Tuesday, January 15, 2008
Matthew Levitt, the expert whose faith the defense attempted to use to discredit him, writes some of the postmortem on the Care International trial: Prosecuting Terrorism beyond 'Material Support'. First a little on Care International:
...The organization couched its solicitations in the context of the Muslim obligation to donate alms (zakat), instructing donors that they were under religious obligation to make sure at least some of the alms went to finance jihad. In response, the organization received checks from donors with directions to support various jihad causes, including comments on the memo line of checks such as "Bosnia mujahedin," "for jihad only," and "Chechen Muslim Fighters."
Indeed, while terrorist fundraisers frequently frame their fundraising pitch in terms of their groups' humanitarian activities, Care specifically called for funding violent jihad. Employing the concept of "economic jihad" (jihad bil-mal), a tool that features prominently in the fundraising techniques of radical Islamist groups, Care successfully raised approximately $1.7 million from 1993 to 2003. The concept is simple in practice: radical leaders tell their followers they have a religious duty to engage in jihad, either by physically fighting or by supporting those who do. Proponents of this logic ground their position in the Quran, surah 9 (al-Tawbah) Verse 41: "Fight with your possessions and your souls in the way of Allah."
Highlighting the concept of economic jihad, a speaker on one of Care's audiotapes explicitly calls on his listeners "to commit jihad with their wealth as well as their souls." The lecturer went on to state that "weapons training is open to all and that all should take advantage of this opportunity to receive training."...
What to do, what to do?
Despite all of the above evidence tying Care to terrorism, the organization -- like Al Capone -- was ultimately held accountable for mundane charges on which the government could secure criminal convictions. In fact, the judge barred the word "terrorism" throughout the trial in an effort to keep the jury focused on the specific charges at hand. But the ultimate effect of the tax law conviction was to expose and hold accountable a fundraising network that raised significant amounts of money for al-Qaeda and its affiliated groups. Detractors may say the lack of a specific terrorism charge proves this was not a terrorism case, but the evidence belies such claims. Sometimes the best strategy for a terrorism prosecution is to focus on the underlying and mundane criminal activity.
That's true in a lot of cases, isn't it? Enforce the basic laws and the complicated stuff takes care of itself. Enforce the borders and immigration law and a lot of homeland security takes care of itself, for instance. You often don't have to get fancy if you don't let the baseline slip.
