Mistrials in Muslim Charity Case Spark Questions

Now that the government's largest terrorism-funding case has spiraled into confusion and mistrials, one expert says it's time to look at how the government went after the now-defunct Muslim charity on trial in the first place.

David Cole, a professor of constitutional law at Georgetown University, says what should cause concern about the case is the "secret process" the government used to shut down and freeze the assets of the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development, which has been accused of financing terrorists, almost six years ago.

"Now that the government has put all its evidence on the table, and they were unable to establish that a crime was committed, it really is time to look at how the initial decision was made," said Cole, the co-author of Less Safe, Less Free: Why America is Losing the War on Terror. "It looks like the government is trying to go farther than the law would justify."

However, The Investigative Project on Terrorism notes that a federal judge did find there was sufficient evidence connecting the charity to the Palestinian militant group Hamas to reject Holy Land's request to remove its designation as a terrorist group and unfreeze its funds in 2002.

And conservative Rod Dreher writes in his Crunchy Con blog at Beliefnet that he thinks the government didn't get a verdict in its favor in the criminal case because the jury didn't understand it.

Cole, a frequent critic of the Bush administration's policies in the war on terror, points out that this isn't the first time the government has had trouble getting a conviction in a federal terrorism case. Statistics from the 2006 Terrorist Trial Report Card from New York University's Center on Law and Security show the government has won 29 percent of cases since 2001.

12:07 PM ET | 10-23-2007 | permalink