Category: Uncategorized

My client was convicted of providing charity. There was not, in ten years of wiretapping his home, his office, looking at his faxes, listening to everything he said, there was not one word out of his mouth about violence to anyone or about support for Hamas. He provided charity. That’s what he was convicted of.–Nancy Hollander, attorney for former Holy Land CEO Shukri Abu Baker.

---

Democracy Now (May 29, 2009) Rush Transcript

JUAN GONZALEZ: Five founders of a Muslim charity have been sentenced to lengthy prison terms in a controversial case that began nearly ten years ago. The Holy Land Foundation, based in a Dallas suburb, was the biggest Muslim charity in the United States before the Bush administration shut it down in 2001. Its five founders were convicted last November on charges of funneling money to the Palestinian group Hamas. The US government declared Hamas a terrorist organization in 1995.

It was the second trial against the Holy Land Foundation’s five leaders after the first ended in a mistrial. The government’s case relied on Israeli intelligence as well as disputed documents and electronic surveillance gathered by the FBI over a span of fifteen years.

AMY GOODMAN: Defendants Ghassan Elashi and Shukri Abu Baker each received sixty-five-year prison sentences. At his sentencing hearing, Elashi said, “Nothing was more rewarding than…turning the charitable contributions of American Muslims into life assistance for the Palestinians. We gave the essentials of life: oil, rice, flour. The occupation was providing them with death and destruction.” Another defendant, Mohammad El-Mezain, was sentenced to fifteen years in prison. He was found guilty of supporting Hamas but acquitted on thirty-one other charges. Volunteer fundraiser Mufid Abdulqader was sentenced to twenty years in prison. And the fifth defendant, Abdulrahman Odeh, was sentenced to fifteen years in prison. All five defendants plan to file appeals.

We go now to Dallas, where we’re joined by Noor Elashi. She’s the daughter of Ghassan Elashi, the chair of the Holy Land Foundation who was sentenced to sixty-five years.

And joining us from her home in Albuquerque via Democracy Now! video stream is Nancy Hollander, a defense attorney who represented former Holy Land CEO Shukri Abu Baker.

We invited Jim Jacks, the lead prosecutor in the case, on the show, but his office declined.

Noor, let’s begin with you. When the sentencing happened, your dad got sixty-five years in prison. Your response?

NOOR ELASHI: Well, thank you, first of all, Amy, for having me on the show.

My response to that is basically, to me, on Wednesday, the Holy Land Five, my father and the Holy Land Five, became the Nelson Mandelas of the twenty-first century. They’re merely political prisoners caught in this disillusioned web, widely known by the Bush administration as the war on terror.

Sixty-five years seems like a big number, but it’s really nothing but a number to me. I do—I have faith that during the appeal process, under a less politicized Justice Department under the new administration, that truth will come out. And truth is a much stronger, way more powerful—truth is basically way more powerful than the prosecution’s ongoing tactic of fear. And truth will come out under this less politicized Justice Department.

JUAN GONZALEZ: Noor Elashi, tell us about your father. When did he come to the United States, and why did he decide to found the Holy Land Foundation?

NOOR ELASHI: My dad came to the US in the early ’80s. He got his master’s degree from the University of Miami and thus started a family. And, you know, in the late ’80s, during the Intifada, the uprising, he saw, like many Americans, images on television that just really went straight to his heart. And he, being Palestinian, originally Palestinian, took it to heart and felt like, you know, he had to do something. And that is, after seeing thousands of—the images of thousands of trees being uprooted, you know, many political prisoners in Palestine, many homes being demolished, he said there’s definitely a need there, a humanitarian need. There’s an economic crisis. And therefore, he and a few—a couple other people founded the Holy Land Foundation, which, like you mentioned earlier, became the largest Muslim charity in this country until the Bush administration shut it down.

AMY GOODMAN: Nancy Hollander, you’re the attorney for the former Holy Land CEO, Holy Land Foundation CEO Shukri Abu Baker. Just looking at the time line for the whole Holy Land case: you have January ’89, the organization that was renamed Holy Land Foundation is founded by Noor’s father, Ghassan Elashi, and others to assist Palestinians affected by the Intifada, ’89; 1992, Holy Land moves its headquarters to Richardson, Texas; ’95, the US government declares Hamas a terrorist organization; ’99, the government says it’s investigating alleged financial ties between Holy Land and Hamas dating back to 1996. Explain this and what evidence the government presented on the connection between Holy Land and Hamas.

