Arab and Muslim CivilRights Issues in the Chicago Metropolitan Area Post-September 11
Chapter 5
Government Actions Toward Chicago-area Islamic Charities
Charitable giving is one of the Five Pillars of Islam. It is oneof the things that the Quran demands all Muslims to do. Therefore, when thegovernment froze the assets of the Global Relief Foundation, BenevolenceInternational Foundation, and the Holy Land Foundation, many Muslims were leftconfused and afraid. Many Muslims had fulfilled their charitable givingrequirement by giving to these organizations. If these groups were aidingterrorism, would they, the individualdonators, be held responsible? And if these groups were aiding terrorists, whywere no charges immediately brought against them? What would happen to the manyAmerican citizens who worked for these charities? All of these questions andmany more faced the Chicago-area Muslim community.
Many of the facts concerning these charities are not accessiblebecause, under the USA Patriot Act, government can seize and/or freeze assets ofan organization or individual without a hearing on the assertion that there isprobable cause to believe that the assets are involved in domestic terrorism.Also, some of the evidence is being concealed out of concern for nationalsecurity. Therefore, this chapter merely reflects opinions and feelings ofcommunity members regarding the situation as well as the response to thesefeelings by government officials who are limited in their discussion due to thesensitivity and nature of the issue.
Community Representatives
Anthony Simpkins, President Muslim Bar Association
There were three Islamic charities in the Chicago area that wereclosed down pending investigation under the executive order that wasissued after September 11.[1] They were Global Relief,Benevolence International Foundation, and the Holy Land Foundation. During theprocess of the shutting down of these organizations, one of the organizations,Global Relief Foundation, demanded of the government to see the evidence uponwhich they based the freezing of this charity's assets and the seizure oftheir property and records. After initially refusing to do so, the governmentreleased some information to them. What they gave them were newspaper articlesby journalists who suggested that there was some connection between thisparticular charity and terrorism. Can you imagine Catholic Charities or a memberof the archdiocese being arrested, their assets frozen, their property seizedbecause a journalist suggested that there may be some ties between thatindividual or that organization and some criminal conspiracy? Of course not.
The government also shut down Benevolence InternationalFoundation.[2] No charges have ever beenbrought. No trial has ever been set. In fact, under the presidential orderthere's not even clearly a right to a trial to challenge the seizure of theirassets and the seizure of their property and the freezing of their assets. Therehave been no charges brought. This was alldone pending investigation. So, Benevolence International then sued thegovernment, suggesting that the actions that were taken against thisorganization were illegal under the Constitution.
Now, keep in mind that Benevolence International read in thenewspaper that they might be the subject of a government probe. What they didwas they hired a law firm who then contacted the FBI and U.S. attorney soffice and said, We heard we're under investigation. We are inviting you tocome and take a look at our records, interview our employees and our directors,and we want to cooperate with you because we're confident we haven't doneanything. That offer was turned down, and instead, under sealed warrant,their offices were raided, including some of the homes of some of theirdirectors. They've never been able to see any evidence against them. This isun-American and this has not happened to any other group or group of individualsin this country.
Benevolence International sued the government, and as part ofthat lawsuit the executive director said that they had not engaged in anyterrorist-related activities.[3]The government then turned around and charged the individual that made thatstatement in the proceedings with perjury.[4]Now, the government then sought to have this individual, Enaam Arnaout, held ona personal charge without bail and in solitary confinement. This, of course, isunprecedented on a charge of perjury. The government stood before the magistratejudge in late May, right before Memorial Day, and suggested that this individualshould be held without bail on a perjury charge because he was going to faceother charges under several federal terrorism statutes. The judge then held himwithout bail, saying he was a flight risk because he faced all of theseterrorism charges which held a penalty of anywhere from 15 years to life inprison.[5]However, when the indictment came down the day after the judge entered the orderholding this individual without bail, it included nothing but the charge ofperjury.[6]
What we have here is a situation where individuals are beingincarcerated. The most basic and fundamental human right that we have in thiscountry is the right of liberty, of freedom from incarceration. The rights thatour papers and our persons are free from unreasonable government intrusion,unless there's some charges brought against us and some evidence broughtagainst you that we can confront and challenge. These people in theseinstitutions are being held without those most basic rights to due process.
