[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Sign-in] [Mail] [Setup] [Help]
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
|
Dead Constitution See other Dead Constitution Articles Title: U.S. loses terrorism case, may have to rethink prosecutions US may rethink terror cases after mistrial-experts 23 Oct 2007 19:37:04 GMT Source: Reuters Alert Me | Print | Email this article | RSS XML [-] Text [+] By Randall Mikkelsen WASHINGTON, Oct 23 (Reuters) - The U.S. government's failure this week to win a conviction in a major case of alleged terrorism financing is a sign it may be targeting the wrong suspects and needs to rethink its prosecution strategy, legal experts say. A judge in Dallas declared a mistrial on Monday on most counts against an Islamic charity -- the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development -- and several men linked to it who were accused of illegally funneling money to the militant Palestinian group Hamas. The government vowed to retry the case, but legal experts said it faces obstacles in prosecuting charitable groups and terrorism cases in general. "This case shows that we have not done our homework," said Karen Greenberg, executive director of New York University's Center for Law and Security. "It's conveying an impression to the American people that we don't know how to do this." The complex set of charges in the Holy Land case included conspiracy to support a foreign terrorist organization, money laundering and filing a false tax return. The jury acquitted one defendant on most charges, but mistrials were declared on one count against him and for all four of his co-defendants across the board. Greenberg and other experts said the government must focus its zeal for prosecution, pursue better evidence and simplify the cases it presents. "What we want is to prosecute the right guy," Greenberg said. Studies by the NYU center over the six years to September 2007 found that of 619 defendants in federal cases potentially involving terrorism, 196 were indicted on actual terrorism charges. Greenberg said this relatively small share indicated prosecutors were either chasing the wrong suspects or using the wrong laws. "SCATTERSHOT APPROACH" The center said the government used a "scattershot approach" in charging terrorism suspects and showed a preference for early arrests rather than accumulating strong evidence over time. Of the 196 terrorism defendants, 62 have been convicted, according to NYU center figures. Only one case, the conviction last year of Pakistani immigrant Shahawar Martin Siraj for planning to bomb a New York subway station, involved the archetypal terrorism scenario of a suspected clandestine cell seeking to carry out an attack on U.S. soil, the center said. Justice Department statistics list 525 defendants in terrorism or "terrorism-related" cases in the same six-year period, with 312 convictions or guilty pleas, The Holy Land case followed an investigation lasting several years. The government said money the group passed to local charities in Palestinian areas was being funneled to Hamas. But the local charities had not been designated as terrorist groups, making it hard for prosecutors to prove a link, Georgetown University law professor David Cole said. Since the Sept. 11 attacks, the U.S. government has shut down as many as 12 charities on suspicion of financing groups designated as terrorist. None of those cases have been followed by terrorism convictions, Cole said, although the head of the Benevolence International Foundation in Chicago pleaded guilty to racketeering in a case involving accusations the group was an al Qaeda front. This scarcity of convictions raises questions about the fairness of the process for shutting down charities, Cole said. And the confusing verdict in the Holy Land case "may give the government pause as it considers whether to go after other charities in a similar fashion," said American University law professor Stephen Vladeck. Juries can become overwhelmed in a complex case with multiple charges, said Jeffrey Addicott, director of the Center for Terrorism Law at St. Mary's University School of Law in Texas. "You have to keep it simple. If you look at the case and the number of charges that were brought ... they may want to reduce the number of charges on the next go-around."
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 1.
#1. To: All (#0)
Never mind that these defendants were kept in jail for years. The facts, and the government knew this going in, are that this charity was donating to hospitals, food banks, schools etc. in Palestine. It was firmly anti-Israeli, but it wasn't shipping weapons or giving rewards to suicide bombers' families or anything of the sort. Hamas, despite some of its other activities, operates hospitals, schools, food banks and other public facilities. That the money from the U.S. charity might get intermingled with Hamas money is pretty unavoidable. This was a bogus prosecution from the git-go. It basically implied that I cannot donate food to a Palestinian food bank, because I would be supporting terrorism. This is how low our government has sunk.
#4. To: Mekons4 (#1)
Good observations.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest |
||
|
[Home]
[Headlines]
[Latest Articles]
[Latest Comments]
[Post]
[Sign-in]
[Mail]
[Setup]
[Help]
|
||