NANCY HOLLANDER: Well, the government’s allegations—and this is extremely important, Amy—the government’s allegations all along and what the jury found was that Holy Land provided charity. Every dime went to charity. It went through sometimes directly to individuals and sometimes through charity committees, which are called Zakat committees. This is part of Islamic law that Muslims must tithe, and they often do it through these committees. These committees are throughout the Muslim world and in Palestine. And Holy Land gave money, large sums of money, to these Zakat committees in all these local communities, and then that was distributed to individuals, mostly orphans or families in need.

There was never any allegation that any money went any where other than to charity. The government’s position was that these particular charities were associated with or controlled by Hamas. And it’s important to understand that the United States government, through USAID, continued to give money to the same charities for years after Holy Land was closed. But that’s what the allegation was all the way along. Although the government spent a great deal of time in the trial talking about and showing the jury horrific pictures of violent acts that Hamas did, our clients were not accused of nor convicted of one single act of violence.

AMY GOODMAN: So, explain what they were convicted of.

NANCY HOLLANDER: They were convicted of providing material support to Hamas, which includes, under the US statutes, providing charity to associations and organizations that are associated with or controlled by Hamas. The issue of whether these particular charities were controlled by Hamas, we believe to this day that they were not. And the only evidence that they were came from a secret witness from Israel who claimed to be a lawyer with the Israeli Shin Bet, but we were never able to learn anything about him, because he was presented with a pseudonym, and we weren’t allowed to know anything about him.

AMY GOODMAN: The Shin Bet being the Israeli intelligence.

NANCY HOLLANDER: Yes, yes, correct. And that’s where they got the information.

The government also claimed that by providing charity, Holy Land was assisting Hamas in winning the hearts and minds of the people. There was no evidence of that, of course. And Holy Land was closed in 2001. And although the government tried to make the leap to Hamas winning a large number of seats in the election in 2006, that was five years later. And the government never had an answer, during trial or at sentencing when we brought this up, to explain that USAID gave money, for example, $47,000 to
t
he Qalqilya Zakat Committee in December of 2004, and why that didn’t contribute to the hearts and minds theory, if in fact that theory makes any sense, which historically and politically it doesn’t.

JUAN GONZALEZ: Nancy Hollander, the first trial in 2007 ended in a mistrial, and there was the second one that ended in conviction. Any sense on your part what swayed the jury in the second trial? And also, were you surprised by the severity of the sentences?

NANCY HOLLANDER: Well, on your first question, the government always benefits when it gets a second chance. It has seen the defense. It had another year to gather more evidence, to look through the ten years of FISA wiretaps that our clients were never allowed to look at, by the way, even though they were their statements, to attempt to find more evidence. All they really found, because there was no evidence of anything other than charity, all they found was more violence, and they put on more violence.

In terms of the sentence, no, I wasn’t surprised at it, but I was horrified by it, to the thought that somebody gets sixty-five years for providing charity is really shameful, and I believe this case will go down in history, as have others, like Korematsu, for example, as a shameful day. We have all filed—all the defendants have filed their notices of appeal, and all will be appealed. And we believe we will be vindicated on appeal, because this was a grossly unfair trial.

AMY GOODMAN: Nancy Hollander, you used the argument—you compared—you looked at the case of Ali Saleh Kahlah al-Marri to persuade the judge to go easy on your client, Shukri Abu Baker, saying that he pleaded guilty in April to one count of conspiracy to provide material support to al-Qaeda. You said, “This is a man who admits he came to the US as a sleeper agent, and the government believes fifteen years is sufficient.” The judge retorted, “Raising millions of dollars to fund terrorism, that’s a different situation.” He said, “Al-Marri is an example of someone who wanted to commit an act of terrorism. As bad as that is, this is support over the years.” And he sentenced your client, Abu Baker, to sixty-five years. Your response?

