|
AMP Report – August 16, 2007
CAIR files amicus brief in Texas Muslim charity trial
Listing of 300 Muslim individuals, institutions called ‘unconstitutional’
WASHINGTON, D.C., August 16, 2007 – The Council on American-Islamic Relations CAIR), a prominent national Islamic civil rights and advocacy group, today announced the filing of an amicus brief relating to the ongoing trial of the Holy Land Foundation Muslim charity in Texas.
The CAIR brief asks the court to remove the Washington-based group’s name, and that of several hundred other Muslim individuals and institutions, from a list of so-called “unindicted co-conspirators.”
Technically, the prosecution can introduce statements made by any individual or organization named as an unindicted co-conspirator without such statements being dismissed as hearsay. Those on the list have not been charged with anything, but they are concerned that the label of unindicted co-conspirator will forever taint them, particularly if the Holy Land group is convicted, and that they will have no legal recourse.
CAIR’s brief, filed by attorney William B. Moffitt, alleges that the listing of the organizations and individuals violates Justice Department guidelines and violates the uncharged parties’ First and Fifth Amendment rights.
The brief states in part:
“The Fifth Amendment was violated because the public naming of the unindicted co-conspirators damaged their reputation, good name, and economic well-being, without offering a forum for vindication, and without a legitimate governmental reason for doing so. The First Amendment was violated because the governmental action of publicly naming the unindicted co-conspirators chilled the expressive associational activities of the unindicted co-conspirators and the government does not have a substantially related compelling interest for their action. . .
“Undoubtedly, the practice of naming unindicted co-conspirators needs to be proscribed from the outset. Such a practice should be per se unconstitutional, because once the government publicizes the names of the unindicted co-conspirators, the damage to their reputations, economic well-being, and expressive associations is done. . .
“In this case, the government had nothing to lose by violating the Department of Justice guidelines and the Constitution, as their stigmatizing of these ‘unpopular’ groups and persons could not be undone. . .”
Muslim Lawyers’ letter to Gonzales
In a related development, the National Association of Muslim Lawyers and the National Association of Criminal Defense Attorneys sent a letter to Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales objecting to the list and saying it could lead to increased discrimination against American Muslims.
The letter said the “overreaching list” of more than 300 organizations and individuals would further cripple charitable donations to Muslim organizations and could ratchet up the discrimination faced by American Muslims since the Sept. 11 attacks.
Both the National Association of Muslim Lawyers and CAIR said they were working in uncharted legal territory, as they had been unable to find firm legal precedents about how an unindicted co-conspirator could be removed from such a list.
Many organizations named are foreign, but among the most notable in the United States are the Islamic Society of North America, the largest Muslim umbrella organization, and the North American Islamic Trust. The Islamic Society said in a statement that it, too, was seeking a legal recourse, while the North American Islamic Trust did not respond to telephone calls seeking comment.
A Tactical Move
A recent article in Newsweek stated: “According to one senior law-enforcement official. . .the listing of ISNA, CAIR and other groups as ‘unindicted co-conspirators’ was largely a tactical move by the government. By listing the groups, the official said, it makes it easier for prosecutors to introduce documents, tapes and other evidence mentioning them. . .”
In a recent comment on this issue, CAIR Chairman Dr. Parvez Ahmed wrote that at a time when most experts are recommending the strengthening of American Muslim institutions to serve as bridges of understanding between America and the Muslim world, the smearing of these institutions undermines the very cause that ought to unite us as Americans.”
”Given the growing fear of Islam and Muslims among the American public (one in four admit to being prejudiced against Muslims), it has become easy to smear Islamic organizations. Without legal recourse to challenge such smears, the constitutional rights of American Muslims are damaged by guilt by association and guilt by mere accusation. This effectively puts a chill on the First Amendment rights of these Americans,” Dr. Parvez added.
|
|
