archive-org.com » ORG » C » CHARITYANDSECURITY.ORG

Total: 1481

Choose link from "Titles, links and description words view":

Or switch to "Titles and links view".
  • Send by email | Charity & Security Network
    Not case sensitive Switch to audio verification Home page Issues Humanitarian Access Material Support Financial Action Task Force FATF Financial Access Peacebuilding Countering Violent Extremism Click Here For More Issues Solutions Principles to Guide Solutions Models to Draw On Proposed Solutions News The latest headlines Resources Litigation Analysis Background Legislation Studies Reports Experts Blog About Us Staff Contact Search form Search Stay Up To Date Subscribe Publications The Latest News

    Original URL path: http://www.charityandsecurity.org/printmail/832 (2016-02-16)
    Open archived version from archive


  • The Kadi Case: Court Decisions on Due Process for Terrorist Listing Differ in EU, U.S.
    2001 EU Court of First Instance General Court Kadi files challenge to EU listing and asset freeze based on denial of fundamental due process Dec 21 2001 U S Dept of Treasury OFAC Kadi petitions OFAC for reconsideration of listing and asset freeze March 12 2004 U S Dept of Treasury OFAC OFAC denies Kadi delisting request in 20 page memorandum Dec 2005 Switzerland Swiss investigation results in Kadi being taken of the Swiss list Switzerland not a member of EU Sept 2005 EU Court of First Instance General Court Dismisses Kadi appeal saying compliance with EU law not considered because UN Security Council has primacy Kadi appeals to EU Court of Justice Sept 3 2008 EU Court of Justice higher court0 EU Court of Justice rules in favor of Kadi 5 saying UN agreements cannot have the effect of prejudicing constitutional principles agreed to in the treaty establishing the European Community The court found the EU regulation allowing listing and asset freezes to breach fundamental human rights since no evidence was communicated to Kadi and the right of defense and effective judicial review were prejudiced It gave EU authorities three months to remedy these defects leaving the sanctions in place during that time Oct Nov 2008 EU Commission sanctions agency EU Commission sends brief summary of UN reasons for the Kadi listing giving Kadi opportunity to comment Nov 28 2008 EU Commission EU Commission renews listing and asset freeze against Kadi Jan 16 2009 U S District Court for the District of Columbia Kadi files suit against OFAC challenging designation and asset freeze based on evidence and raising constitutional claims regarding due process free speech and protection from unreasonable seizure of assets Feb 2009 EU General Court formerly First Instance Kadi files new challenge to second listing and asset

    Original URL path: http://www.charityandsecurity.org/print/768 (2016-02-16)
    Open archived version from archive

  • UN’s Improved Listing Process Receives Praise from State Department's Top Counterterrorism Official | Charity & Security Network
    counterterrorism regime He also called on governments to build partnerships with the UN and nonprofits who address political and social grievances instead of implementing restrictive and harsh sanctions that limit their capacity On Dec 17 2009 the UN Security Council unanimously passed Resolution 1904 It updated an older resolution that had created the Consolidation List of those suspected of being involved with Osama bin Laden Al Qaeda or the Taliban The listing process has been criticized for violating human rights including the right to adequate notice and opportunity to defend oneself from being placed on the list Resolution 1904 requires that before an individual or entity is listed the designating state must meet much higher evidentiary standards and prepare full case summaries defending the listing It creates an Ombudsperson to hear delisting requests and would require periodic review of the list to remove deceased persons and others who should no longer be on it It also provides for expedited consideration of humanitarian exemptions M ilitary power intelligence operations and law enforcement alone will not eliminate the underlying political economic and social conditions that help put so many individuals in situations where they might choose the path to violence Benjamin said To overcome the challenges terrorism imposes our approach recognizes that our counterterrorism efforts can best succeed when they make central respect for human rights and the rule of law he added Benjamin said the United States approach to combating terrorism should involve more holistic coordinated thinking on these issues Drawing on the UN s Global Counter Terrorism Strategy with its emphasis not only on short term security and law enforcement measures but on longer term preventive ones as well Benjamin said that expanded engagement with nonprofits plays an important role in countering terrorism Benjamin also urged the UN to encourage

    Original URL path: http://www.charityandsecurity.org/news/UN_Improved_Listing_Process_Praise_State_Top_Counterterrorism_Official (2016-02-16)
    Open archived version from archive