If these institutions and these individuals are guilty ofsomething, then our American system of justice says they should be charged,evidence should be presented, witnesses should be presented, and there should bean open and public trial in which these issues are ferreted out. That's notwhat's happening here. No other people are subject to this.
For example, the Jewish Defense League's directors, Irv Rubinand Earl Krugel, have been indicted for a plot to bomb a mosque in Culver City,California, and also the legislative offices of an Arab American Californiastate representative.[7]These are the directors of the Jewish Defense League. The Jewish DefenseLeague's assets have not been frozen pending investigation. Their property hasnot been seized under sealed warrant.
When Timothy McVeigh bombed the Oklahoma Federal Building, therewas no move to institute mass detentions of members of his organization orsimilar [anti-government] organizations. There was no policy instituted to domass interviews of people related to him to ferret out any possible futureterrorist plots.
The point is that from our standpoint this is a witch hunt. Ifsomeone has broken a law, if someone has done something illegal, if someone isinvolved in something that is a form of wrongdoing, we should bring a chargeagainst that person and we should have a trial. In none of these instances hasthat occurred. And this is because the objects of these are Muslims.
Dean Mohiuddin, Board Member Islamic Foundation
Now the concern is that Muslims are required to spend a certainportion of their income for those who are less fortunate than they are. Usuallycoming from the Far East and Middle East, we know what poverty there is, andpoverty there means from where is my next meal going to come. That is thepoverty, not the poverty that I don't have a color TV. So, we try to find theorganizations that used to help those organizations in their educationalprograms, helping the mothers, the widows, the orphans.
Now there is concern among the people. Will I be able to use anyof the charities? What if I give to charity and later on I find out that that charityhas been indicted by the Justice Department? These are the concerns that we havenot been able to answer fully or to the extent that we would be satisfied withthe legal answer. So, we're hoping that in the days and weeks and months tocome that through the aid and through the help and cooperation of the JusticeDepartment that we will be able to provide some direction to that aspectof the religious observance.
Generally speaking, from what we have read and what we haveheard, it appears that the only allegation against these organizations is guiltby association. The Council of Islamic Organizations of Greater Chicago hasapproached the Justice Department to find out if we can at least help theemployees of the charities who have lost their jobs, who don't have any othersource of income. The answer was, yes, you can. So, we are trying to help atleast those people.
We are also trying to find out if we can have a defense fund forthe charity. And I think the preliminary answer is yes, as long as it is not taxexempt. The other point is that all organizations, not only my organization, butall organizations are concerned about guilt by association. How far we can go?And it is not easy in these times to get any clear direction.
William Haddad, Executive Director Arab American Bar Association
We see the freezing ofassets, and this may be well founded. Some of these organizations may deserve tohave their assets frozen. I don't know. It's an investigation, and ourgovernment has the duty to do so. But it's an open and notorious kind ofthing, and it creates a fear among religious people in our community that theirmosque, their church, their organization may also be targeted, perhaps unfairly.What are the rules of engagement here?
Rouhy Shalabi, President Arab American Bar Association
One of the concerns withthe secret evidence or the freezing of assets regarding charities is to find outif there is anything behind it. The people who donate monies for humanitariancauses want to know what was being done in their name and so forth. So, ourcommunity is waiting, and we would like to see the evidence come out. I think ifthe government has it, lay it on the table so we can all stand up and know whatit is and deal with it.
Kareem Irfan, President Council of Islamic Organizations ofGreater Chicago
One classic example in that area that I have talked about is thetargeting of Muslim charities. In Islam, the giving of charity is a fundamentalobligation, as it is with many other faiths. A Muslim cannot practice his or herfaith to the fullest extent without actual charitable giving in a formalfashion. And the charities that have become recognized, they have come toachieve that status because people have gained trust that these are servinghumanitarian concerns and projects all over the world.
