Second time not so holy for Holy Land Foundation

In a second trial after an original mistrial, the foundation and five individuals were convicted of three dozen counts.

Not everybody agrees with the verdict:

“I think this case proves that, with enough effort, the federal government can convict nearly anyone,” said Tom Melsheimer, a former federal prosecutor in Dallas now in private practice. “Retrials tend to favor the prosecution, in my view, because the government can figure out what worked and what didn’t and streamline their presentation of the evidence. The defense, on the other hand, has already shown their cards and the government can be better prepared to respond.

“I fear that these convictions will convince the government of the justness of their overallcause but I view the convictions as compelling the opposite conclusion,” he said.“To spend millions of dollars in time and expenses to prosecute people who were of no real threat to anyone, under the banner of a terrorism case, is a waste of precious federal resources.

I certainly agree with Melsheimer in general, without claiming to know enough about the ins and outs of Middle Eastern charities in this case to know what sorts of shades of gray exist in the middle here.

At the same time, this is sage advice from someone who believes they were guilty:

“Going forward, however, the government must be more pro-active about furnishing guidance to Muslim-Americans who merely wish to fulfill their religious obligations,” said Peter Margulies, Roger Williams University law professor who studies terrorism financing cases.

Good thought, Mr. Margulies, but I wouldn't hold my breath.

The fact of a gray area existing gives the government powers of intimidation.