CAIR and the Islamic Society of North America have been mistakenly (or deceptively) celebrating a recent court ruling. Contra the misrepresentations that a United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit, legal opinion issued October 20, 2010, "...complicates arguments by some conservative and pro-Israel groups that the Council on American Islamic Relations and the Islamic Society of North America have been tainted by the co-conspirator label," the court simply ruled that the government should not have released into the public domain a document it attached in May, 2007 to a brief the government referred to as a list of unindicted co-conspirators in the Holy Land Foundation terrorism financing case.
The opinion was not a vindication for the myriad US Muslim Brotherhood front groups-an alphabet-soup of cultural jihadist organizations-and their witless enablers within our media and political "elites." Here is the conclusion of the Fifth US Appeals Court [i.e., UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. HOLY LAND FOUNDATION FOR RELIEF AND DEVELOPMENT ET AL NORTH AMERICAN ISLAMIC TRUST (NAIT) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee v. HOLY LAND FOUNDATION FOR RELIEF AND DEVELOPMENT, ET AL, Defendants NORTH AMERICAN ISLAMIC TRUST, Movant-Appellant 09-10875 No. October 20, 2010] decision:
...[W]e simply note that the district court included discussion of issues that were not relevant to the disposition of the motion, which is obviously not a criminal adjudication. Any other conclusion on this record, beyond this narrow determination, would be legally premature.
NAIT seeks two additional forms of relief. First, it asks that we "publicly affirm" the district court's conclusion that its rights were violated. Second, it asks that we order that the district court make a public declaration that NAIT's rights were violated. As to the first request, we cannot affirm or reverse the district court's holding that NAIT's rights were violated, because the Government has not appealed it. The district court's ruling on that issue is the final determination thereof. As to the second request, it would be unnecessary to require the district court to make a public declaration of its earlier Fifth Amendment conclusion, because that conclusion will itself be public when the district court's opinion and order is unsealed.
For the foregoing reasons, we REVERSE the district court's order only insofar as it requires that the opinion and order be sealed. All other requests for relief are DENIED.
Hat tip Lori Lowenthal Marcus, at Z-Street.