NANCY HOLLANDER: It’s just beyond me. It’s remarkable. My client was convicted of providing charity. There was not, in ten years of wiretapping his home, his office, looking at his faxes, listening to everything he said, there was not one word out of his mouth about violence to anyone or about support for Hamas. He provided charity. That’s what he was convicted of. And to say that someone or these people who provide charity should get a sentence six, you know, four or five times longer than someone who professes to come to the United States with a purpose in mind that’s clearly violence shows essentially that these people were convicted because they were Palestinians.

JUAN GONZALEZ: I’d like to ask Noor Elashi—you, yourself, are a journalist. Could you comment about the media’s coverage, the mainstream media coverage, of this trial and how that affected the atmosphere around the trial?

NOOR ELASHI: Yeah. I’m actually highly disappointed, but I’m not surprised. From the very beginning of the case, the media coverage has been very biased, including many Israeli bloggers and people obviously anti-Muslim, anti-Palestinian in the news articles. For example, on sentencing day, I went to the New York Times website, the LA Times, the Washington Post, saw nothing. I mean, the Associated Press was there. But overall, this definitely—this case, from the very beginning, the arrests, the first trial, the second trial, I think deserves a lot more attention.

And, Amy, you one time said in one of your—in your book tour, I believe, that Americans are sympathetic people. And I do honestly believe that. And I think that if this case were to be covered more widely and received better coverage, I feel like Americans will sympathize and there will be an outcry, not only from Americans, but just an international outcry.

AMY GOODMAN: Are you able to see your father in jail?

NOOR ELASHI: Yes, I am. We are able to visit him once a week. And actually, the way that’s set up, and this was also set up on purpose, the families are not allowed to see the defendants all at the same time. They’ve set it up in different times. So, when I go see my dad, I’m not really allowed to see anybody else, any of the other defendants or their families. They set it up in a way where we can only see our father that one time. But he’s a very strong person. As I sat there on Wednesday watching him—

AMY GOODMAN: We have five seconds.

NOOR ELASHI: OK, he’s a very strong person, and I just really admire him. And he’s my hero.

AMY GOODMAN: Noor Elashi, I want to thank you for being with us, daughter of Ghassan Elashi. She’s also a former reporter with the Fort Worth Star-Telegram. And thanks to Nancy Hollander.

Washington, D.C.—Today, Congressman Raùl M. Grijalva and 42 other members of Congress, asked U.S. Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, to review the environmental impacts of border security infrastructure and operations along the U.S./Mexico border region.

“It is the Secretary’s responsibility to protect the homeland, not selectively destroy our environment,” said Grijalva. “This review is necessary to quantify, compensate for and avoid the negative consequences of border security infrastructure and operations. DHS should cooperate with other applicable agencies to create and fund a robust border-wide environmental monitoring program and to provide sufficient mitigation funding for damage caused by border enforcement activities. Our local communities are open to working on behalf of security – not a selective security, but rather one that includes habitat, national, border, and regional security.”

In the past several years, miles of border fence have been constructed by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). This massive federal project has had serious consequences upon natural and cultural public resources, and has caused hardship for private land owners, whose lands have been condemned and livelihoods have been disrupted.

Editor’s Note: forwarded by Jay J. Johnson-Castro, Sr.

July 23, 2009
The Honorable Janet Napolitano
Secretary of Homeland Security
U.S. Department of Homeland Security
Washington, D.C. 20528

Dear Secretary Napolitano:

We write to you today with concern regarding mounting environmental and societal impacts
related to border security infrastructure and operations. As you conduct your evaluation of border security initiatives, we encourage you to consider the importance of monitoring, mitigation, and environmental training for border security personnel in order to quantify, compensate for and
avoid the negative consequences of border security infrastructure and operations. We ask that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) cooperate with other applicable agencies to create and fund a robust border-wide environmental monitoring program and to provide sufficient mitigation funding for damage caused by border security infrastructure and enforcement
activities.

