Peloni: The only question which rises to mind in reading Leonard’s important analysis here is why these laws have yet to be employed in the past 10 months following the Trump administration returning to power? Where is AG Bondi? Where is FBI Director Patel? Are they not aware of the legal tools which have always been open to them to stem the violence which they have purportedly been fighting? In failing to act as described in this article, are either of them influenced by their own respective ties to Qatar, or is it simple incompetence? Fighting terrorism with every possible means available is a vital national interests, so why is the US not yet doing so?
The danger is real, as demonstrated by the horrible murderous terrorist attacks on US soil, including the most recent one on the National Guard soldiers this Thanksgiving. The US gov’t has legal grounds to stop it – now.
US President Trump’s Executive Order (EO), initiating the process whereby various subdivisions of the Muslim Brotherhood (MB) are each to be designated as a Foreign Terrorist Organization (FTO), as well as for specially designating persons as global terrorists, is indicative of the complexity of this undertaking.
The MB is not organized like a US public company entity, with a formal corporate structure, including legal subsidiaries and affiliates, as disclosed in public filings and subject to regulation.
Instead, the MB ostensibly is loosely organized to mask its malign activities and frustrate the taking of appropriate criminal and civil enforcement action under US law, including seizing assets. Activists, with a common purpose and some form of common funding, are bound together through coordination and collaboration, often by means of players associated with a Foreign Terrorist Organization (FTO), like Hamas, PFLP or Hezbollah, or otherwise supporting any of them or their nefarious agendas.
The web of deceit also includes various types of so-called splinter groups, which nevertheless benefit from material and financial support that can be traced back to the MB or linked organizations or individuals. This includes recruitment of personnel, training, indoctrination, and propaganda materials (including posters, pamphlets and scripts with talking points, slogans and directions for use), as well as funding sources and contacts.
As was proven in the prosecution of the Holy Land Foundation (HLF) case, the MB roots run deep and the Foundation, using some of the techniques described above, was effectively the umbrella organization for many acting in material support of Hamas in the US. Indeed, it is reported that the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) and other US-based Islamist organizations, including Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP), Within Our Lifetime (WOL) and American Muslims for Palestine (AMP), have similar links and collaborative ties. The common goals are support for Hamas and an anti-US/Israel agenda, with coordination and collaboration employed to achieve these malign purposes.
The reality of how terrorist organizations and their agents, associates, affiliates and supporters function in practice speaks to the need for more than just the formal listing of the name of an organization, like the MB, as a FTO. A more functional definition is required, as is provided in the US Anti-Terrorism Act (Act) found in 18 USC 2339A-2339B, discussed below. In this regard, presumptive indicia of affiliation can be helpful, such as following the money, a particularly effective means of identification. Similarly, evidence of coordination is a red flag.
A good example of this linkage in practice is the symbiotic virtual uprising that occurred on many US college campuses in support of Hamas and its goals after the appalling atrocities committed by FTO Hamas on October 7, 2023.
The playbook followed was developed in coordination with Hamas or its sponsors and cohorts, including harassment of and assaults on Jews, abhorrent signs and rhythmic chants calling for the destruction of Israel, as well as the US. Support was loudly expressed for Hamas’ goal of the elimination of Israel and Jews by any means possible. Hamas’ horrendous atrocities, including sadistic sexual assaults, were rebranded, celebrated and justified as acts of resistance.
There was a virtual epidemic of hate, harassment and even violence targeting Jews, in the guise of marches, encampments and occupations of buildings effectively barring Jews from use of campus facilities. Disruption of traffic on the streets of major cities was also a common feature, as well as harassment, intimidation and even violent outbreaks.
The shocking conduct in support of Hamas was not limited to students. Professors and other staff at the colleges and universities also participated or promoted the Hamasnik program. Others defended the offenders and insulated them from any meaningful accountability for their obnoxious and often illegal behavior.
The nexus to FTO Hamas raises important national security concerns within the purview of the Act. Under the Act, it is prohibited to provide material support or resources to an FTO like Hamas.
It is also suggested that focusing on the Hamas nexus is an extremely effective and useful tool to deal with the problem identified in the Executive Order, of an otherwise diffuse national security threat, represented by the MB. Slogans like ‘Globalize the Intifada’ should be seen in this context. Those invoking them, in coordination with others and following scripts, receiving some form of payment, handing out printed materials promoting the Hamas agenda, advocating for or otherwise defending Hamas or its malign activities may indeed be subject to enforcement under the Act, as outlined below.
To better understand the seriousness of the situation, it is important to understand some of the statutory legalese used in the Act. The term ‘material support or resources’ is one of a series of statutory terms of art that are defined in the Act (18 USC 2339A) and refined by the Courts, as summarized below. Thus, ‘material support or services’ includes financial services, personnel, training, expert advice or assistance; ‘training’ means instruction or teaching designed to impart a specific skill, as opposed to general knowledge; and ‘personnel’ refers to one or more individuals working under the FTO’s direction or control, which is qualified to mean not entirely independently.
In essence, only those individuals who act ‘entirely independently’ of the FTO to advance its goals or objectives are not considered to be working under the FTO’s direction and control (18 USC 2339B (h)).
To violate the Act, the person does not have to be an actual terrorist employed by the FTO. He or she must merely have knowledge that the organization is an FTO and provide it with any such ‘material support or resources’.
