is HLF being accused of committing or supporting any acts of violence. So, what crime is the government charging HLF with?

Feeding orphans.

So, why is this important to us as Americans? Well, think for a minute about the power that the President exercised when he single-handedly shut down HLF and declared the charity a terrorist organization. Should one man, regardless of his rank within our government, have the king-like power to shut down businesses or organizations without providing a shred of evidence to the public to support such actions? Think about how you would feel if it was you or your organization being attacked by an executive order? Don’t think it could happen to you?

Think again.

What happens when the government has no evidence and therefore has no case? Normally, it has to drop the case. However, despite not having any evidence of wrongdoing, the government decided to manufacture a case against HLF. How did they do this? Easy, just “re-define” what is legal. Because every penny of the money donated to HLF was well-documented and these documents prove without any doubt that no funds were used to support terrorism, the government changed course and decided to create a “logical” argument that somehow feeding orphans in Palestine — which is perfectly legal and done by many US-based humanitarian organizations — was somehow the same as supporting HAMAS …

… at least in HLF’s case.

But isn’t that discriminatory, and why should you care? Yes, it is discriminatory and you should care because if the government is allowed to say that someone doing perfectly legal humanitarian aid should be designated illegal for strictly political reasons, then what happens to you if your views, your religion or your country of origin falls out of political favor with the current administration?

Can you see the serious dangers of such powers?

What if it was your charity, your organization, your business, your church or your synagogue that the President decides he doesn’t like? What if it is you that the government decides to throw in jail without providing any evidence of wrong-doing? What if it is you or someone you care about who the government decides to manufacture a case against? What if it is your family the government decides to destroy…

…all because you hold different political beliefs?

So, I hope you are beginning to see how this case affects you. If the government can prosecute one organization or one person without any evidence, cause or legal justification, do you think they will stop there? So, are you still asking yourself “Why should I care?” The reason you should care is simple, because…

You could be next!

“Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.” — Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. from the Birmingham Jail, 1963.

Jurors listened more intensely than ever before on Monday, Nov. 3, 2008, as they got crash courses on Islam and the Palestinian culture.

Second Defense Witness

Dr. John Esposito, a prominent scholar on Islam and a professor at Georgetown University, was the next witness called to the stand. Esposito, who is Roman Catholic, began by briefing the jury about his credentials. He has published numerous books and articles and a six-volume encyclopedia. He also recently published results of a poll about the perception of Arabs and Muslims. He is the head of a center of Muslim and Christian understanding at Georgetown University, and he has lectured all over the world. In addition, he has consulted with numerous governmental agencies including the State Department, the FBI, the Homeland Security, the Pentagon and military organizations. He’s been to the West Bank several times, he’s received numerous awards and he can read the Quran in Arabic. Finally, he is an expert on the Muslim Brotherhood.

Esposito cleared up numerous misconceptions that prosecutors attempted to twist around and blur during the course of the retrial. First, he defined Islam, which means “submission to God.” The religion has five pillars: Shadada (To bear witness that there is no God but God and Mohammad is his Messenger), Prayer (five times a day), Fasting (From sunrise to sunset), Zakat (charity) and Hajj (pilgrimage to Mecca.) In Islam, Moses and Jesus are beloved prophets, thereby categorizing the religion with Christianity and Judaism. In fact, Mary appears more in the holy Quran that she does in the New Testament. Muslims are the followers of Islam and Allah is the Arabic term for God. In addition, he stressed the importance of caring for orphans and widows in Islam.

The true meaning of “jihad” is not associated with violence. It’s to struggle on the path of God, and to struggle to lead a moral life, Esposito said. Terrorists also use the term to mean “holy war,” but it’s never used in that context in the Quran. He also elaborated on “economic jihad,” which prosecutors used several times during the retrial. His accurate definition: To give money to the poor and destitute struggling locally and globally.

As for the term “mujahideen,” it literarily means “those who struggle.” It has been used both by freedom fighters and terrorists. In Palestine, mujahidheen would not only include Hamas affiliates, he said. It would include Fatah and other Palestinians. Esposito also defined “Islamist”: One who is religiously-oriented and engaged in social and political movements. Some Islamists mainstream, while others are radical.