Now, if the government is concerned about something incorrectgoing on, then what we hope would have happened and we hope will happen in thefuture is that appropriate consideration be given to how they're targeting theinvestigation that takes place. The Muslim charities, for instances, two of thelocal-area charities which are very well respected, they were targeted forinvestigation presumably for a number of months, but action that was taken wasdone in the month of Ramadan. This is the month of fasting where Muslimsconsider the days to be sacrosanct, and the good deeds are presumed to beblessed with a lot more reward.
So, given the fundamental obligation for charity, 99 percent ofMuslims save their charity to be given in this particular month and givethroughout the month. Now, what happened is, I'm sure there must have beensome justification for it that we have never been informed about, but thecharities were targeted during this month. The month of Ramadan came, 28 days ofthat month went by and 99 percent of charity was given with this expectationthat the gift will be received with an increase reward. Two days prior to theend of the month of Ramadan, the assets of these charities were frozen. Somehundreds of thousands of dollars that were given with the intention of peopledischarging their religious obligation were seized. If that could have been donea month in advance, that would have saved a lot of difficulty on behalf ofMuslim Americans.
So, people start wondering if the government had thisinformation at hand, why did they wait until a majority of the people hadactually given their dollars for these charitable causes for humanitarianpurposes and suddenly have the assets frozen at that point in time? Did theywait to see who was giving?
Mohammad Kaiseruddin, President Muslim Community Center
We know that the in cases against Benevolent International, theHoly Land Foundation, and the Global Relief, charges against them have not beendisclosed, even to their attorneys, let alone us.[8]The only charge we know is in the suit against Mr. Arnaout for perjury, andthat's all we know about that.
These charities have been around for a long time, several years,probably more than 10 years, and Muslims all over the United States have trustedthese charities, have given money to these charities, have gotten reports fromthese charities as to how they're spending the money, which people where inthe world they are helping and what type of charity they are or what type ofhelp they are providing. So, it takes time to build up organizations like thatand have trust of the community, and these three organizations did it. Nowit's been taken away. So Muslims are now wondering how do we give our charity?Who do we give our charity to? How do we help the people of our faith who aredesperately in need; whether they are in Palestine, they are in Kashmir, theyare in Chechnya, they're in Somalia, wherever they are?
There are Muslims all around the world that are in desperateneed. And we are not able to provide that help. There are still a couple of, twoor three, national charity organizations still in business, but again because ofthis shutting down of these three charities, there has been a chilling effect onthe community itself that they say, Well, either our money is going to belocked up again if we give to these organizations or worse yet through theseorganizations the government might try to bring charges against us that we aregiving money to these.
So, in general, there has been a very chilling effect on givingby the Muslims and that's not very easy, particularly the portion of charitythat we practice which is an obligatory portion of charity. It's got to begiven. So, once you give it, that money doesn't belong to you anymore and ourpeople are left up to their own means to find how to give that charity. It's adifficult situation.
Well, there is concern. Obviously, there has to be a concern.But without finding out a charge let alone proof, let alone anything as to whatwas the basis, we are skeptical. If anything, this perjury charge broughtagainst Mr. Arnaout for an association 10 years ago leads us to believe that wedon't think the government has anything. So do we have any more trust that thegovernment has any better proof against these charities? If there is, wecertainly would like to know. And we would certainly like to stop any terroristtype activities being done that we come across because obviously we will not doit. But in the absence of any of that, we feel that our civil rights have beenviolated. We are not able to practice our religion as we want to practice ourreligion.
Gregory Mitchell, Board Member Muslim Civil Rights Center
When the government seized the assets of BenevolenceInternational Foundation and Holy Land Foundation, it was at the end of Ramadan.And what is significant about that is Ramadan is a month of fasting for Muslimsand at that time, that's when Muslims are encouraged to increase whatevercharitable donations they are going to make. And it is at that time many Muslimswill donate, and toward the end of that month they will make that donation. Andthe seizure of assets took place right at the end of the month.