Courts have interpreted the terms noted above broadly. Thus for example, the Federal Court in US v Jama (217 F.Supp 3rd 882 of 2016) considered the ambit of the term ‘personnel’ under the Act and concluded:
“Congress plainly intended for courts to consider the nature of an individual’s actions broadly in relation to the overall goals of the terrorist organization in determining whether someone is to be deemed part of that organization. On the other hand, Congress also clearly envisioned that courts would not apply the material support statute to those engaged merely in independent advocacy or only isolated, marginal, or tangentially related activities relative to the FTO.”
The Court noted that:
“Rather, Congress intended to reach all persons who act on behalf of an FTO to further its goals and objectives in significant ways.”
Thus, the Act goes beyond just those who are formally a part of the internal command and control structure of the FTO. It also includes individuals who advance the FTO’s goals or objectives. The only exception is for individuals who are truly acting entirely independently, which means the individual’s actions cannot be directed by or coordinated with others associated with the FTO or its representatives.
Receiving any payment also vitiates independence. The nature and extent of the individual’s contacts with those acting on behalf of the FTO, or the individual’s identification with the FTO may also impair independence.
The US Supreme Court, in its 2010 decision in Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project (561 U.S. 1), upheld the constitutionality of the Anti-Terrorism Act. It also analyzed various activities such as engaging in political advocacy on behalf of a FTO and properly determined that it was prohibited. Similarly, training members in how to use the law or engage in other activities to further the goals of the FTO.
In essence, concerted activities like political advocacy in furtherance of the goals of or for the benefit of a FTO are covered by the Act. (This is to be distinguished from an individual voicing a purely personal position entirely independently, without any coordination with others who are coordinating directly or indirectly with the FTO or acting for the benefit of the FTO or in furtherance of the FTO’s agenda.) Receiving any payment also destroys any semblance of independence and similarly if done for the benefit of another or in coordination with someone directing the effort.
Any connection directly or indirectly to the FTO or any foreign group should raise a red flag that independence has been undermined, in whole or in part. Indeed, as the Court recognized, independently advocating for a cause is different from providing a service to a group advocating for that cause.
The Court also noted how terrorist groups systematically conceal their activities behind charitable, social and political fronts. Material support in any form also includes straining the US’ relationships with its allies, like Israel, and undermining cooperative efforts between nations to prevent terrorist attacks.
Other questionable conduct includes enlisting and training students and others, who reportedly receive some form of payment, to act in support of an FTO or its goals. The enlistees are encouraged to participate in actions that disrupt campus life and events on campus or in the local community, intimidate and harass bystanders and misuse the legal and political system. This includes lobbying or advocating for or on behalf of an FTO, in furtherance of its goals or to legitimize it.
Within Our Lifetime (WOL), a Palestinian Arab-led organization acting mainly in NYC, has openly expressed its support for Hamas saying it supports resistance “in all its forms. By any means necessary. With no exceptions.” Since October 7th, WOL has organized rallies across New York City, calling for people to “flood” a given location, echoing Hamas’ naming of the October 7 massacre on Israel as “Operation Al-Aqsa Flood”. It has scripted protests on college campuses and across New York City. It is critical to appreciate that WOL has partnered with Samidoun, which has been sanctioned by the US Treasury as a sham charity that serves as an international fundraiser for the FTO PFLP.
A shocking example of coordination and literally scripting is a handbill reportedly circulated by Harvard Faculty and Staff for Justice in Palestine (FJP), allied with SJP, which calls for a sickout and suggests scripts for calling out sick or talking to a union rep. The pre-programmed remarks are obnoxious blood libels about genocide, which have been thoroughly debunked, and the need for a mental health day or personal day to recover from the emotional and physical toll. This appears to be a part of a broader coordinated effort to have a sick out (No Work, No School) in New York City, sponsored by the ubiquitous WOL.
Both FJP and SJP also reportedly have links to FTO’s Hamas and PFLP. Professors and others on staffs at colleges have also reportedly been involved in prohibited activities under the Act. Some are directly or indirectly recipients of grants funded by Qatar or other foreign sources that support FTO’s. Indeed, it has been reported that the Iranian regime (the parent of the FTO IRGC) has been funding many of the campus disturbances. As Director of National Intelligence Avril Haine noted in her statement dated July 9, 2024:
“In recent weeks, Iranian government actors have sought to opportunistically take advantage of ongoing protests regarding the war in Gaza, using a playbook we’ve seen other actors use over the years. We have observed actors tied to Iran’s government posing as activists online, seeking to encourage protests, and even providing financial support to protesters.”
There are also reportedly Qatar-funded groups that are orchestrating protests that support FTO Hamas.
The danger is real; as demonstrated by the horrible murderous terrorist attacks that have occurred on US soil, including the most recent one on the National Guard soldiers in Washington DC, this Thanksgiving.
It’s long past time to take appropriate legal action to enforce the Act. We must take back control of our campuses and the streets of our cities from FTOs and their agents and supporters in the US.
Why do we have to “define” what is and what is not the defacto “Muslim Brotherhood”???
The truth is that those muslims who regularly attend their mosques are without a doubt aware of the teachings of the Koran. Their collective mindset is that ultimately (asap) the kuffars have to be conquered and either killed or enslaved.
And – I hate to say this – it looks as if “Democracy” will help them do it, at least as currently implemented.