He then addressed “Takbir” and “Allahu Akbar.” They are very much like applause, a form of approval from an audience. One person shouts Takbir and a group of people respond “Allahu Akbar. God is the Greatest.”

Esposito said he’s never been to a zakat committee, neither does he consider himself a Hamas expert. When defense attorney Nancy Hollander asked Esposito about Matthew Levit’s book titled “Hamas,” Esposito said the book lacks “first-hand experience,” and therefore affects the author’s credibility.

He also talked about one of his areas of expertise, the Muslim Brotherhood, which was established in the 1920s. He has interviewed numerous members and leaders across the Middle East. For the past 30 years, the group has not been violent. In fact, it has participated peacefully with governments and societies worldwide. The group still exists in Palestine, without being associated with Hamas.

After Esposito said he met a few Hamas officials throughout the years, Hollander asked, Does that say anything about whether or not you support them? Esposito replied, No.

The next topic of discussion was another man whose name was mentioned several times during the retrial: Yusuf Al-Qaradawi, a prominent Muslim scholar and religious leader. Al-Qaradawi has denounced acts of terrorism like suicide bombings in general and the tragedy on Sept. 11, 2001. But he has been supportive of suicide bombings in Palestine. To Al-Qaradawi, Esposito explained, Palestine is a war-zone, where people are living under occupation. All Israelis are part of the system; therefore, fighting is legitimate. Suicide bombers don’t have the military power, so they use their bodies as weapons to sacrifice themselves for a noble and just cause, Al-Qaradawi has said.

Hollander concluded direct examination by asking Esposito, Why is it important for us here to understand Islam? Esposito answered, When you make a judgment, it’s important to understand the culture and the people involved. I grew up at a time when Italians were seen as the Mafia. It’s important to know the context before making a judgment.

During cross-examination, prosecutor Jim Jacks asked Esposito about the several times he spoke at CAIR (Council on American-Islamic Relations) events. At one of the events, money was being raised for the Muslim Legal Fund of America, which Jacks claimed, pays the defense attorneys in the HLF case. This claim, of course, was false since all but one defense attorney are paid by 5th U.S. Circuit of Appeals. Jacks inquired about whether Esposito was getting paid for his testimony. He said he was getting about $420 an hour. In addition, Jacks compared the Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas mottos, saying the two were similar. Jacks then discussed a book seized by the FBI from HLF’s New Jersey office titled “A study of the Islamic Resistance Movement Hamas,” where Hamas leader Ahmad Yasin is quoted labeling Hamas’ security wing as the “Palestinian Mujahideen.” Esposito reiterated that “mujahideen” can be translated to mean holy warrior or freedom fighter. Jacks also asked Esposito why he has met with Hamas leaders. Esposito quickly replied, It’s part of my research to seek out Islamic movements.

Jacks addressed the Muslim Brotherhood, exclaiming that there have been members of the brotherhood who have engaged in violent acts. For 30 minutes or so, Jacks displayed various Muslim Brotherhood documents, in which he repeatedly pointed out violent statements. Next, Jacks attempted tackle Esposito’s definition of “economic jihad” by playing a clip of a speech by Abdullah Azzam, a Palestinian spiritual leader who fought alongside Afghanis against the Soviets during the late 1970s. In the video, Azzam proclaimed passionately in Arabic, It is a duty for all Muslims to do jihad with their souls and money … I pray for the paralyzed man, a man who moves a generation when he cant move, Ahmad Yasin … Oh children of Palestine, the opportunity to train you with weapons is open The end of the clip features a flashing request to send donations to the Occupied Land Fund (the original name of the HLF.)

Would you agree that in this video and this context, economic jihad is referring to supporting violence, Jacks asked after the clip ended.

I suppose he was referring to fundraising for Afghanistan, Esposito replied, concluding honestly and brilliantly.

Third Defense Witness

Dr. David McDonald, a professor of folklore and ethnomusicology at Indiana University, gave the jury the untold, candid story of Palestine through its history of music, dance, performance and culture. While working on his PhD, McDonald lived the West Bank for two years. There, he said he interviewed Palestinians and learned about what they thought and how they lived.