As you are aware, hundreds of miles of new border fences and patrol roads have been
constructed by DHS along the US Mexico border in the past several years. This massive federal
project has had deleterious consequences upon natural and cultural public resources, and has
caused hardship for private land owners, whose lands have been condemned and livelihoods
have been disrupted. Considerable annual maintenance operations will be required for border fencing. The Congressional Budget Office estimates annual maintenance costs will amount to 1500 of initial construction costs, which are averaging $3 Million per mile. In addition, with
DHS adding significantly more Border Patrol personnel, it is becoming increasingly important
that impacts related to off-road vehicles, low-level flights and other interdiction activities be
quantified and mitigated for, and that DHS provide training for its personnel in techniques to
minimize damage to sensitive resources during enforcement activities.

We understand that in 2008 DHS allocated up to $50 Million to the Department of the Interior
(DOT) for border fence mitigation. It is our understanding this money will be utilized primarily
for off-site mitigation targeted to benefit threatened and endangered species that have been negatively impacted by new border security infrastructure projects. We believe this first round
of mitigation for threatened and endangered species, along with the memorandum of agreement signed between DHS and DOl, demonstrate a positive commitment to mitigating negative impacts. However, there are numerous impacts across the border caused by both security
infrastructure and operations that will require significantly more resources to properly monitor
and mitigate.

For example, the National Park Service issued a report in August, 2008 confirming that border
fencing astride the Lukeville Port of Entry has exacerbated seasonal flooding and has caused
accelerated scouring and erosion on the Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument threatening to permanently alter the hydrology of the area if modifications are not made to rectify the
inadequate design. A similar problem was identified at the DeConcini Port of Entry, where
tunnel barrier and fence-exacerbated flooding caused extensive property and infrastructure
damage in Nogales, Mexico. There are also serious concerns related to border infrastructure
construction-induced siltation and resulting degradation of sensitive habitats of the Tijuana River Estuary and the San Pedro River located in southern California and Arizona, respectively. In
south Texas, private land owners and agricultural interests have significant tracts of land that
have been or will be isolated to the south of border fencing. Yet, DHS has only offered
compensation for the exact footprint of the infrastructure failing to recognize or compensate for fiscal losses of property value and accessibility caused by the construction of border fencing.

To date, there has been a lack of scientifically-based monitoring to quantify the environmental impacts of border security infrastructure and operations. Information from monitoring will provide objective data on impacts, so that efforts to avoid impacts and mitigate for unavoidable impacts can be targeted appropriately. It is our understanding that such a pilot program has been proposed and is to be led by the United States Geological Survey (USGS). We understand the initiation of this program is pending a memorandum of agreement between DHS and DOT. We are concerned that this monitoring program, currently in a conceptual stage, is not being implemented fast enough; ongoing acute and cumulative impacts continue to go unmonitored.

We urge you to ensure that DHS is an active partner in establishing this program and in utilizing the information derived from it to inform a robust, multi-year border mitigation fund.
We appreciate your consideration of this request.

Sincerely,

43 Signatures

Voters in the nation’s fourth largest city went to the polls today and elected Equality Texas-endorsed candidate Annise Parker the next mayor of Houston. Parker was elected with 53 percent of the vote, defeating her runoff opponent Gene Locke who garnered 47 percent.

Houston is the winner because Annise Parker’s prior experience will serve her well as Mayor. Parker, a native Houstonian, has already served the city for over a decade as a City Council Member and as the current City Controller. Prior to entering public service Parker spent twenty years in the oil and gas industry. Parker will need to draw upon this experience to lead Houston through lean economic times and position the city to be a leader in new energy development.

Houston is the winner because it did not succumb to bigoted fear-mongering and homophobia. Yes, Annise Parker will become the first openly-lesbian mayor of a major U.S. city. However, Houston voters demonstrated, for the 7th time in Parker’s case, that they can elect candidates based on their experience, qualifications and abilities, without regard to their sexual orientation.

Houston is the winner because it has elected an eminently qualified public servant as its next mayor. We are all winners because fear-mongering and homophobia lost.

Source: Equality Texas.

By Wayne Krause
Legal Director
Texas Civil Rights Project

As summer approaches, an APD officer has shot another young person of color. We don’t yet know all of the details of how or why Nathaniel Sanders was killed, but there is one thing we are sure of already, and it is inexcusable: there is no video from the shooter’s police car.

