Posts Tagged ‘Eric Holder’

h1

Grounds for prosecuting CAIR

August 17, 2012

CAIR should be prosecuted under the Foreign Agents Registration Act, which Money Jihad has indicated before. Frank Gaffney’s CAIR Observatory website is a great resource for explaining why.  Readers should take a look.

Here are some key points from a 2010 letter from Gaffney spelling out the grounds for prosecuting CAIR under FARA that bear a second look:

  • FARA requires entities that act as agents of foreign principals to disclose their foreign relationships.
  • “CAIR has met and coordinated with representatives of foreign principals on more than 30 occasions and engaged in over 60 political influence operations on their behalf,” without reporting these activities.
  • “FARA § 612 (a) (5) requires that a foreign agent report ‘the nature and amount of contributions, income, money, or thing of value’.”
  • “CAIR has received more than $6.6 million in cash and loans and more than $50 million in pledges from foreign principals based in Saudi Arabia, Iran, the United Arab Emirates and Kuwait. CAIR has failed to report these payments.”

Foreign agents are supposed to register with an office within the Department of Justice.  Under Attorney General Holder, CAIR will never register and will never be prosecuted for failing to register.  We must see to it that Mr. Holder is replaced by somebody willing to enforce the law.

Advertisements
h1

Holder stonewalls on HLF documents

June 22, 2012

Attorney General Eric Holder has once again refused to supply Congress with the same documents that were provided to the defendants in the Holy Land Foundation trial who were convicted of funding Hamas under questioning from Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-TX) during a congressional hearing.

Yes, you read that correctly.  The “Holy Land Five” and their attorneys were given access to materials with information about their own crimes which the Justice Department will not even share with the members of Congress who represent the district where the Holy Land Foundation perpetrated its felonious terror funding operation.

Jihad Watch says that Holder “ducked” the question about whether he would provide the documents.  But that is being too charitable.  In video from the hearing (h/t Creeping Sharia), Holder says that DOJ could provide documents that are already in the public domain, which is another way of saying that they won’t provide the documents Rep. Gohmert requested.

The Department of Justice has done a terrible job policing Islamic charities since Mr. Holder and Pres. Obama came into office.  There is probably enough evidence of wrongdoing about the HLF’s co-conspirators in the case that if DOJ released the documents, it would increase the pressure from the public to prosecute HLF’s partners.

Note the passion and conviction of Rep. Gohmert, and the pompous indifference of Mr. Holder to the seriousness of the request:

h1

Lawyers poised to profit from the money jihad

December 30, 2010

Suppose Osama bin Laden were captured alive.  And suppose like Khalid Sheikh Muhammad that the Obama administration tried to bring bin Laden to a civilian court in Manhattan.  But don’t give him a garden variety public defender or even a high-profile attorney working pro bono.  Give him the best attorney that money can buy—even more than most of the 9/11 victims’ families could expend on their own legal proceedings.

Now bin Laden can have the best attorney his money can buy, because all his assets could be unfrozen to use for a legal defense under a new OFAC licensing program.  The new rules would even allow terrorists to establish their own legal defense funds.  The more the jihadists tax, steal, and launder, the bigger cut their lawyers will eventually get. 

If I were OFAC director Adam Szubin, a Bush appointee who has been kept on by Pres. Obama, I would resign immediately in protest of this disgusting insult to the victims of jihad.  Here’s the story from Creeping Sharia:

Obama gives terror suspects access to frozen assets

Posted on December 28, 2010 by creeping

The likes of the ACLU and CAIR can now get funds directly from the terrorists they defend. From Judicial Watch:

Caving in to the demands of liberal civil rights groups, the Obama Administration has quietly amended a counterterrorism sanction so that accused terrorists can pay for their defense with assets frozen by the U.S. government.

The exemption to the government’s Global Terrorism Sanctions was made official this week by the Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC), which is responsible for enforcing economic and trade sanctions based on U.S. foreign policy and national security threats. The office operates under presidential national emergency powers and acts largely on international mandates.

Among its duties is to freeze the assets of individuals or groups engaged in terrorist activities. Under executive orders signed by both Bill Clinton and George W. Bush, the OFAC can confiscate the assets of suspected terrorists identified by the Treasury Secretary if the funds are in control of institutions regulated by the U.S.

That means that individuals charged with terrorism can’t access money to pay for attorneys, something that has long bothered the left. This week the Treasury Department gave in, making it possible for terrorism suspects whose assets have been frozen by Uncle Sam to use the money to pay for legal representation. Suspects must apply for a special license from the OFAC, which will make the cash disbursements.

The official amendment in the Federal Register says that the OFAC is adding “new general licenses to authorize U.S. persons to receive specified types of payment for certain authorized legal services.” This also includes a license authorizing the establishment of legal defense funds that collect donations from persons who are not suspected of terrorism.

It’s unlikely that the mainstream media will give this much coverage or that White House press releases will tout it. After all, the official notice in the Federal Registry says that “public participation” or “delay in effective date” are not applicable because the amendments involve a foreign affairs function and executive order.

There’s more here plus reader comments.