After completing his research, McDonald concluded that there are six basic types of Palestinian music that emerged at specific moments in Palestinian history.

1. Sha’bi (Folkloric)—19-teens to 1948: This type of music included stories of heroism and the British colonization. It became prominent again in Palestine from 1982 to 1987.
2. Watani (National)—1948 to 1967: This type of music emerged after the creation of Israel in 1948. It was a drastic change from Shaibi.
3. Thauri (Revolutionary)—1967 to 1982: This type of music coincided with the Six-Day War in 1967. It had many references of resistance against the brutal Israeli occupation.
4. Anasheed (Islamist songs)—1987 to 1993: This type of music emerged soon after the Intifada in 1987. It’s made up of a more simple, religious chant.
5. Classiki (Classical)—1993 to 2001: After the Oslo Accord, the type of music began reflecting a “spirit of anticipation,” McDonald said. There was zeal toward learning new things.
6. Pop—2000 and forward: This type of music sprouted after the second Intifada.

McDonald said he analyzed sound, behavior and concept when he reviewed the footage associated with the HLF case. Some clips showed music by Al-Sakhra (The Rock) Band of which defendant Mufid Abdulqader was a member. This group surprised me because they performed three different types of music in one performance: Sha’bi, Thauri and Anasheed, McDonald said. Defense attorney Marlo Caddedu played a video with Al-Sakhra Band singing behind professional dabka dancers. Dabka is the most important Palestinian symbol of identity, McDonald added. Caddedu played a video that prosecutors showed the jury earlier during the trial of masked men wearing black and holding up the Quran. McDonald pointed out that the individuals in the video looked like they were reenacting the demonstrations that took place during the Intifada. Another video featured Al-Sakhra Band member Monzer Taleb singing an ornamented solo as he recited poetic text.

At the end of the day, McDonald addressed a video that prosecutors played numerous times of a skit performed by Abdulqader and another individual dressed like an Israeli soldier. McDonald said the performance was a dramatization of a dialogue. He dissected the dialogue, putting the Palestinian frustration into context for the jury. Below are excerpts of the dialogue:

Mufid: I am Hamas, O dear ones.
I swear to wipe out the name of the Zionist.
And protect my land, Palestine.

Zionist Character: This, Hamas, is a new melody
that you have not gotten used to it. But
you do not know me.
And I am the known Zionist.
And my situation is known in the world.
I must take over Palestine
And make it Israel.

Zionist Character: You want to wipe out the name
of the Zionist, you, yourself? Armies and
will not wipe out the name of the Zionist,
and you are coming to erase the name of the
Zionist with a stone?
And I, the Jew, do not get scared.
And Hitler killed thousands.
And I, the Jew, do not get scared.
And Hitler killed thousands.
I am the Jew and I do not fight.
My daughters answer on my behalf.

Mufid: You, as many as you kill of the
children, elderly and women.
And the people of Palestine do not die.
Mufid: I will make your casket, and dig your grave
in Jenin.

Zionist Character: He thinks that Jenin in which
he is going to dig his grave in for me is his land.
This is not your land; this is our land.
And this is Yehuda and Samra.
And the abundant land and of my forefathers. .
And the world knows its story.
And from America to Berlin.
Do not say Intifada
This is nonsense.
The sling will not get me out.
Nor by the stone that is thrown on me.
Audience: You must leave, O cursed one.

Mufid: This is your work, against who
are you using your tanks and cannons?, against
unarmed people and children, the innocent people.
This is your work, O coward.
The killing of the elderly and the women.
And this is your work, O coward.

The skit ends with Abdulqader shooting and killing the Israeli soldier.
McDonald will continue his testimony on Tuesday, Oct. 4, 2008. Attorneys will likely give their closing arguments early next week.

This report documents the effect of U.S. government actions on American Muslims’ exercise of their right to profess and practice their religion through charitable giving. The ACLU’s research shows that U.S. terrorism financing policies and practices are seriously undermining American Muslims’ protected constitutional liberties and violating their fundamental human rights to freedom of religion, freedom of association, and freedom from discrimination.

The ACLU found that these policies and practices are neither fair nor effective, and are undermining American values of due process and fairness. This report outlines clear measures the Obama administration and Congress should take to ensure American Muslims can exercise their religion while protecting charities from mistaken targeting and abuse, and simultaneously promoting national security and humanitarian aid.