  • Summary: The Fifth Circuit’s Holy Land Foundation Decision
    justify the guilty verdicts Instead the defendants argued that some of the evidence should not have been admitted at trial and the jury s verdict had to be set aside because the inadmissible evidence improperly caused the jury to decide that the defendants were guilty Without that inadmissible evidence defendants argued that the jury would have acquitted them The overall thrust of the Fifth Circuit s decision is that despite evidentiary errors that were made during the trial the Fifth Circuit concluded that there was sufficient other evidence including wiretap evidence showing that HLF knowingly supported Hamas by funneling money to zakat committees in Palestine both the West Bank and Gaza which the individual defendants knew were controlled by Hamas Thus the Fifth Circuit concluded after Hamas was designated in 1995 HLF concealed its continuing support of Hamas by working with the zakat committees in order to circumvent the ban on supporting Hamas Some 12 4 million was sent outside the U S from 1995 to 2001 to support Hamas of which nearly 4 million was specifically sent to 6 zakat committees controlled by Hamas El Mezian Op at 10 HLF was Not Represented on Appeal Prior to the first trial HLF was initially represented by Nancy Hollander of the Freedman Boyd law firm Id at 159 Since OFAC would not authorize the release of HLF s blocked funds OFAC only authorized her to represent HLF on a pro bono basis Id However since another attorney from the Freedman Boyd law firm represented defendant Baker the first trial judge had to examine whether all the defendants had waived any conflict of interest Id at 160 61 Ultimately the conflict waiver issue could not be resolved as no one could authorize a waiver on behalf of HLF itself Hence Ms Hollander then withdrew as counsel for HLF at the first trial and HLF was unrepresented at the first trial Id at 161 62 At the second trial HLF was again unrepresented and was convicted and sentenced without counsel Id at 162 After the convictions Ranjana Natarajan Director of the National Security Clinic at the University of Texas Law School filed both an entry of appearance and a notice of appeal on behalf of HLF Id at 162 The prosecutors moved to strike these filings arguing that HLF had not authorized and could not authorize her participation Id The district court after an evidentiary hearing held that even though HLF was not officially represented at the first trial it was effectively represented by the attorneys who represented the individual defendants since they had the same defense and defense strategy Id at 164 The district court recognized that while HLF had not authorized Ms Natarajan to act on its behalf in the interests of farness and ensuring justice for HLF the Court hereby exercises its inherent authority to appoint Ms Natarajan as HLF s pro bon counsel Id On appeal HLF argued that its Sixth Amendment right to counsel was violated at the second trial and that the presence of the attorneys for the individual defendants did not solve that problem given the potential conflict of interests Id at 165 However the Fifth Circuit did not reach those issues instead agreeing with the government that the appellate filings on HLF s behalf was unauthorized and thus invalid thereby depriving us of jurisdiction Id at 166 Critically the decision to appeal rests with the defendant not with an outside person Id at 167 A defendant is not required to pursue an appeal at all Because the decision to appeal belongs exclusively to the defendant the defendant s counsel may not prosecute an appeal even if counsel believes it to be in the defendant s best interest if the defendant chooses to forgo an appeal Id The Fifth Circuit did credit the district court for its laudable intent to appoint Natarajan as pro bono counsel for appeal but the absence of authorization from HLF to do an appeal should have been the end of the road Id at 168 Therefore the Fifth Circuit had to dismiss HLF s appeal for lack of jurisdiction Id at 169 The Knowledge Scienter Requirement A number of amici organizations submitted an amicus brief to the Fifth Circuit 22 The amicus brief separately challenged the jury charge on the substantive violations of the Anti Terrorism Act 18 U S C 2339B arguing that the jury charge violated the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment by not requiring a sufficient knowledge scienter requirement on defendants part In other words defendants could not be convicted unless they knew and intended that the donations they were raising were going to support Hamas through the zakat committees More generally the amicus brief argued that under 18 U S C 2339B a person cannot be convicted for violating a prohibition on knowingly providing material support to designated foreign terrorist organizations without proof that he or she knowingly provided aid to any designated group See United States v El Mezian Amicus Brief of Charities Foundations Conflict Resolution Groups and Constitutional Rights Organizations in Support of Defendants and Urging Reversal of Convictions of Counts 2 10 at 1 5th Cir Oct 26 2010 The amicus brief further argued that the erroneous and dangerously expansive interpretation of the material support statute would jeopardize the legitimate charitable work of countless foundations and charities throughout the United States Id at 1 Amici further argued that a conviction under Section 2339B should be limited to support for recipients who are designated and where the donors know that the recipient has been designated or has engaged in terrorist acts that would render it subject to designation Id at 2 However the Fifth Circuit did not address this argument because none of the defendants have raised this issue so that it is not properly before us El Mezian Op at 101 n 22 It remains to be seen whether defendants elsewhere will be able to use the arguments advanced by this amicus brief in challenging their own prosecutions The First Amendment Challenge Four of the individual defendants challenged the trial court s jury charge on the First Amendment arguing that speeches that they made about political issues in the Middle East were protected under the First Amendment so that the government could not use the videotapes of their speeches as evidence at trial Id at 94 95 As a threshold matter although each of these defendants separately brought this challenge three of them merely adopted the argument made by one defendant Abdulqader instead of explaining how their own conduct was protected under the First Amendment so those three defendants had waived their argument Id at 94 As to Abdulqader the Fifth Circuit held that the jury charge properly instructed the jury as to the text of the First Amendment and the Anti Terrorism Act 18 U S C 2339 B i which specifically provides that nothing in this section shall be construed or applied so as to abridge the exercise of rights guaranteed under the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States Abdulqader argued that his speech on the video recordings either pre dated the 1995 designation of Hamas or did not incite imminent lawless action Id at 96 97 However the Fifth Circuit cited the Supreme Court s decision in Holder v Humanitarian Law Project 130 S Ct 2705 2724 2010 which upheld the criminalization of speech that provided material support to terrorism Id at 97 Moreover Abdulqader s speech could not be considered in isolation but had to be considered in context of the defendants other conduct Id at 101 Search of HLF s Offices The defendants also challenged the searches of HLF s offices as violating the Fourth Amendment s restrictions on searches and seizures and they sought to have the seized evidence suppressed since OFAC did not have a warrant at the time of the seizure of the documents Several months later the FBI obtained a warrant to search the seized documents The district court upheld the searches under the legal doctrine that the search was analogous to administrative searches Id at 101 02 The Fifth Circuit upheld the searches but for different reasons primarily because the defendants had not challenged OFAC s initial blocking order that prevented HLF from continuing its operations under the Fourth Amendment and because money is fungible there is a need to immediately prevent asset flight Id at 102 The Fifth Circuit expressly distinguished the Ninth Circuit s recent decision in Al Haramain Islamic Foundation Inc v U S Dept of the Treasury 660 F 3d 1019 9th Cir 2011 which had held that a warrant was required before OFAC could issue the blocking order Id at 106 The Fifth Circuit also rejected the application of Al Haramain since the HLF defendants had not challenged the presumptively valid blocking order which eliminated any possessory and privacy interests that defendants had in HLF s property Id at 108 And the government later obtained a warrant so that the FBI agents could review the seized documents Id at 111 Evidentiary Issues Although the Fifth Circuit upheld the convictions its rulings on several evidentiary issues