So now from my perspective, if the government was concernedabout this being a funneling device for funding of terrorist organizations, theyshould have done it earlier. And to the extent you say, no, we have to make surewe have a case, then now that you've seized the money, you know that thismoney comes locally, why isn't that money turned back to the Muslim community?We have an umbrella organization here in the Chicagoland area called the Councilof Islamic Organizations, and Mr. Kaiseruddin was the founding president of thatparticular organization. It is capable of receiving those funds, even with theoversight of the federal government. But there's not a reason to takeMuslims funds that they gave with the intent that it help the needy to stayin the federal government's coffers or to be isolated for merely the fact thatwe believe that it will be used for terrorism that we will prove some day.
Jim Fennerty, President Chicago Chapter of the National LawyersGuild
I represent one of the other charities, which is the United HolyLand Foundation. I represent the employees, not the foundation itself. Well, youthink, why would the employees have a lawsuit? Well, what happened to theemployees was that once they froze the assets of the Holy Land Foundation, thegovernment went into people's private bank accounts and took out their lastpaycheck. They just got their year-end bonus. The government took their bonusout of their personal savings accounts. They confiscated their personal propertythat they had in there. One guy on the south side had a little band. He had somespeakers and some other equipment, they confiscated all of that.
They also lost their Cobrabenefits, and they cannot get insurance now. Some of those people have seriousillnesses, and they cannot get Cobra insurance. Because under Cobra, youremployer you left had to be in business. Well, the Holy Land Foundation hastaken the position they're out of business, so you can't get Cobra benefits.
Government Officials
Patrick Fitzgerald, U.S. Attorney Northern District of Illinois
There was a civil actionbrought having to do with one charity, two civil actions regarding twocharities. In those civil actions, our papers were filed publicly. There was aparticular amount of material that was filed under seal and that we could notdiscuss because of national security. But that had to do with the reason why thegovernment chose to conduct searches. And in choosing to conduct searches, thegovernment wants to establish its good faith that what it did was reasonable,and the extent that there was national security information driving decisionsmade by the government, we thought it was appropriate for the judge to know whywe did it, not for an illicit purpose. Obviously, if we reveal that in public,we compromise sources and efforts. So, in that limited instance, we did notcomment on those materials publicly. But beyond that, we have made an extensivepublic record in the civil proceeding which, I think if you stack it up, itwould be about 5 feet high, that people can look at.
So, in terms of theconduct of the U.S. attorney's office post-9/11, the rules are the same asthey were before. We have applied those rules consistently before 9/11 and after9/11. And we're trying to get the message out to the community that much ofwhat we're doing, if we cannot talk about it, that's because of the fairtrial rights and grand jury rules, not something different.
Saffiya Shilo, Executive Director of Ethnic Affairs Lt.Gov. Corrine Wood's Office
Because of the recent investigations of localcharities, the Arab community was very concerned about being victims as well forcontributing to some of these charities that later turned out being accused ofhaving connections to terrorism. So, I initiated a phone call to the U.S.attorney's office, who said, Well, we'll call some people. They hadthe names of people to call, and I told them that they needed to come out tothat particular community, talk to that community and listen to their concerns.So, we set up another meeting in Burbank, which the U.S. attorney PatrickFitzgerald and also the FBI agent Kneir attended. The community had some reallylegitimate concerns and questions and follow-up was asked for. For example, theyasked to find out which, if any, places they could donate to. The officials saidthat they couldn't say where they could donate. They could only give a list ofthe charities that were accused. We haven't gotten that list.
[1] Exec. Order 13224, 66 Fed. Reg. 49079 (2001), amended by Exec. Order 13268, 67 Fed. Reg. 44751 (2002), and Exec. Order 13284, 68 Fed. Reg. 4075 (2003).
