 |
|
Show me the money
|
A court awarded a record $156 million in a summary judgement against an Illinois based group, the Quranic Literacy Institute (although only $4-7 million may ultimately be collected by the government). The judge, Arlander Keys, tripled the $52 million award after adding three other defendants (Texas-based charity Holy Land Foundation, the Islamic Association for Palestine and alleged Hamas fund-raiser Muhammad Salah) that he found previously liable for terrorism. The case centered on an American teenager, David Boim, who shot and killed by in 1996 while waiting at a Israeli bus stop near the West Bank (allegedly by Hamas, though they did not claim responsibility). The Boim family brought the case under a federal statute that holds U.S. groups financially liable for overseas violence. Judge Keys ruled that “the Boims need only show that the defendants were involved in an agreement to accomplish an unlawful act and that the attack that killed David Boim was a reasonably foreseeable consequence.” That unlawful act, of course, was implied in the US governments seizing of assets of the named organizations for alleged fund raising, though no prior criminal charges have been made. The link to QLI was shown by former FBI counterterrorism expert, Matthew Levitt, who documented payments to the QLI from Salah, who was on a US watch list. “The ruling sends a clear message that you are going to pay a price when you harm an American citizen,” said prosecuting attorneys Wildman Harrold. Defense attorney John Beal argued that Keys made his decision three weeks before trial, refused to grant additional time for trial, and refused to continue the trial until after Salah’s criminal charges were resolved. “This shows we didn’t have a reasonable opportunity to present our case,” Beals said. Holy Land Foundation attorney John Boyd agreed, calling it “an enormous disappointment” that the judge found it liable before the case could go to a jury. Amer Haleem, of QLI, called it religious persecution and vowed to appeal. “They had not one shred of evidence against us. All they had was the fact that we were Muslims and they used the word ‘terror’” (although the tactic didn’t work with Sami al-Hussayen). A silver lining? Some feel the precedent set would allow others to (ahem) follow suit with actions against Caterpillar, those who raise funds for the JDL, and others.
Zahed Amanullah is associate editor of altmuslim.com. He is based in London, England.
Recent Comments