RNS
By Les Zaitz
Portland, Ore. (RNS) The traces of Al-Haramain Islamic Foundation
Inc., the Islamic charity shut nearly three years for ties to terrorism,
are disappearing.
The camel, once a feature in local parades, died. The prayer house
on the outskirts of town was auctioned. The stockpile of religious books
now sitting in a storage locker dwindles as a lawyer gives them away.
Two of the group’s founders are overseas, fugitives from federal tax and
currency charges.
But the fight hasn’t gone out of the defunct charity’s supporters
and lawyers, who Monday (Aug. 6) sued to erase the government’s
designation of Al-Haramain as terrorist group. The case, filed in U.S.
District Court in Portland, also seeks an order to turn over the
charity’s cash and real estate, frozen in place since early 2004.
Reversing the government’s action would “remove the stain,” said Tom
Nelson, one of four lawyers in Portland and Washington, D.C., launching
the fight. He said the lawsuit is being financed by donations from Saudi
Arabia, where he said there is keen interest in the fate of the Oregon
charity.
The foundation, the U.S. branch of a similarly named Saudi Arabian
charity, formed in 1999 to distribute religious literature and operate
an Islamic prayer house. Treasury Department officials in September 2004
declared the charity was a terrorist organization with direct ties to
al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden.
The lawsuit maintains the government never produced evidence to back
up the terrorist designation. The government has given the charity only
its public record in the matter, including newspaper clippings, and has
withheld classified information that led to the terrorist designation.
After the Sept. 11 attacks, the Bush administration used the
designation to stop what it suspected was the flow of cash, supplies and
people from American-based Islamic charities to terrorist groups around
the world. Some of the country’s largest charities were put out of
business with little revealed about their alleged terrorist ties.
The Ashland charity claims what others have before — that it’s
unconstitutional for the government to shut down an organization based
on secret evidence and no hearing. So far, no Islamic charity has
succeeded in winning a court order clearing them of the terrorist
designation; four have tried using the same arguments.
Copyright 2007 Religion News Service
Beliefnet
Advertisement
posted August 7, 2007 at 6:28 pm
“The Ashland charity claims what others have before — that it’s
unconstitutional for the government to shut down an organization based
on secret evidence and no hearing.”
I hate to say it, but I agree. I would say that government should be allowed to close the charity temporarily, but three years into the issue, there should be some sort of a trial. And, if the government is right and can prove the charity’s wrongdoing, then the place should be closed.
God bless.
posted August 7, 2007 at 6:42 pm
I agree with Joey. Does anyone know what happened to the Parade Camel? I hope he was cared for in the last few years.
posted August 7, 2007 at 8:27 pm
I also agree. What the Bush/Republican administration has been allowed to do to our legal system and guarantees of innocent till proven guilty is frightening and needs to be undone.
If we use terrorism as an excuse to give up our liberties our ancestors fought and died for, the terrorists have won.
posted August 8, 2007 at 10:56 am
Henrietta,
I knew someone would focus on the camel. What a great “hook” for the article. My sense from the article is that the camel died “old and full of days” and simply was not replaced. I love the humane touch to these stories.
In many ways it seems as if we learned nothing from our lesson of 60 years ago when we built camps to house suspected (or anticipated) terrorists from the west. It is time to grow up and realize that people in any group are as varied as the number of members in that group. Not everyone who is of arabic descent is a terrorist. Not every group with a “middle eastern sounding name” supports terrorism. Are we truly that thick, that paranoid, that simple!?
Some say there are no simple answers to protecting ourselves from terrorists. I disagree. If we simply get to know people, to welcome them into our lives and communities, to make a place for them at our “table”, then we are likely to know who to trust and who to watch carefully. Blanket distrust is the path of ignorance – as in preferring to ignore people rather than know them. We need to take some responsibility for each other and for ourselves. Then alot of this fear mongering will end. or at least get diminished, and maybe even discounted.
posted August 8, 2007 at 2:10 pm
Well, I can’t say I agree with Jestrfyl. I would be very surprised if this was a case of nothing more than the government going after some random Muslim charity—after all, why arbitrarily target this one out of the many others they could, unless there was some sort of evidence linking them to wrongdoing? But I don’t think the government has the right to keep this evidence secret indefinitely, without giving the organization some right to defend itself.
God bless.
posted August 8, 2007 at 3:22 pm
Joey,
Several of our local news groups reported that pretty much any Islamic oriented or named organization was targeted by the government, simply as a product of expediance. It did not seem as though this particular group was identified for any reason other than its name. THIS is the kind of secret that needs to be ripped open. Sadly, the current administration prefers to operate in the dark (and we can see how well that is working).
posted August 9, 2007 at 1:55 pm
With an Islamic name on a charity, the government will look into it’s activities, given the climate in this administration. However, I think an Islamic charity should be given the evidence the government has accumulated, in order to defend itself, if possible. Who knows if this particular charity is “guilty” or not.
Is shutting the charities down unconstitutional? This current administration hasn’t worried too much about such things.