[2] Benevolence International Foundation (BIF) is an Illinois not-for-profit charitable foundation incorporated since 1992. On December 14, 2002, pursuant to the emergency search provisions of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, 50 U.S.C. 1801 et seq., the FBI seized financial and business records from BIF's Palos Hills, Illinois, office. On the same date, acting pursuant to the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, 50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq., the Treasury Department issued an order blocking BIF's assets and records pending further investigation. See United States v. Benevolence Int l Found., Inc., No. 02 CR 414, 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17223 (D. Ill. Sept. 13, 2002).
[3] Benevolence Int l Found., Inc. v. Ashcroft, 200 F. Supp. 2d 935 (D. Ill. 2002) (civil suit brought by foundation suspected of supporting terrorist activities, special circ*mstances, including similarity of parties, issues, facts, and importance of pending criminal case, stayed until conclusion of criminal case).
[4] On April 29, 2002, the United States attorney for the Northern District of Illinois filed criminal charges against Benevolence International Foundation (BIF) and Enaam M. Arnaout, its chief executive officer, for having knowingly submitted false material declarations under oath. The criminal charges are based on Arnaout's sworn affidavit supporting BIF s motion for preliminary injunction in which Arnaout states that BIF has never provided aid or support to people or organizations known to be engaged in violence, terrorist activities, or military operations of any nature obstruct justice. Benevolence Int l Found., Inc. v. Ashcroft, 200 F. Supp. 935 (Dist. Ill. 2002).
[5] A magistrate ordered defendant detained pending trial. Defendant moved for modification of conditions of the pretrial confinement. Specifically, he challenged his placement in administrative detention and transport under a three-man hold. The district court held that there was no evidence that the placement interfered with defendant's right to counsel since the detention order specifically directed he be afforded reasonable opportunity for private consultation with counsel. Defendant could only challenge conditions of confinement through a separate civil action. United States v. Enaam M. Arnaout, No. 02 CR 892, 2002 U.S. Dis. LEXIS 23400 (D. Ill. Dec. 6, 2002).
[6] On October 9, 2002, federal authorities indicted Enaam Arnaout with two counts of mail fraud and one count each of racketeering conspiracy, conspiracy to provide material support to terrorists, conspiracy to launder money, money laundering and wire fraud. Benevolence International was not named in the indictment. (Matt O Connor and Laurie Cohen, U.S. Ties Charity Leader to Terror, Chicago Tribune, Oct. 10, 2002.) On February 10, 2002, Arnaout pleaded guilty to a single count of racketeering conspiracy and the other six counts were dropped. According to prosecutors, Arnaout pleaded guilty to not revealing that he was sending money to buy boots and uniforms for fighters in Chechnya. Arnaout also agreed to cooperate with the government in other investigations. (Stephen Franklin and Laurie Cohen, Plea Deal Averts Terror Trial, Chicago Tribune, Feb. 11, 2003.)
United States v. Enaam M. Arnaout, No. 02 CR 892, 2002 U.S. Dis. LEXIS 23400 (D. Ill. Dec. 6, 2002) (defendant and co-conspirators did not establish that groups they allegedly provided aid to were lawful combatants privileged under Geneva Convention against prosecution for conspiracy to murder, kidnap, maim, and injure others); United States v. Enaam M. Arnaout, No. 02 CR 892, 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1635 (D. Ill. Feb. 4, 2003) (proffered materials were not admissible to support a second superseding indictment alleging three distinct conspiracies).
[7] JDL Pleads Guilty to Bomb Plot Against US Congressman, Arab American News, vol. 19, no. 887 (Feb.14, 2003), p. 17.
[8] Global Relief Found., Inc. v. O Neill, No. 02-2536, 2003 U.S. App. LEXIS 6708 (Apr. 4, 2003); Holy Land Found. for Relief and Dev. v. Ashcroft, 219 F. Supp. 2d 57 (D. DC 2002); Benevolence Int l Found., 200 F. Supp. 2d 935 (D. Ill. 2002).
