Mistrial in US Muslim charity terror funding case
DALLAS, United States (AFP) — The US government's legal battle in the "war on terror" was dealt a stunning blow Monday when a mistrial was declared after a jury failed to reach a verdict against a Muslim charity accused of being a front for Palestinian militants.
US district judge Joe Fish declared the mistrial after jurors failed to reach a unanimous verdict in the terrorism financing trial of Texas-based Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development after 19 days of deliberations.
The complex trial involved two months of testimony and dozens of charges against the charity and five of its officers, four of whom are US citizens.
When asked if the government would attempt to retry the case against what was once the largest Muslim charity in the United States, the lead prosecutor said "yes" but would not comment further because of a gag order.
Government prosecutors allege the foundation raised more than 12 million dollars for the Palestinian group Hamas, but they do not accuse the charity of directly financing or being involved in terrorist activity.
Instead prosecutors say humanitarian aid was used to promote Hamas -- a multi-faceted Islamist political, social and armed movement which now controls the Gaza Strip -- and allow it to divert existing funds to militant activities.
The United States designated Hamas a terrorist group in 1995 and outlawed any support to the group, including humanitarian aid.
President George W. Bush personally announced the shutdown of the Texas-based foundation three months after the September 11, 2001 attacks, claiming it as a victory in the "war on terror."
Scores of other Muslim charities were subsequently implicated in the administration's attempts to block the transfer of funds to terror groups, a move roundly criticized by many in the Muslim community as fueled by prejudice.
Defense attorneys said their clients ran a legitimate charity and had no connection to Hamas or any other terrorists.
They argued the government's evidence reeked of anti-Muslim prejudice and dealt with activities well before the United States outlawed contact with Hamas.
The case also highlights serious flaws in terror financing laws which are too broad and effectively criminalizes guilt by association, the American Civil Liberties Union said.
While it is important to make sure that charitable aid is not diverted to support terrorism, the laws do not offer sufficient protections and guidance to prevent prosecution of "innocent donors who intend to support only lawful activity through humanitarian aid, speech or association," said Hina Shamsi, staff attorney with the ACLU's National Security Project.
"If there's any lesson to be learned from the government's counter-terrorism policies in the last few years, it's that when we violate rights in the name of security, we lose both," Shamsi added.
Fish sent the jury back to deliberate Monday after they acquitted three of the charity's five leaders of most of the charges against them, but were unable to reach a verdict against two others and the charity itself.
When they returned 45 minutes later, jurors said they could not agree on any counts except a not guilty verdict on all but one of the 32 charges against the charity's top fundraiser.
Fish allowed that verdict to stand, but declared a mistrial on all other counts.
This failure to secure a conviction comes on the heels of two high-stakes losses in similar terrorism financing cases.
In January, a jury acquitted a Chicago-area businessman accused of being a "bag man" for Hamas, although he was sentenced to 21 months in jail for obstructing justice for lying about his involvement with the organization.
Two years earlier, a Florida professor also was found not guilty on similar terrorism-support charges, and the jury deadlocked on several other charges. He later pled guilty to lesser charges.
The government has, however, won guilty verdicts on terrorism support cases but none against an entity approaching the size of Holy Land.
