Posted on 10/09/2002 1:49:03 PM PDT by bob808
CHICAGO (Reuters) - Federal officials on Wednesday announced the indictment of the head of a U.S. Muslim charity, charging he used donations to fund terrorism around the world.
Syrian-born Enaam Arnaout, who has been in custody since last April, engaged in a "multinational criminal enterprise that for a decade used charitable contributions of innocent Americans -- Muslims, non-Muslims and corporations alike -- to support al Qaeda" as well as turmoil in Chechnya and "armed violence in Bosnia," the Justice Department said.
The indictment, announced by Attorney General John Ashcroft at a Chicago news conference, largely repeated charges made against Arnaout in documents released at the time of his arrest earlier this year.
He had previously been charged only with lying in a court document his foundation filed challenging the seizure of its assets in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks.
At the time, the foundation said it was a "faith-based humanitarian organization that engages in charitable work around the world" and "does not engage in or fund terrorist activity."
At the time of his arrest the Justice Department and the FBI (news - web sites) said the foundation, based in the Chicago area, was "engaged in the support of various persons and groups involved in military and terrorist type activity," including al Qaeda, the Osama bin Laden (news - web sites) group blamed for the attacks on New York and Washington.
Wednesday's seven-count indictment alleges he engaged in racketeering and other illegal activities to fraudulently obtain charitable donations.
CORRECTED: Head of U.S. Muslim Charity Indicted Wed Oct 9, 6:08 PM ET By Andrew Stern
CHICAGO (Reuters) - The head of a U.S. Muslim charity was charged on Wednesday with helping terrorists and deceiving donors by funneling funds to Osama bin Laden (news - web sites)'s al Qaeda network and other militant groups, prosecutors said.
Syrian-born Enaam Arnaout, who has been in custody since April, engaged in a "multinational criminal enterprise that for a decade used charitable contributions of innocent Americans -- Muslims, non-Muslims and corporations alike -- to support al Qaeda" as well as turmoil in Chechnya (news - web sites) and "armed violence in Bosnia," the Justice Department (news - web sites) said.
"It is sinister to prey on good hearts to fund the works of evil," Attorney General John Ashcroft (news - web sites) told a Chicago news conference, saying the Muslim charity exploited the Islamic principle of giving, called zakat.
The seven-count indictment alleged Arnaout, 40, directed his charity, Benevolence International Foundation, to commingle millions of dollars of donations to hide the true purposes of the money. The charity's assets were frozen in December, 2001, as part of the U.S.-led campaign to choke off funding for militant groups.
The money laundering included wire transfers of $1.4 million to the charity's Chicago-area offices from an account at the Union Bank of Switzerland between June and September, 2001, the indictment alleged.
LIST OF ORPHANS
In November, Arnaout discussed with a Bosnian colleague creating "a new list of orphans" to disguise the charity's financial support for an injured fighter.
After the September attacks, Arnaout contacted the charity's Saudi founder, Adel Batterjee, to tell him he was being watched and was later advised to leave for Saudi Arabia.
Some of the charges related to earlier perjury charges against Arnaout and the charity that described his links with a wide range of Muslim militants including bin Laden, whose al Qaeda network U.S. authorities believe was behind last year's attacks on New York and Washington.
Among a cache of documents recovered in a March raid on the charity's Bosnian offices were 1980s-era photographs purporting to show Arnaout shouldering weapons at an Afghan camp also visited by bin Laden. Newspaper clippings found in the March raid showed the two pictured together, the indictment said.
The indictment alleged that in the late 1980s, Arnaout became "director of communications" at al Qaeda's al Masada camp in Jaji, Afghanistan (news - web sites). In 1991, he helped acquire and distribute hundreds of rockets, mortars and bombs, it said.
"The announcement today makes a mockery of the war on terrorism," Arnaout's lawyer, Joseph Duffy, said.
"The war on terrorism has degenerated into paranoia," where any Arab with even a tenuous connection with those allegedly involved in terrorism can be arrested and charged, he said.
FOUNDING OF AL QAEDA
Ashcroft said that for the first time, notes found in the Bosnian raid gave authorities proof of the August, 1988, meetings at which al Qaeda was formed and the text of a loyalty oath pledged by members.
"It is chilling that the origins of al Qaeda were found in a charity claiming to do good," Ashcroft said.
The documents also contained personnel files of mujahideen fighters trained under bin Laden's direction and lists of donors and sponsors, which Ashcroft said would be sifted to determine who might have knowingly sought to fund terrorism.
Arnaout had previously been charged only with lying in a court filing, which asked that the charity's assets be unfrozen because it had not funded "terrorist activity."
Arnaout was charged with racketeering, money laundering, mail and wire fraud and other illegal activities to fraudulently obtain charitable donations.
He could be sentenced to 90 years in jail with no possibility of parole if found guilty.
And rightly so.
I don't think he would attack America directly, as he has shown he will with Israel or his immediate neighbors, but I believe he would farm his WMDs out to third parties in the hope they couldn't be traced back to Iraq, and those weapons would be used against our citizens or interests.
B) Invading Kuwait.
C) Firing SCUDs at Israel.
Big no-no's, I agree. But he's already been punished for those in Gulf War I. Is double jeopardy fair play in international politics?
D) Non-compliance with terms of the Gulf War cease-fire.
That one is a problem, I agree. But if (it's a big "if", I know), but hypothetically what if he does back down and allow full unrestricted access, including his "presidential palaces" or whatever to weapons inspectors? Should we still go to war to remove him? What if we are also guilty of violating some terms of the cease-fire (such as sneaking our spies onto the weapons inspection teams)? Do we still have the moral authority to hold him accountable to every letter of the agreement if we are not doing the same?
You're starting out really bad here, Bob.
Double jeopardy isn't relevant - we're not going after Saddam on the basis of those actions, we are, however, viewing them as a context of what he is capable of doing if not removed from power.
You argue that no man may judge another - I find that unworkable and supportive of the very environment in which reprobates like Saddam thrive. If you wish to live your life thusly, so be it - just don't expect me to shy away from life's hard choices due to a philosophy which amounts to nothing more than acceding to moral blackmail.
Saddam delenda est.
Not true. I just want to make sure the judgement is valid. If Saddam is a threat to us, than he must go. However, I have yet to see any significant link between him and 9/11. Prior to us beating the war drum to remove him, I do not know of any threat he posed to the United States. I do know, however, that he was very supportive of the Palestinians, and has rightly earned the ire of the Israelis. So I am a little concerned that we may be going to war for the sake of Israeli foreign policy instead of our own. You and I have spent enought time on the Balkans threads to know that government accusations in the run up to war often end up being quite far from accurate.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.