are of broader significance Here the Fifth Circuit concluded that even though the district court had erred in allowing the government to present certain witnesses and testimony that error was harmless i e did not affect the outcome since there was sufficient other evidence to support the jury s verdict The following paragraphs discuss the defendants evidentiary challenges Production of the Defendants Intercepted Statements One of the most significant evidentiary rulings that the defendants lost was their demand that they be allowed to review the recordings and transcripts of all of the wiretapped communications not just a limited set that the government turned over Over more than a decade the Government intercepted tens of thousands of telephone calls and facsimile transmissions pursuant to the FISA warrants Id at 65 Prior to trial FBI translators identified which calls were pertinent to the intelligence investigation and prepared approximately 9 600 English language summaries as well as a smaller number of verbatim transcripts Id The government initially classified all the intercepted calls and later declassified some of the intercepts and English summaries Id However the remaining materials remained classified and while defendants counsel who had security clearances could review them counsel could not read Arabic or understand Arabic conversations and could not discuss them with their clients Id at 65 66 Thus defense counsel were significantly hampered in their ability to do anything with the classified intercepts The Fifth Circuit agreed with the district court and the government that even though the defendants were a party to these communications and so the existence of the communications was not a secret to the defendants the Government may have an interest in protecting the source and means of surveillance that goes beyond protection of the actual contents of an intercepted conversation particularly when other individuals who were not defendants were also participants in those conversations Id at 72 The Fifth Circuit perhaps naively noted that this would not lead to the government classifying all intercepted communications because the asserted privilege will not succeed when the information is helpful to the defense or essential to a fair determination of the cause yet the court did not explain how the defense would find out about helpful information if the government was the sole arbiter of which information would be declassified Id at 73 Even more naively the Fifth Circuit somehow expected defendants to assist their counsel in identifying any exculpatory calls based on their own recollection and their ability to review the declassified summaries and other information provided to them Id at 76 Again since there were tens of thousands of calls and faxes over more than a decade it would not be possible for anyone to remember the date and time of each call and fax that is relevant to the defenses Refusal to Disclose FISA Applications and Intercepts The Fifth Circuit rejected defendants arguments that they should have been allowed to receive the warrant applications submitted to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court FISC or the orders issued by the FISC No other court has allowed such disclosures of the warrant applications or FISC orders Id at 143 147 Even though the defendants learned of the FISA materials when the government inadvertently disclosed some of the FISA materials to the defendants id at 146 that did not open the door for defendants to have access to all those materials Id at 147 49 The Fifth Circuit further rejected defendants arguments that the trial court should have suppressed the intercepted communications Id at 151 Although defendants creatively argued that FISA warrants should be limited to the gathering of foreign intelligence or to targets who are foreign powers or agents thereof the Fifth Circuit held that FISA warrants should be presumed valid id even if the primary purpose was a criminal investigation Id at 153 Witnesses Testifying Under a Pseudonym Defendants argued that the trial court improperly allowed two witnesses Avi a legal advisor for the Israel Security Agency and Major Lior an officer with the Israeli Defense Forces to testify under a pseudonym as to their knowledge about Hamas financing and control of the zakat committees Avi and to authenticate documents seized by the Israeli military Major Lior El Mezian Op at 16 The defendants argued that these pseudonyms violated their rights under Sixth Amendment s Confrontation Clause since they could not effectively research the backgrounds of the witnesses in order to cross examine them The district court held and the Fifth Circuit agreed that it was necessary to use pseudonyms to protect the safety of these witnesses Id at 16 18 The Fifth Circuit also held that the defendants were able to engage in meaningful cross examination of the witnesses and the district judge had instructed the jury that they could consider the use of pseudonyms in assessing the witnesses credibility Id at 20 22 Hearsay Evidence that Hamas Controlled the Zakat Committees The defendants then challenged the admission of evidence allegedly showing that defendants knew that Hamas was linked to the zakat committees or otherwise controlled them The Fifth Circuit held that one witness Mohamed Shorbagi a former HLF employee did properly testify about HLF s acts in raising money to support Hamas after it was designated in 1995 Id at 25 26 However Shorbagi lacked first hand knowledge that Hamas controlled the zakat committee since the only basis for his knowledge were newspapers leaflets the Internet and friends which is inadmissible hearsay that should not have been admitted Id at 26 27 Defendants also challenged the admission of three documents seized by the Israeli military from the headquarters of the Palestinian Authority Those documents allegedly discussed the financing of Hamas and that one of the zakat committees was controlled by Hamas Id at 27 28 The Fifth Circuit agreed with defendants that these documents should not have been admitted since even though they were obtained from a government office they were not official public records created by that government entity Id at 29 34 Defendants challenged several other documents that the FBI had seized from the homes of two unindicted co conspirators which allegedly showed that HLF supported Hamas through another zakat committee Id at 34 36 However the Fifth Circuit held that those documents were admissible under the co conspirator exception to the hearsay rules i e Rule 801 d 2 E Federal Rules of Evidence Id at 36 39 It was of no matter that the government had not proven conspiracy as a crime with respect to the unindicted co conspirators or the subject matter of those documents since conspiracy as an evidentiary rule is broader than proof of conspiracy as a crime Id at 38 Also some of the documents contained language showing that HLF regarded the zakat committees and Hamas as one and the same Id at 44 And many of the documents had internal records that were unlikely to be found outside the organization Id at 45 Prejudicial Evidence about Hamas Violence The defendants then challenged the district court s allowing the prosecutors to present evidence about Hamas violence including photos videos posters and witness testimony about suicide bombings and violent protests Id at 46 47 Defendants argued that this evidence was inflammatory and unfairly prejudicial particularly given that they were not charged with planning or carrying out terrorist activity or with directly supporting such activity Id at 47 The Fifth Circuit recognized that this defense was correct but nonetheless concluded that evidence of Hamas violence served the probative purpose of providing context and explanation in the case and to rebut defensive theories that the defendants intended to support only charitable endeavors Id For example after the defendants presented evidence that the U S Agency for International Development USAID also provided humanitarian aid to the Palestinians after clashes with the Israel military the government was allowed to explain that the clashes were in response to terrorist attacks Id at 49 And evidence of Hamas violence that was seized from HLF s own computers and from the zakat committees was probative of the motive or intent of the committees and HLF to support Hamas Id at 50 The Fifth Circuit concluded that because this was a case about supporting terrorists it is inescapable we believe that there would be some evidence about violence and terrorist activities Id at 52 Expert and Lay Opinion Testimony The defendants then challenged the district court s admission of testimony from five witnesses under Rules 701 and 702 Federal Rules of Evidence which govern expert opinion testimony and lay opinion testimony John O Brien was an associate director of OFAC who testified that the Treasury Department s failure to designate the zakat committees which defendants argued was a defense since they did not give funds to designated entities only to the undesignated zakat committees

