Charity is dangerous

When I was in college in the early 80s, there was a student--I'll call her Darlene--who would periodically trot around the dorms soliciting donations to the Irish Northern Aid Committee. The usual response she got was "Fuck off!" shouted through a closed door. It wasn't that we didn't like Darlene, or that we were particularly opposed to a united Ireland. No, the problem was that we all knew NORAID was a front for the Provisional IRA, and nobody was eager to fork over money to keep the Troubles going. (Darlene, by the way, absolutely refused to believe in any wrongdoing by NORAID. I wonder who she's raising money for these days.)

I was reminded of Darlene today when I heard that the case against members of the Holy Land Foundation had ended in a mistrial. If you click on the link above, you can follow the NPR links back to stories that give the history of the case. In a nutshell, HLF was at one time the largest Muslim charity in the US. Back in 1993, it came under investigation as a suspected front for Hamas, the militant Islamist group that won the Palestinian parliamentary elections last year. In 2001, after the 9/11 attacks, the Bush administration froze the charity's assets, and in 2004 brought charges against key members for supporting a terrorist organization.

That was the case in which the judge declared a mistrial today, although the news reports say one defendant was acquitted of most of the charges against him. Apparently, "not guilty" verdicts were read for the other defendants, but a couple of the jurors disputed those verdicts when they were polled--it's all rather strange and confusing. In any event, the feds are expected to pursue further prosecution.

Obviously, it's a problem if fictional charities are funneling millions of dollars to buy weapons for militant groups. Who knows whether the Holy Land Foundation was actually doing that? The jury clearly doubted it. In any case, there's nothing wrong with legal action against bogus charities; however, the Bush administration's zealous prosecution of charities that might have unsavory political connections--especially within the Islamic world--strikes me as another of their stealth attacks on civil liberties, as well as a form of soft warfare against civilian populations. (The HLF prosecution, by the way, is just the most high-profile case of its kind. Read about another one on this blog.)

It's very easy to smear a humanitarian organization that operates in any community the US government regards as hostile. I'm not naive enough to think that there's no chance some of the HLF's money wasn't misused; but at the same time, I don't see how a group can pursue humanitarian work in a place like the Palestinian territories without engaging to some extent with the various factions that vie for power there--including Hamas. The mere fact that HLF members met with Hamas proves nothing about the charity's legitimacy, but the US case against them has now prevented any real help they might have offered the Palestinians, who badly need it.

Legal harassment and prosecution of individuals who are associated with such organizations is a good way of stifling dissent and direct action generally. When I think about how easily my money might have gone to fund the IRA, it's no stretch for me to imagine myself in the place of someone who innocently donates a few dollars to help the Palestinians, and then suddenly finds herself accused of "supporting terrorism." Up to now, the US hasn't gone after small individual donors, but there doesn't seem to be any legal barrier to doing so. The mere possibility is enough to create a chilling effect, especially within the Muslim community, where people already feel singled out for scrutiny. You only have to send a few people to jail to get the message across that there is a high price to be paid for supporting unpopular causes. It's a great way to shut people up.