Militant Islam Monitor > Articles > Wrinkle In Holy Land Foundation Defense Case Might Prove Vital In Trial Outcome
Wrinkle In Holy Land Foundation Defense Case Might Prove Vital In Trial Outcome
November 16, 2008
Wrinkle In Holy Land Foundation Defense Case Might Prove Vital In Trial Outcome
Wrinkle In Holy Land Foundation Defense Case Might Prove Vital In Trial Outcome
By WILLIAM MAYER
November 14, 2008 - San Francisco, CA - PipeLineNews.org - With both the defense and prosecution having rested in U.S. vs. Holy Land Foundation, et, al., [HLF, the United State's largest Hamas terror funding case] and its outcome now in the hands of the jury, the Dallas Morning News has revealed a slight but possibly significant change in the testimony of the defense's star witness, Edward G. Abington Jr. that may prove key in undercutting its case.
In the first HLF prosecution [which resulted in a mistrial] Abington testified that as a former American diplomat stationed in the Middle East, "he got daily CIA briefings on Hamas and other security threats in the region, and was never informed that the terrorist group controlled the Palestinian charity groups, or zakat committees, to which Holy Land donated money." [source, Jason Trahan, Behind the scenes: The CIA's problem with a Holy Land Foundation witness, Dallas Morning News, http://crimeblog.dallasnews.com/archives/2008/11/behind-the-scenes-the-cias-pro.html, November 13, 2008]
Since the prosecution's case centered upon the allegation that those controlling the HLF knew that the organization's funds were funneled through the zakats and then into the coffers of Hamas [designated as a terrorist organization in 1995], Abington's testimony was seen as providing more than an element of doubt that the defendants undertood the flow of money and therefore intended to aid the terrorist group.
In the retrial Abington was barred by the CIA from mentioning any references to the agency or to any specific information revealed to him in briefings. As a result he was only allowed to state that he was not made aware that the zakats were aligned with Hamas in government but not CIA briefings.
A small matter for sure, but upon such nuance complicated cases can often turn.
That a former American official would eagerly serve as a defense witness for the HLF, a group which many observers believe was obviously in league with Hamas, underlines the complicated interagency politics which have hampered the legal front in the war on terror [also see, Daniel Pipes, State's Terror Untruths, New York Post, May 28, 2002, http://www.danielpipes.org/article/404].
You see Edward Abington is no mere, "former" U.S. official.
He served from 1993-1997 as the Clinton Administration's Consul General to Israel. Previous to that he worked at the Pentagon. His last DC tour of duty was Assistant Secretary at the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research, after which he was hired by the powerhouse PR firm of Bannerman and Associates [Bannerman being a former aid to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, working for Senator Richard Lugar (R-IN)].
Almost immediately upon Bannerman's acquisition of Abington, the firm registered as a foreign agent, representing the Palestinian Authority. Abington thus became the PA/Fatah's lead man in Washington, applying all of his government derived expertise and connections in service of an organization which is undeniably historically linked to Yasser Arafat's terrorist PLO and which continues in a myriad of ways - under Abbas [aka Abu Mazen] - to stoke Islamic radicalism. [see for example Palestinian Authority TV Using Disney Symbols To Sell Mass Murder To Children, PipeLineNews.org, September 9, 2008]
It was in this later capacity, as a shill for Palestinian radicalism that Abington took the stand in the HLF case, attempting to ascribe the best of intentions to the organization's fundraising, notwithstanding the fact that checks made payable to HLF from the Islamic Society of North America [ISNA, an unindicted co-conspirator in this trial] were, "often dedicated for "Palestinian Mujahideen" in the memo line. The military wing of Hamas initially was referred to as the Palestinian Mujahideen, prosecutors said." [source Steven Emerson, Blog entry, Sept 21, 2008, http://www.steveemerson.com/blog]
Abington in his public pronouncements, hews closely to the pro-Arab sentiment in the State Department, especially its Middle East desk, blaming the Bush administration for not imposing on Israel an Islamist friendly "peace." This sentiment has been skillfully employed by leftist American and Israeli politicians, scratching the delusional itch that it is Israel's policies, rather than Muslim fundamentalism and Arab intransigence which fosters this jihad.
"Abington said the Bush administration shares responsibility for the outcome because U.S. officials did little to help Abbas or to push the Israeli government to end settlement expansion, limit roadblocks, release prisoners or stop other activities that undermined his authority in the eyes of the Palestinian people. He said the result is a "huge blow to Bush's advocacy of democracy in the Middle East" because Arab leaders fearful of Islamic victories in their countries will "push back very hard." [source, Glenn Kessler, Bush Is Conciliatory in Accepting Victory of Hamas, Washington Post, January 27, 2006, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/26/AR2006012601009.html]
While the outcome of the jury's deliberations in the HLF matter is yet to be known, what is abundantly clear is that regardless, whores like Abington will continue to ply jis trade, shilling for the enemy, secure in the knowledge that his buddies at State will continue to serve as a similarly motivated ideological fifth column, gaming the system from the inside. http://www.pipelinenews.org/index.cfm?page=hlfid=11.14.08%2Ehtm
Printer-friendly version 
Email this item to a friend