DALLAS — While the U.S. Justice Department ponders how it will retry its troubled terrorism finance case against a now- defunct Muslim charity, debris from the recent mistrial here shows signs of piling up at the White House doorstep.

The nation’s biggest terrorism finance case ended so badly for the government that it has thrown into question the Bush administration’s original order to shut down the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development six years ago.

Back then, President Bush accused the charity of aiding Palestinian terrorists. But similar allegations presented by federal prosecutors during the two-month trial in the president’s home state fell dramatically short of convincing a Texas jury.

The panel of eight women and four men failed to convict Holy Land or any of its five accused former officials on any of their 200 combined criminal counts of supporting terrorists. It was the first time the administration’s view of the charity had been argued in court because the original executive order shuttering Holy Land was never subjected to full judicial review.

Though attorneys and all five defendants in the case are still bound by a gag order, legal observers and three jurors say the recent trial exposed significant weaknesses in the government’s 15-year, multimillion-dollar investigation of Holy Land.

Before the mistrial was declared, vote tallies read in open court showed that the jury had acquitted one defendant on all counts and two others on many counts, and was deadlocked on convicting the remaining defendants of anything. Jurors later interviewed by The Times said they were far from agreement on any convictions.

“I kept expecting the government to come up with something, and it never did,” juror Nanette Scroggins, a retired claims adjuster, said in her only interview about the case. “From what I saw, this was about Muslims raising money to support Muslims, and I don’t see anything wrong with that.”

Fellow juror William Neal, an art director who said his father worked in military intelligence, agreed that the government never produced “any clear evidence linking” Holy Land funding to the U.S.-designated terrorist group Hamas.

“If the government can shut them down and then not convince a jury the group is guilty of any wrongdoing, then there is something wrong with the process,” Georgetown University law professor David Cole said.

George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley said the criminal trial derailed the government’s long-publicized assertions about Holy Land.

“From the beginning, the allegations were highly suspect and only got worse,” said Turley, who has handled a number of national security cases.

Indeed, Turley said, if the government had begun with the troubled criminal case, it might never have succeeded in closing down the foundation administratively because its disputed evidence would have come to light years ago.

Such criticisms echoed those of Holy Land lawyers who had long complained that the charity was railroaded out of existence without due process of law and based on secret evidence.

“Before a person’s domestic pet can be taken away for being vicious, they are at least entitled to a hearing. So what happened to Holy Land wouldn’t happen to a dog,” John Boyd, one of Holy Land’s lawyers, said in an interview more than a year before the court imposed a continuing gag order.

Ironically, the government’s decision to seek criminal sanctions may have succeeded most in exposing weaknesses in the administration’s overarching case against Holy Land. Georgetown’s Cole said prosecutors failed to produce evidence that the charity provided “one penny to support terrorist activities.”

And in the end, despite years of FBI surveillance, wiretaps and seized documents, the case presented in court largely came down to conflicting testimony between an anonymous Israeli security official and a former American diplomat over which neighborhood charities in the Gaza Strip and West Bank were or were not affiliated with Hamas.

The government’s allegations not only proved unpersuasive but engendered skepticism among some jurors.

“The whole case was based on assumptions that were based on suspicions,” said juror Scroggins, who added: “If they had been a Christian or Jewish group, I don’t think [prosecutors] would have brought charges against them.”

An entrenched political, social and military organization among Palestinians, the Islamic militant group Hamas has long been an adversary of Israel and has been designated a terrorist organization by the U.S. since 1995. Last year, it won Palestinian parliamentary elections and now controls the Gaza Strip, home to 1.5 million people.

A White House spokesman declined to comment about the government’s actions against Holy Land and referred calls to the Department of Justice, where a press official said he was precluded from making statements by the judge’s gag order.

Former federal prosecutor Thomas Melsheimer of Dallas said he was surprised by the outcome and thought the Justice Department should drop the case since it already had closed down the foundation.

“Look, the fact that a jury in a law-and-order state like Texas failed to convict a group of defendants that the government labeled as supporting terrorism is a stunning result,” he said.

