Judge Declares Mistrial in Support of Terrorism Case Against U.S. Muslim Charity

According to a press release from the American Civil Liberties Union, a federal judge declared a mistrial Monday in the support of terrorism case against a United States based Muslim charity and its leaders.

The Holy Land Foundation was shut down in 2001 after the United States government claimed that the charity had been providing "material support for terrorism" by giving aid to charitable committees located in the West Bank of Israel. The committees provided charitable aid to people in the West Bank and Gaza strip. The government claims that these committees are run by the group Hamas, which the government claims is a terrorist organization.

The Holy Land Foundation had a base in Israel until that country closed it down in 1997. Israel claimed that the group was a front for Hamas when explaining its decision. The Federal Bureau of Investigation has long suspected that the foundation was funneling money to members of Hamas. The FBI also claims that the Holy Land Foundation was providing aid to the families of dead suicide bombers.

Despite the governments assertions that the committees in question are connected to Hamas they were not classified by the government as terrorist organizations at the time the Holy Land Foundation gave them aid, the American Civil Liberties Union points out.

The government reportedly sought hefty legal sentences for the leaders of The Holy Land Foundation, however they did not at any point claim the charity was aware of the committees' alleged links to Hamas.

Hina Shamsi, staff attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union's National Security Project acknowledged that it was neccessary to make certain that charitable goods and funds were not diverted to terrorist organizations. However, Shamsi claimed that the outcome of the case provided an opening for rights groups and others to target what they feel are constitutional errors in the criminal material support statute. The ACLU feels that the government's current interpretaion of the law may violate the constitutionally guaranteed rights of freedom of speech and due process.

Shamsi made these comments regarding the case: "The statute effectively criminalizes guilt by association and does not provide guidance about what is and is not prohibited. It could be used to prosecute innocent donors who intend to support only lawful activity through humanitarian aid, speech or association. 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."