    Original URL path: http://www.charityandsecurity.org/print/693 (2016-02-16)
    Open archived version from archive

  • Treasury's Listing Procedures are Unconstitutional, 9th Circuit Rules in Al-Haramain v. Treasury
    for humanitarian purposes it does acknowledge the underlying facts of those financial transactions p 18 The court said OFAC can consider such history in making a designation Although the court said the unclassified record is not overwhelming the classified record coupled with the extremely deferential review it gives in cases involving national security lead it conclude that substantial evidence supported OFAC s conclusions Because the court did not discuss the classified evidence further it is not possible to draw any conclusions as to the kinds of fact patterns that lead to AHIF OR s designation 3 The balancing test between national security and individual property rights Using a test established by the Supreme Court in Matthews v Eldridge 424 U S 319 1976 for cases involving national security and due process rights the court said it would weigh the following criteria AHIF OR s property interest The risk of government error from the procedures used offset by any safeguards put in place and The government s interest in keeping current procedures including any additional burden that may be caused by new requirements The court noted AHIF OR s strong property interest saying that For domestic organizations such as AHIF Oregon a designation means that it conducts no business at all The designation is indefinite Remedies take considerable time as evidenced by OFAC s long administrative delay in this case designation indefinitely renders a domestic organization financially defunct p 20 The court went on to say that the Constitution certainly does not require that the government take actions that would endanger national security But the Constitution does require that the government take reasonable measures to ensure basic fairness to the private party and that the government follow procedures reasonably designed to protect against erroneous deprivation of the private party s interests p 21 The court applied this test to the remaining issues in the case 4 Could OFAC Treasury base its decision on classified information Although the court rejected AHIF OR s claim that a designation cannot be based on classified information it agreed that even if OFAC may use classified information it must undertake some reasonable measure to mitigate the potential unfairness to AHIF Oregon p 25 The court approved of AHIF OR s suggestion that OFAC could provide an unclassified summary or have its attorney view the evidence after getting a security clearance The court noted that Without disclosure of the classified information the designated entity cannot possibly know how to respond to OFAC s concerns Without knowledge of a charge even simple factual errors may go uncorrected despite potentially easy ready and persuasive explanations Indeed the benefits from such disclosure could flow not only to the designated entity which may be able to clear up errors but also to OFAC which may benefit from the resulting information provided by the designated entity p 25 The court went on to note that OFAC did not defend its failure to use either of these solutions to the problem of classified