How can there be no video?! Is it not APD policy to turn on the camera when an officer might come into contact with a dangerous individual or make an arrest?

APD Policy A306b mandates that police car videos record at all traffic and pedestrian stops, sobriety tests, and pursuits. APD cars are equipped with video cameras, so why aren’t officers using them?

Time after time, Austinites are forced to endure tragic incidents of APD brutality in which the actual events are shrouded in an air of impenetrable mystery. It doesn’t have to be this way. Not only do pictures tell a thousand words, but video cameras don’t write false or biased reports to protect themselves or their partners.

With violent officers such as Michael Olsen and Gary Griffin, we all now know how video cameras expose lies about what really happened on the scene. Having represented victims of these police attacks, I am certain they never would have found justice without having a videotape as evidence.

But for every case I’ve accepted, there are dozens I have not because the video backed up the officer’s account or at least showed some understandable reaction. If an officer acted reasonably on the scene, turning the camera on is her insurance policy. So why wouldn’t there be a tape?

We hear the excuses: the tape was lost, I forgot to turn it on, and so on. None of them ring true. If you’re an officer doing your job right, you want that camera on.

During the death of Jessie Lee Owens, four of the five officers who eventually arrived at the scene had video proof of their actions. The one that didn’t was the shooter, so we’ll never know what really happened.

The bottom line is if there is a shooting, but no video, we are left with nothing but the perception that the officer wanted it that way for a reason.

If the APD seriously wants to put an end to this problem, it will actually begin punishing officers who violate its video policy and it will ensure that video recorders are in working order. When is the last time an officer got more than a slap on the wrist for refusing to turn the video camera on? And if police supervisors, who are required to check the cameras regularly, can’t or won’t keep them running well, we should appoint a neutral, competent employee to do so.

Video cameras are a window to truth, and officers who turn them off cast a shadow on that truth and their profession. If we have cameras, they should work. And if you won’t do your job, you should be fired, or at least suspended for as long as your victim remains horizontal. Until that happens, it will remain a sad irony that our citizens who run red lights have a better chance of being caught on video than those shot dead.

A TCRR Sunday Sermon

By Greg Moses

For many months the right wing populist chatter box has been drumming up the spectre of a socialist radical president with no respect for civil liberties, due process, or property rights. Then as soon as the president says it is stupid to arrest a man on his own property for speaking his own mind, the right wing populist chatter box denounces the president for that.

Overnight, the fashion for denouncing the president is all the rage. Nobody worries anymore about private property, due process, or civil liberties. It is the uniformed officer who can do you no wrong. And just like that, America’s post-racial presidency has come to a windshield-smashing end. The color line is back.

One hardly knows how to defend the man who holds the most powerful office in the world. His defeat already shows on his face. Either one has already helped to defeat the president or one is already too late.

It is already too late to distinguish between racism as bigotry aforethought and racism as saturated cultural response. It is already too late to point out that the president said, “Now, I don’t know, not having been there and not seeing all the facts, what role race played in that . . .”

It is already too late to ask how a career cop in Cambridge can approach the home of Skip Gates without already knowing who he is. It is already too late to undo the swift victory that white supremacy has won, with all its well-known right wing populist momentum.

The choosing time has passed. You already know which side you’re on. And if you’re on the president’s side this time, you know what comes next. The president will try to figure out how to appeal to the side that you and he are not on. He’ll try to appease the right wing populist rest. Say you’ve been on the president’s side before? ‘Nuff said.

With another three years of hard work left in this presidency, I think the shape of things going forward will depend upon the internal struggle now at play between the bulls and bears. As I’m working on that struggle internally in a fractal replay of things writ large, I have to think that the arrest of Skip Gates marks a bear market in the currency of respect.

By coincidence Skip Gates was returning home from the land of scholars when he encountered some difficulties at his own front door. “Slight the learned,” warned Mozi in 400 BCE, “and you will neglect the ruler and injure the state.”

Even in Cambridge Massachusetts the learned are not respected. Apparently they are not even well known. The ruler has been neglected, the state injured. Neat as a fortune cookie America, in the image of Skip Gates handcuffed, your future has just been read.