Suppressing Dissent by Zaha Hassan and H.A. Hellyer

Author:Zaha Hassan and H.A. Hellyer
Language: eng
Format: epub
ISBN: 9781836430971
Publisher: Oneworld Publications

The case of the Holy Land Foundation: sham trials and sham due process

The misuse of counterterrorism measures (CTMs) is nothing new. Since 9/11, the US has had an outsized influence on the global counterterrorism architecture and agenda which has trickled down to the national level where similar CTMs have been adopted. In September 2001, the Bush administration made swift, discriminatory, and baseless accusations in the name of fighting terrorist financing to assert that NGOs were being used by terrorist entities as a front for their operations and activities.81 Muslim NGOs were at particular risk of falling prey to these accusations and perhaps none so much as those whose work supported communities in Palestine, or that were Palestinian-led. In December 2001, the Bush administration conducted an asset freeze of the three biggest Muslim charities in the US, forcing them to close down.

The largest of these charities, the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development (HLF), not only had its assets frozen, but was also listed by the US as a Specially Designated Global Terrorist (SDGT).82 HLF’s mission, prior to being shut down, was to provide humanitarian aid and relief in Palestine83 and for Palestinian refugees in Jordan and Lebanon. It was run mostly by Palestinian-American Muslims.84 Following HLF’s unsuccessful federal court challenge regarding the SDGT designation, HLF and seven associated individuals were indicted by the US and charged with various material support for terrorism (to Hamas) crimes and other associated charges.85

The accusation of providing material support to Hamas is especially significant due to the October 1997 US designation of Hamas as a Foreign Terrorist Organization (FTO).86 Most engagement with an FTO is proscribed under the material support to terrorism statutes.87 The penalties for running afoul of the material support law are severe, including exorbitant fines and strict criminal liability.88 Thus, material support allegations can mean a death sentence for accused organizations, irrespective of whether the allegations are true.

HLF became a casualty of the Bush administration’s so-called Global War on Terror, and the largest major terrorist financing “victory” post-9/11.89 The case has been widely criticized.90 The trials were fraught with questionable and prejudicial admissions of evidence, including “secret evidence” that the defense was not able to review for “national security reasons.”91 The jury instructions did not include a sufficient “knowledge” requirement for the defendants, which violated the defendants’ rights to due process under the Fifth Amendment.92 Further, HLF funds were sent to the same charities in the occupied Palestinian territories that the US government had also supported.93 These problematic and controversial aspects of the trial contributed to the convictions of the defendants, some of whom remain in prison to this day.94 The trial itself has been called a “sham”95 and unprecedented because up until then the constitutional principles would not support the conviction of a person based on anonymous accusations.96 However, all five of the HLF defendants were convicted without facing their accusers.

Download

Copyright Disclaimer:
This site does not store any files on its server. We only index and link to content provided by other sites. Please contact the content providers to delete copyright contents if any and email us, we'll remove relevant links or contents immediately.