    Original URL path: http://www.charityandsecurity.org/print/648 (2016-02-16)
    Open archived version from archive

  • Inconsistencies in Peter King Letter on Holy Land Unindicted Co-Conspirators List | Charity & Security Network
    Concerns for Nonprofits Nov 25 2008 Heavy Sentences Handed out in Holy Land Trial Send Chilling Message to U S NGOs May 29 2009 In Legal Wonderland Holy Land Foundation s Appeal Reveals Gaps in Law Jan 15 2010 Summary Courts Rule Publication of Unindicted Co conspirator List in Holy Land Case Violated Due Process Rights April 22 2011 high ranking source within DOJ as saying a number of leaders of Islamic organizations were about to be indicted on terror finance support charges last year when top level political appointees decided against prosecuting Omar Ahmed a co founder of the Council on American Islamic Relations CAIR Both were included on the list of unindicted co conspirators Pajamas Media also said its DOJ source claimed It was always the plan to initially go after the HLF leaders first and then go after the rest of the accomplices in a second round of prosecutions This directly contradicts representations government attorneys made to the Federal District Court for the Northern Division of Texas Dallas Division which tried the case and the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals The opinions make it clear that the list was a legal maneuver By naming co conspirators the government could use out of court statements as evidence that would normally be inadmissible as hearsay The rule Federal Rule of Evidence 801 d 2 E specifically states that such statements are not alone sufficient to establish the existence of a conspiracy and the participation therein of either the person the statement is attributed to or the defendants The Fifth Circuit s opinion summarized the government s explanation for listing NAIT and others as co conspirators saying The government explains that the inclusion of NAIT and other entities was intended to lay the groundwork for the possible admission of statements pursuant to Rule 801 d 2 E of the Federal Rules of Evidence which permits the admission of out of court statements by coconspirators and joint venturers of a party opponent p 3 The District Court s opinion came to the same conclusion saying The Government has not cited any legitimate interest for publicly naming INSA and NAIT as unindicted co conspirators The Government originally included them on the List in order to use their statements under Fed R E 801 d 2 E Mot At 6 7 The Court finds that no legitimate interest existed to justify publicly naming ISNA and NAIT as unindicted co conspirators The Government had available less injurious means to accomplish its purpose p 12 The ACLU which represented ISNA and NAIT issued a Press Release dated June 18 2008 saying the prosecution told them it did not intend to pursue charges against either group It said The government conceded however that it had absolutely no evidence proving that either ISNA or NAIT had engaged in a criminal conspiracy The lead prosecutor in the case told lawyers for the two organizations that ISNA and NAIT were not subjects or targets in the HLF prosecution or