White House ties to the case date back to December 2001, when Bush used a Rose Garden news conference to announce executive action against Holy Land. He accused the foundation of raising money in the U.S. that “pays for murder abroad.”

“The Holy Land Foundation claims that the money it solicits goes to care for needy Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza,” Bush said. Instead, he said, the funds were “used by Hamas to support schools and indoctrinate children to grow up to be suicide bombers” and to “recruit suicide bombers and to support their families.”

Acting under authority of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, Bush said the Treasury Department was freezing Holy Land’s assets and seizing its offices.

“The message is this: Those who do business with terror will do no business within the United States or anywhere else the United States can reach,” Bush said.

Holy Land officials, most of them American citizens, disavowed terrorism and denied any financial ties to Hamas or other violent groups. Their lawyers launched legal challenges to the executive order but failed to get an evidentiary hearing to rebut the government’s underlying allegations.

In 2003 an appeals court ruled against the charity, citing “secret evidence” that defense lawyers said they never saw, nor ever had described to them. Finally, in March 2004, the U.S. Supreme Court refused without comment to hear the case.

A criminal indictment issued against Holy Land and five former officials in 2005 closely tracked allegations supporting the administration’s 2001 seizure order. In both cases, the government cited wiretaps, anonymous FBI informants and Israeli intelligence to claim Hamas was the primary beneficiary of the charity’s largesse.

“We have not alleged that Holy Land pulled the trigger or lit the fuse of a bomb,” one Justice Department official said in an interview after the indictment was released.

“But they have facilitated those who pulled the trigger or lit the fuse.”

Holy Land’s alleged role became less direct by the time prosecutors went before a federal jury, however.

Rather than accusing it of funding Hamas directly, prosecutors said Holy Land funneled money through zakat committees, local charities that the government asserted were controlled by Hamas.

To buttress that allegation at trial, the government relied solely on Israeli intelligence, calling on two Israeli security agents who testified anonymously in a courtroom closed to the general public.

The Israeli government’s role in the case was criticized even before the trial opened.

Long before the gag order was imposed, Boyd accused the Justice Department of prosecuting Holy Land “at the behest of Israel.”

Law professor Turley was among legal experts who warned that evidence provided by Israel could be seen as tainted, saying it was “dangerous to rely on intelligence” from a country at the center of a long-standing dispute with Hamas.

In the aftermath of the mistrial, Turley said, it was clear “this case was riddled with highly suspect evidence, some of it derived from Israeli intelligence.”

By LESLIE EATON, New York Times
October 23, 2007
DALLAS — A federal judge declared a mistrial on Monday in what was widely seen as the government’s flagship terrorism-financing case after prosecutors failed to persuade a jury to convict five leaders of a Muslim charity on any charges, or even to reach a verdict on many of the 197 counts.

The case, involving the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development and five of its backers, is the government’s largest and most complex legal effort to shut down what it contends is American financing for terrorist organizations in the Middle East.

President Bush announced he was freezing the charity’s assets in December 2001, saying that the radical Islamic group Hamas had “obtained much of the money it pays for murder abroad right here in the United States.”

But at the trial, the government did not accuse the foundation, which was based in a Dallas suburb, of paying directly for suicide bombings. Instead, the prosecution said, the foundation supported terrorism by sending more than $12 million to charitable groups, known as zakat committees, which build hospitals and feed the poor.

Prosecutors said the committees were controlled by Hamas and contributed to terrorism by helping Hamas spread its ideology and recruit supporters. The government relied on Israeli intelligence agents, using pseudonyms, to testify in support of this theory.

But prosecutors appeared to have made little headway in convincing the jury.

The case involved 197 counts, including providing material support to a foreign terrorist organization. It also involved years of investigation and preparation, almost two months of testimony and more than 1,000 exhibits, including documents, wiretaps, transcripts and videotapes dug up in a backyard in Virginia.

After 19 days of deliberations, the jury acquitted one of the five individual defendants on all but one charge, on which it deadlocked. A majority of the jurors also appeared ready to acquit two other defendants of most charges, and could not reach a verdict on charges against the two principal organizers and the foundation itself, which had been the largest Muslim charity in the United States until the government froze its assets in late 2001.

