http://english.aljazeera.net/news/americas/2008/11/20081124212126642596.html
A US court has convicted a Muslim charity and five of its former leaders on 108 charges in the largest “terrorism” financing trial in US history. The Texas jury reached its verdict on two weeks ago after eight days of deliberations over whether the former Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development, once the largest US Muslim charity, had given money to the Palestinian group Hamas.The charity, which was shut down seven years ago, was accused of giving more than $12m to support Hamas, which, like Hezbollah, has been designated a “terrorist organization” by the US government. Several relatives of those convicted wept as the verdict was read out in the Dallas courtroom, with apparently one woman shouting “my father is not a criminal.”
I think the accusation of the charity’s supporting a specially-designated “terrorist” organization is a bit problematic. Is it really possible to discern the line between funding schools, hospitals and social welfare programs controlled by the group in the Palestinian territories and funding the acts of fighters? The charity’s supporters said the government was “politicizing the case as part of its so-called war on terror and ignoring the foundation’s charitable mission in providing aid to the poverty-stricken Palestinian territories.”
This isn’t necessarily a new development. Government officials had raided Holy Land’s headquarters in December 2001; Bush later announced the seizure of the charity’s assets as “another step in the war on terrorism.” Al Jazeera’s Tom Ackerman, reporting from Dallas, Texas, where the court case took place, said a former US state department official testified that he was never told that Hamas directed the US charity during intelligence briefings. But an unidentified Israeli witness told the court that the aid was funnelled through Hamas channels. Obviously this has many up in arms, fulminating that they did not get a fair trial.
To paint a broader picture, muslim groups say the prosecution has made American Muslims more hesitant to fulfill their religious obligation of helping the needy; the foundation’s defenders accuse the government of selectively prosecuting the charity.
To what end is it reasonable to governmentally dictate the contributions of charitable organizations?