    Original URL path: http://www.charityandsecurity.org/news/Peter_King_Letter_Inconsistencies (2016-02-16)
    Open archived version from archive

  • Publication of Unindicted Co-conspirator List in Holy Land Case Violated Due Process Rights, Court Rules
    for the violation of its rights p 4 Fifth Circuit opinion The Fifth Circuit agreed and ordered the District Court opinion unsealed on Nov 11 2010 The Fifth Circuit s opinion states that The Government does not contest the holding that NAIT s Fifth Amendment rights were violated or that it should have filed the attachment under seal p 2 The Fifth Circuit also cited the public s right to access judicial decisions The pleadings in the case remain under seal Once unsealed the District Court opinion was revealed to be an unequivocal statement that CAIR ISNA and NAIT s due process rights were violated It noted that the list is unaccompanied by any facts providing a context for evaluating the basis for the United States Attorney s opinion Neither CAIR nor the other unindicted co conspirators have been charged with a crime and they have no judicial forum in which to defend against the accusations p 10 The District court noted that The Government has not argued or established any legitimate government interest that warrants publicly indentifying CAIR and 245 other individuals and entities as unindicted co conspirators It went on to say Evidence presented in a public trial is inherently different from the Government publishing a list of persons alleged to be co conspirators The public may make its own judgment from evidence presented at trial The evidence may be examined and conclusions can be drawn as to whether the evidence establishes what the government claims it does But a published list from the Government naming individuals and entities as co conspirators without any supporting evidence is not subject to such scrutiny Therefore the Court finds it appropriate to seal the entire list p 19 A Legal Maneuver Although the District Court ruled that due process rights had been violated it rejected the groups request to have their names removed from the list saying the Government produced ample evidence to establish the associations of CAIR ISNA and NAIT with HLF and other groups including Hamas It acknowledged that the evidence produced by the Government largely predates the date HLF was listed as a terrorist organization but was sufficient to show association p 15 It went to explain the details of the alleged associations concluding that maintaining the names of the entities on the List is appropriate in light of the evidence proffered by the Government p 15 NAIT called the District Court s analysis of the evidence erroneous and irrelevant On appeal the Fifth Circuit said that the District Court did not abuse its discretion by denying NAIT s request to remove them from the list but it criticized the evidentiary summary Although the trial included evidence tending to support some past ties between NAIT and the HLF p 8 the court noted that t he district court s findings do not amount to a ruling that NAIT took part in a criminal conspiracy to support Hamas In fact the Government has gone so far as to argue

    Original URL path: http://www.charityandsecurity.org/print/547 (2016-02-16)
    Open archived version from archive

  • Send by email | Charity & Security Network
    Not case sensitive Switch to audio verification Home page Issues Humanitarian Access Material Support Financial Action Task Force FATF Financial Access Peacebuilding Countering Violent Extremism Click Here For More Issues Solutions Principles to Guide Solutions Models to Draw On Proposed Solutions News The latest headlines Resources Litigation Analysis Background Legislation Studies Reports Experts Blog About Us Staff Contact Search form Search Stay Up To Date Subscribe Publications The Latest News

    Original URL path: http://www.charityandsecurity.org/printmail/547 (2016-02-16)
    Open archived version from archive



  •