Terrorist Donors or Victims of Post 9/11 Islamophobia?

"Five Convicted in Terrorism Financing Trial"
A16, Tuesday 11/25/08
By Gretel C. Kovach

This piece discusses the guilty verdict reached against five leaders of a Muslim charity, the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development. The leaders were found guilty of illegally funneling money to Hamas, the Palestinian Islamist group that the U.S. government designated a terrorist organization in 1995. All in all, the defendants "were convicted on all 108 criminal counts against them, including support of terrorism, money laundering and tax fraud."

Unfortunately, despite the overwhelming body of evidence brought against these leaders that led to their convictions in a court of law, the reporter gives much credence to the perspective that this verdict was part of a continuing trend of Islamic demonization since September 11. A variety of individuals that supported the defendants are quoted to corroborate this view.

• Khalil Meek, "spokesman for a coalition of Holy Land Foundation supporters called Hungry for Justice": "This jury found that humanitarian aid is a crime."
• Noor Elashi, daughter of one of the defendants: "My dad is a law-abiding citizen who was persecuted for his humanitarian work in Palestine and his political beliefs."
  
  She also said that "she was 'heartbroken' that jurors had accepted what she called the fear-mongering of the prosecution" and that "This is a truly low point for the United States of America."

Lastly, the article ends by quoting freedomtogive.com, a website supportive of the defendants: "the foundation 'simply provided food, clothes, shelter, medical supplies and education to the suffering people in Palestine and other countries.'"

By ending the article in this fashion, what sort of message is the author sending to the audience? In doing so, the reporter lends much authority to the conspiratorial accusations of the defedants' supporters, whether or not they are based in truth.

Overall, it is somewhat amazing that the NYT cannot do the research to substantiate whether or not the charges brought against the foundation were true (which they apparently are given the defendants' conviction in the court of law) and instead devolves into an ambiguous 'he said, she said' argument.