U.S. Muslim Charity Gets Split Decision in Court
 |
|
The Holy Land Foundation received a split decision in answer to a preliminary injunction suing the U.S. government for freezing its assets. |
WASHINGTON,
Aug 9 (IslamOnline & News Agencies) - A U.S. court has dismissed a
lawsuit brought by the largest Muslim charity in the United States
alleging constitutional violations because of "substantial
support" for government claims the group funded the Palestinian
resistance movement, Hamas.
After
its assets were frozen by the U.S. Treasury Department because of
alleged links to Hamas - a Palestinian group that claims
responsibility for attacks in Israel, the Richardson, Texas-based Holy
Land Foundation for Relief and Development (HLF) filed suit.
Holy
Land alleged the government violated its rights to a trial-by-jury
before punishment, freedom of religion and speech, and protection
against unwarranted search and seizures.
The
court rejected the foundation's claims that its rights to freedom of
_expression and freedom from self-incrimination were violated, as laid
out in the First and Fifth amendments to the U.S. Constitution, but
did allow that the right against illegal search and seizure contained
in the Fourth amendment had been violatd.
The
court said that HLF could legally challenge the government's search of
its property, which could be a "classic Fourth Amendment
violation," but not the freezing of its assets, reports news
agencies.
The
U.S. government has acknowledged searching HLF’s offices without a
warrant, ensuring a trial over the matter.
However,
the court struck down Holy Land's argument that the freezing of its
assets constituted an illegal seizure. "Case law is clear that a
blocking of this nature does not constitute a seizure," it ruled,
reported news agencies.
Naming
Attorney General John Ashcroft as the lead defendant, the group, which
raised $13 million last year, alleged the government decision to
designate it a terrorist organization and freeze its assets was,
"arbitrary, capricious and unconstitutional."
But
the court did not agree, judging the foundation's contention,
"entirely speculative" and "insufficient to overcome
this presumption," according to court documents.
"The...
administrative record in this case provides substantial support for
the Office of Foreign Asset Control's determination that HLF acts for
or on behalf of Hamas," the court ruled Thursday, August 8, 2002.
It
based its conclusions on the group's "financial connections"
to the Hamas since it was founded in 1989; that its leaders had been
"actively" involved in meetings with Hamas leaders; its
Jerusalem office "acted on behalf of Hamas"; and that U.S.
Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) informants "reliably
reported that HLF funds Hamas."
"With
respect to HLF's fundraising on Hamas' behalf, the record contains a
December 1988 and a December 1989 publication issued by Hamas. Both
publications request that tax-deductible donations be sent to OLF,
HLF's former corporate name," the court said, referring to the
charity's original name, the Occupied Land Foundation.
"It
is also clear that the injury to the government and the public
interest weigh against granting the preliminary injunction," the
ruling concludes.
"Both
the government and the public have a strong interest in curbing the
escalating violence in the Middle East and its effects on the security
of the United States and the world as a whole," the court added.
Although
HLF can pursue in court Fourth Amendment violations of search and
seizure laws, the narrowing of the lawsuit, denying it the right to
pursue litigation on freedom of religion and freedom of speech issues,
and the right to jury, makes it difficult for Holy Land to win the
entire case.
The
foundation has consistently denied any involvement with Hamas, with
foundation chairman Ghassan Elashi saying in December that the
government's action was "purely political, based on a foreign
government that wanted to limit the rights of Muslims in
America," and that the charity argues they raise funds for
humanitarian and disaster relief.
There
was no immediate response to the lawsuit's dismissal Thursday.
|