James T. Jacks, the first assistant United States attorney, said in court that the government would retry the case. Both prosecutors and defense lawyers have been barred from discussing the case in the press, and Chief Judge A. Joe Fish said that order continued in force.

The decision is “a stunning setback for the government, there’s no other way of looking at it,” said Matthew D. Orwig, a partner at Sonnenschein Nath & Rosenthal here who was, until recently, United States attorney for the Eastern District of Texas.

“This is a message, a two-by-four in the middle of the forehead,” said Mr. Orwig, who was appointed by President Bush and served on the United States attorney general’s advisory subcommittee on terrorism and national security. “If this doesn’t get their attention, they are just in complete denial,” he said of Justice Department officials, who he said might not have recognized how difficult such cases are to prosecute.

David D. Cole, a professor of constitutional law at Georgetown University, said the jury’s verdict called into question the government’s tactics in freezing the assets of charities using secret evidence that the charities cannot see, much less rebut. When, at trial, prosecutors “have to put their evidence on the table, they can’t convict anyone of anything,” he said. “It suggests the government is really pushing beyond where the law justifies them going.”

And Jimmy Gurulé, who was an under secretary of the Treasury when that agency froze Holy Land’s assets, described the outcome as “the continuation of what I now see as a trend of disappointing legal defeats” in terror-financing cases. Two previous cases, in Illinois and in Florida, ended with hung juries and relatively minor plea deals, he said.

In the Holy Land case, defense lawyers told the jury that their clients did not support terrorism but were humanitarians trying to lessen suffering among impoverished Palestinians. Though their clients may have expressed support for Hamas, the defense argued, that was before the United States government designated it as a terrorist organization in 1995.

The outcome of the trial emerged during a morning of confusion for jurors and those on both sides of the case, who had been waiting to hear the verdict since the jury returned it on Oct. 18. It was sealed until Monday because Chief Judge Fish had been out of town.

In the verdict, the jury said it failed to reach a decision on any of the charges against the charity and two of its main organizers, but acquitted three defendants on almost all counts.

But in a highly unusual development, when the judge polled the jurors on Monday, three members said that verdict did not represent their views. He sent them off to deliberate again; after about 40 minutes, they said they could not continue.

In the end, one defendant, Mohammed El-Mezain, was acquitted on all but one charge, involving conspiracy, on which the jury failed to reach a verdict. A mistrial was declared on that count, and on all the other counts involving the other defendants.

The exact nature of the jurors’ disputes, and their reasoning in the cases, remained unclear after the verdict. Chief Judge Fish barred reporters from trying to contact the jurors, although he said he would provide jurors with reporters’ telephone numbers if they wanted to discuss the case.

One juror said the panel had found little evidence against three defendants and was evenly split on charges against Shukri Abu Baker, the former charity’s president, and Ghassan Elashi, its chairman.

“I understand there’s no magical mystery check with ‘Hamas’ written on it, but over all the case was pretty weak,” said the juror, William Neal, 33, an art director from Dallas. “There really was nothing there for me, no concrete evidence.” Mr. Neal said the government should not retry the case — a call picked up by Holy Land’s supporters, who packed the courtroom during the trial, and who carried some defendants around on their shoulders outside the courthouse chanting “Praise God” in Arabic.

“The government spent 13 years and came back empty-handed,” said Khalil Meek, who is president of the Muslim Legal Fund of America and spokesman for an alliance called Hungry for Justice. “I would call that a victory — an overwhelming defeat for the government.”

Lawyers for some defendants said their clients were being prosecuted because of their family ties to Hamas leaders. One defendant, Mufid Abdulqader, is the half-brother of Khalid Mishal, a Hamas leader who has been designated as a terrorist by the United States government.

Another Hamas official and designated terrorist, Mousa abu Marzook, is married to a cousin of Mr. Elashi, who was sentenced last year to almost seven years in prison for having financial dealings with Mr. Marzook and for violating export laws.

Mr. Elashi’s daughter Noor, who was in the courtroom every day during the trial, said she considered her father a hero. “He was singled out for feeding and clothing and educating the children of Palestine,” she said. “Giving charity to the Palestinian people has become a crime in this country.”