-♻RetweetHLF Closing Arguments
Tue, Sep 18, 2007 at 3:00:40 pm PDT
The Investigative Project has a good report on the closing arguments in the Holy Land Foundation Hamas funding trial: ’Deception’ Dominates HLF Closing Arguments.
DALLAS - A federal prosecutor and the attorney for the lead defendant in the terror-support trial of five Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development (HLF) officers traded accusations of deception Monday during closing arguments.
When federal prosecutor Barry Jonas accused the defendants of trying to deceive the American public, he pointed to their own conversations captured on surveillance tapes.
“War is deception,” former HLF President Shukri Abu Baker said during a secret gathering of Hamas supporters in 1993.
Defense attorney Nancy Hollander, in turn, appealed to distrust of the government and challenged evidence presented by an Israeli security witness who testified under a pseudonym.
Jonas reminded jurors that investigators found a security manual with instructions how to avoid detection at one of the defendant’s offices and that HLF officers used the word “Samah” rather than HAMAS in their conversations. In 2000, they had their office swept for bugs.
“Is this what a real charity would do?” Jonas asked repeatedly.
He pointed to Baker’s 2002 sworn declaration in which he claimed to “reject and abhor Hamas, its goals and its methods” as part of a civil suit. But Baker also published an ode to Hamas in the Arabic publication Ila Filastin. “Hayzum (Gabriel’s horse) Hamas has arrived,” it concludes, “and we will not accept any other than Hamas.” The poem was followed by a solicitation for donations to the Occupied Land Fund, HLF’s original name.
Baker, Ghassan Elashi, Mohammad El-Mezain, Mufid Abdulqader and Abdulrahman Odeh are charged in a 36-count indictment with providing material support to HAMAS. Closing arguments continue today after six weeks of the trial. Prosecutors say they funneled more than $12 million to the Specially Designated Terrorist group, largely through charity organizations in the West Bank and Gaza called zakat committees. ...
When it was her turn, Hollander attacked the prosecution for presenting what she described as a misleading case. They failed to prove that the zakat committees were Hamas controlled and failed to prove HLF donations benefited Hamas. Prosecutors emphasized Hamas violence to try to scare jurors, she said.
She pointed out a couple of translation errors in government transcripts and accused prosecutors of hiding evidence that put the defendants’ in a more understanding light.
Edward Abington, a former U.S. consul general in Jerusalem, visited a number of the zakat committees and never heard that they were controlled by Hamas, Hollander said. He had access to U.S. intelligence reports and all open source information. Abington, Hollander said, opposes Hamas and testified voluntarily. He “is about as credible a witness as you’re ever going to get.”
UPDATE at 9/18/07 5:04:06 pm:
Also see: American Thinker: Homeland Security Implications of the Holy Land Foundation Trial.
Frank says:
