Did the Justice Department commit a felony by dismissing Hamas financing trials?

Last year, the Department of Justice shut down numerous pending prosecutions against Muslim groups and individuals that were suspected of aiding foreign terrorist organizations. But by doing so, those responsible for the decision may have committed a felony.

In 2007, the federal government brought charges against the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development (HLF), formerly the largest Muslim charity group in the United States, and several of its leaders for engaging in a criminal conspiracy to support the Palestinian terrorist group Hamas. The organization had sent over 12 million dollars to the terrorist group, and in 2008, a federal jury convicted HLF and the defendants on all 108 counts of financing terrorism.

However, HLF was not acting alone. “Although the indictment in this case charges the [HLF and defendants],” reads an opinion from the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, “it will be obvious that the defendants were not acting alone. As noted in the case summary, the defendants were operating in concert with a host of individuals and organizations dedicated to sustaining and furthering the Hamas movement. Several of the individuals who hold leading roles in the operation of Hamas are referenced by name in the indictment.”

The “host of individuals and organizations” the opinion refers to is a list of unindicted co-conspirators that is eleven pages long and contains hundreds of people and organizations associated with Hamas. Investigators had been building a case on the U.S. terrorism finance network for over ten years, and prosecutors planned on charging many of the organizations and individuals listed in the document. But last year, the Department of Justice (DOJ) announced that it would not prosecute any of the unindicted co-conspirators.

Patrick Poole writes at Pajamas Media that the prosecutions “were scuttled last year at the direction of top-level political appointees within the Department of Justice (DOJ) – and possibly even the White House.”

Poole’s DOJ source states that “There’s a mountain of evidence against all of these groups that was never introduced during the Holy Land trial and it is damning. We’ve got them on wiretaps. That’s exactly why many of these leaders and groups were named unindicted co-conspirators in the first round of prosecutions.”

Apparently there are political reasons behind the decision. Numerous co-conspirators, such as the Council on American-Islamic Relations are “interfaith partners” with the Obama administration. Exposing them as conspiring with Islamic terrorists could have a disastrous effect on the administration and its Muslim engagement efforts.

Frank Gaffney goes so far as to say that the DOJ’s decision could in fact be an act of treason. “It is a felony offense,” Gaffney writes, “to know or have reason to know that seditious activity is underway and do nothing about it.”

Title 18, Part I, Chapter 115, § 2381 of the U.S. Code defines treason as levying war against the United States or adhering “to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere.” Sending a terrorist organization falls under “giving them aid.”

Section 2382 of the U.S. Code states that anyone “having knowledge of the commission of any treason” and conceals or does not disclose said treason “is guilty of misprision of treason.” Simply put, if you know of a treasonous act and didn’t inform the authorities, you are guilty as well.

Although the United States is not at war with Hamas, the State Department has designated Hamas as a foreign terrorist organization. One of the requirements for designation is that the organization’s terrorist activity “must threaten the security of U.S. nationals or the national security (national defense, foreign relations, or the economic interests) of the United States.” A terrorist organization that threatens U.S. national security clearly puts Hamas in the “enemy” ballpark, otherwise, we wouldn’t prosecute individuals for sending them money.

Legal definitions aside, how can a government agency whose mission statement purports to “ensure fair and impartial administration of justice for all Americans” simply dismiss prosecutions of high crimes for political reasons?

Posted on April 15, 2011 at 22:47 by Chris Carter · Permalink · Leave a comment
In: Articles, Politics · Tagged with: , ,

Justice Department, Appeals Court argue warrantless wiretap

Do you think that you a right to privacy when it comes to the location of your cell phone? The Holder Justice Department say you don’t. A Justice Department attorney told the Third Circuit Court of Appeals that there is “no Constitutional bar” to the government accessing your cell phone’s location through your cell phone company’s records.

Should law enforcement be permitted to track our cell phones? Certainly, but they should only do if they have probable cause.

From Declan McCullagh’s cnet news article (which contains excerpts from the court transcript):

Judge Dolores Sloviter sharply questioned Eckenwiler, saying that location data can reveal whether people “have been at a protest, or at a meeting, or at a political meeting” and that rogue governments could misuse that information.

And our Constitution is there to protect us against “rogue governments.” While we are nowhere near Iran’s level of crackdown on political opponents and protesters, we are certainly not headed in a good direction with our current leadership. If the Justice Department can prevent crime while preserving our rights, by all means they should do so. But those who sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

Posted on February 15, 2010 at 10:30 by Chris Carter · Permalink · Leave a comment
In: Politics · Tagged with: , ,

Obama administration seeking warrantless tracking of cell phones

Remember the cries of George Bush’s evil warrantless wiretapping program? The program where domestic calls may be tapped if you happened to call foreign terrorists? Well, now there is a real warrantless program – this time courtesy of the Obama administration – who want to tap the locations of mobile phones. Patiently awaiting the outcry from the watchdog media and civil rights groups.

From cnet news (emphasis mine):

Even though police are tapping into the locations of mobile phones thousands of times a year, the legal ground rules remain unclear, and federal privacy laws written a generation ago are ambiguous at best. On Friday, the first federal appeals court to consider the topic will hear oral arguments (PDF) in a case that could establish new standards for locating wireless devices.

In that case, the Obama administration has argued that warrantless tracking is permitted because Americans enjoy no “reasonable expectation of privacy” in their–or at least their cell phones’–whereabouts. U.S. Department of Justice lawyers say that “a customer’s Fourth Amendment rights are not violated when the phone company reveals to the government its own records” that show where a mobile device placed and received calls.

Now I don’t care whether it’s a Democrat or a Republican in the White House, but the aforementioned media and so-called civil rights groups certainly do. Our Fourth Amendment rights are just as infringed whether it’s Obama or Bush doing so.

While not doing anything illegal is usually a good defense against breaking the law, we now have a government who considers abortion opponents, war veterans, and Tea Party attendees as potential terrorists, and not openly-serving jihadists in our armed forces. Perhaps it would behoove us to see whether the Constitution protects us from the government tracking our locations through our cell phones before going with what the Holder Justice Department says.

Posted on February 14, 2010 at 22:52 by Chris Carter · Permalink · Leave a comment
In: Politics · Tagged with: , , ,

INTERPOL no longer limited by Constitution in U.S.

In December, President Obama quietly signed an Executive Order that has elevated the international police force INTERPOL above our Constitution, allowing them to operate on American soil with impunity.

Signed on the 16th and released on the 17th, the order designates INTERPOL as a public international organization effectively allowing it to “enjoy certain privileges, exemptions, and immunities” according to the United States International Organizations Immunities Act.

Language found in section 2(c) of that act is especially concerning:

“Property and assets of international organizations, wherever located and by whomsoever held, shall be immune from search […] and from confiscation. The archives of international organizations shall be inviolable.”

Just what “property and assets” could INTERPOL be hiding? The group’s U.S. headquarters is conveniently located in Eric Holder’s Justice Department, so perhaps there will no longer be a need for Sandy Berger to raid the National Archives.

“Inviolable archives means INTERPOL records are beyond US citizens’ Freedom of Information Act requests and from American legal or investigative discovery,” writes Steve Schippert and Clyde Middleton at ThreatsWatch.org. But why would the Obama administration want to allow an international police force to operate on American soil without constitutional restraints?

Obama’s order actually amended an earlier executive order signed by Ronald Reagan in 1983. The original order recognized INTERPOL as an international organization therefore extending some immunities to the group, but also held the organization accountable to Fourth Amendment search and seizure protections and to the Freedom of Information Act that limit our own law enforcement agencies.

Essentially, INTERPOL is the enforcement branch of the International Criminal Court (ICC), as the FBI is to the Justice Department. While in office, George W. Bush withdrew the U.S. from being a signatory to the Rome Statute – the treaty establishing the ICC – and refused the international court’s jurisdiction over U.S. citizens and military members. However when questioned during the campaign, Obama did not oppose giving the ICC jurisdiction over American citizens.

Why is it that the Obama administration offers constitutional protections to foreign terrorists who kill Americans, yet at the same time immunizes international police organizations from our Constitution?

[Originally published at The US Report]

Obama’s Ft. Hood remarks are Way Off Base

6a00d8341c630a53ef0128757362c7970c-600wiFrom Barack Obama’s remarks at Fort Hood:

It may be hard to comprehend the twisted logic that led to this tragedy.

Really Mr. President? Perhaps you missed the whole Allahu Akbar/al Qaeda/Muslim first, American second/beheading non-Muslims and pouring boiling oil down their throats thing.

But this much we do know – no faith justifies these murderous and craven acts…

Maybe you should brush up on the Qur’an.

…no just and loving God looks upon them with favor.

But Allah is apparently quite pleased with the murder of infidels, and Muhammad – his prophet – was a terrorist himself.

And for what he has done, we know that the killer will be met with justice – in this world, and the next.

With the same Justice Department that allows the Black Panthers to intimidate white voters? Not likely.