Get Breaking News on your cellBehind the scenes: The CIA's problem with a Holy Land Foundation witness
2:40 PM Thu, Nov 13, 2008 | Permalink |
E-mail News tips
|
|
 Newsletter sign-up: Top Headlines |
 
|
|
November 2008
Recent Posts
Dallas police seek elderly man who went missing last month Behind the scenes: The CIA's problem with a Holy Land Foundation witness Report: Dallas, Fort Worth, Houston federal air marshals among dozens charged with crimes Fort Worth Waffle House struck again by robbers Dogfighting sport of choice for drug traffickers HLF jury update: passing notes, and a fill-in Lawyers out of the office and out-of-pocket more often? Thieves caught on tape stealing construction equipment from northwest Dallas business Dallas County District Attorney Craig Watkins honored by Governing magazine Houston Chronicle: Woman sues Rick's Cabaret, dancer over son's death Categories
Dallas County District Attorney's Office Dallas County Sheriff's Department Harris County District Attorney's Office
dallasnews.com Blogs
|
« Report: Dallas, Fort Worth, Houston federal air marshals among dozens charged with crimes |
Main
| Dallas police seek elderly man who went missing last month »
Close observers of the Holy Land Foundation re-trial might have discerned a slight, but definite, change in the testimony this year of the defense's star witness, Edward Abington. It all has to do with a dispute between the defense team and the Central Intelligence Agency. Abington served as United States consul general in Israel from 1993 to 1997. Earlier, he also worked for the CIA, the NSA and in the Pentagon when he was in the Army. Before he retired, he rose to the No. 2 intelligence official at the State Department. Last year, he told jurors that while he was in Israel, 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. Even though jurors soon were told that Abington later became a paid consultant to the Palestinian Authority, his testimony struck at the heart of the government's case. Prosecutors allege that Holy Land sent millions of dollars to those zakat committees, and say that evidence, supplied in part by Israeli military and intelligence sources, shows they were staffed and controlled by Hamas operatives. Holy Land made $12 million in payments to these committees after 1995, the year the U.S. designated Hamas a terrorist group and outlawed all support to them, even money for humanitarian aid. In other words, if jurors don't believe Hamas controlled the zakat committees, and thus benefited directly or indirectly from Holy Land's payments to them, then there was, essentially, no crime committed. For this year's re-trial, not surprisingly, the defense again called Abington to testify. However, this time he told jurors that he was never told in any government briefings that Hamas controlled the committees. No mention of the CIA. The reason is that the week before jury selection began in mid-September, the CIA general counsel's office in Washington, D.C., informed the defense team that it objected to Abington mentioning the briefings, calling them too sensitive. In fact, even though all this came out in a public trial the year before, the CIA in effect attempted to bar Abington from mentioning pretty much anything related the agency this year, classified or not. Three days later, the defense responded. "We consider your letter objecting to Mr. Abington's testimony a blatant attempt to interfere with the defendants' Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights to present a defense," wrote Joshua Dratel, on behalf of the entire defense team, to CIA assistant general counsel Eric Broxmeyer. Dratel noted that neither the CIA nor State Department objected to Abington's testimony last year. "Defendants have a constitutional right to call Mr. Abington as fact witness without submitting a request to either the CIA or DOS," Dratel wrote. The CIA held firm. This time, they noted that they had no record of Abington seeking permission for last year's testimony, calling it "unauthorized." The Department of State's deputy legal adviser in Washington weighed in on the matter in an Oct. 2 letter. State Department's Oct. 2 letter.pdf It referenced the CIA's objection, noted that Abington also did not have permission from State to testify last year, but Ok'd his testimony this year -- so long as he didn't venture beyond what he said last year. The defense finally petitioned the judge on the flap. Defense's Oct. 20 motion arguing for Abington to testify.pdf [The document was redacted to hide references to the CIA briefings.] Ultimately, the CIA and defense team reached a compromise, which culminated in Abington testifying to almost the same thing he said last year about Hamas and the zakat committees, minus the agency reference. Of course, this jury never heard last year's testimony, so we will probably never know whether the dispute and altered testimony actually mattered. |