Targeting Muslim Charities: part of the fascist formula
Richard Moore
the Muslims.
Neither was or is a threat to the state, but an 'enemy of the state'
is needed in both cases, in order to help justify the ongoing
development of the police state.
rkm _____________
http://www.countercurrents.org/lendman231109.htm
Targeting Muslim Charities In America
By Stephen Lendman
23 November, 2009 Countercurrents.org
In a December 2008 article, this writer explained that the Texas-based
Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development (HLF) was the largest
American Muslim charity until the Bush administration bogusly
declared it an enemy of the state and shut it down.
On December 4, 2001, the Treasury Department declared HLF a terrorist
group, froze its assets, and falsely claimed they were being used
to funnel millions of dollars to Hamas. HLF's appeal was denied.
It provided vital relief to Palestinian refugees in Occupied
Palestine, Lebanon and Jordan as well as aid for the needy in Bosnia,
Albania, Chechnya, Turkey, America, and elsewhere.
Its activities included:
-- financial aid to needy and impoverished families;
-- a sponsorship program for orphaned children;
-- numerous social services;
-- educational ones;
-- medical and other emergency work; and
-- community development, including helping Palestinians rebuild
homes that Israel maliciously destroyed.
HLF described its work as follows. "We gave:
-- books, not bombs;
-- bread, not bullets;
-- smiles, not scars;
-- toys, not tanks;
-- liberty, not poverty;
-- hope, not despair;
-- love, not hate; (and)
-- life, not death.
Yet a July 27, 2004 press release accompanying a Department of
Justice (DOJ) indictment headlined: "HOLY LAND FOUNDATION, LEADERS,
ACCUSED OF PROVIDING MATERIAL SUPPORT TO HAMAS TERRORIST ORGANIZATION."
Hamas IS NOT a terrorist organization. It's the democratically
elected Palestinian government that's been maliciously maligned,
targeted, sanctioned, isolated, boycotted, attacked, and held under
a devastating Gaza siege since mid-2007.
Five HLF leaders were arrested, indicted, tried, and on November
24, 2008 convicted on 108 counts, including supporting a terrorist
organization, money laundering, and tax fraud - all bogus charges.
On May 27, 2009, sentences ranged from 15 - 65 years for the two
main principles, Ghassan Elashi and Shukri Abu Baker. Their crime
- being Muslims at the wrong time in America and providing charity
to the most needy.
An ACLU Report on Targeting Muslim Charities
In June 2009, the ACLU published a report titled, "Blocking Faith,
Freezing Charity: Chilling Muslim Charitable Giving in the 'War on
Terrorism Financing' "
It explained that:
"The government's actions have created a climate of fear that chills
American Muslims' free and full exercise of their religion through
charitable giving, or Zakat, one of the 'five pillars' of Islam and
a religious obligation for all observant Muslims." Since 9/11,
fulfilling it in America is a crime.
On September 24, 2001, George Bush announced the following:
"I have signed an Executive Order (EO 13224) that immediately freezes
United States financial assets of and prohibits United States'
transactions with 27 different entities. They include terrorist
organizations, individual terrorist leaders, a corporation that
serves as a front for terrorism and several nonprofit organizations."
In early December, the administration seized the assets of the
nation's three largest Muslim charities and shut them down - the
Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development (HLF), Global Relief
Foundation (GRF), and Benevolence International Foundation (BIF).
Earlier, HLF principles repeatedly asked government officials for
help in complying with the law, but were rebuffed.
To date, the Treasury Department has closed six Muslim charities
by designating them terrorist organizations or claiming they provided
material support to terrorism. A seventh charity was also closed
for being "under investigation." In addition, six others were raided
and and have been gravely harmed by the publicity and intrusive
surveillance. Two of them have since closed. In total since 9/11,
nine Muslims charities have been shuttered on bogus charges in
Texas, Michigan, Missouri, Illinois, Oregon, Ohio, Massachusetts,
and New York.
According to the ACLU:
"Today, the Treasury Department has virtually unchecked power to
designate groups as terrorist organizations. Terrorism financing
laws are overly broad and lack procedural safeguards that would
protect American charities against government mistake(s) and abuse."
Yet independent counterterrorism policy and court case studies show
troublesome flaws in the evidence the Treasury Department uses. A
Government Accountability Office (GAO) one, found no accountability
for Treasury designations and asset blocking. Treasury officials
even acknowledged that:
"some of the evidentiary foundations for the early designations
were quite weak (and) might (have) result(ed) in a high level of
false designations."
Yet the damage was done, forcing innocent victims into federal
prisons. The Bush administration hailed its successes, and effectively
"create(d) a general climate in which law-abiding American Muslims
fear making charitable donations in accordance with their religious
beliefs."
In interviewing Muslim donors, the ACLU:
"documented a pervasive fear that they may be arrested, prosecuted,
targeted for law enforcement interviews, subpoenaed, deported, or
denied citizenship or a green card because of (legal) charitable
donations" they feel obligated to give. Today it's impossible, and
nothing under Obama has changed.
The ACLU conducted 120 total interviews, including 115 with prominent
Muslims and others directly affected. It found that:
"US terrorism financing policies and practices (have) undermin(ed)
American Muslims' protected constitutional liberties and violat(ed)
their fundamental human rights to freedom of religion, freedom of
association, and freedom from discrimination."
Terrorism Financing Laws Impose Guilt by Association and Punish
Legitimate Humanitarian Aid
These laws cover the following:
-- alleged schemes letting the government administratively designate
organizations as terrorist and shut them down - with or without
criminal wrongdoing charges; and
-- criminally prosecuting targets on terrorist charges or for
providing material support to a terrorist organization.
In both cases, guilt by association is imposed and fundamental due
process safeguards are lacking. As a result, Muslim organizations
and individuals "are unfairly targeted in violation (of their rights
under the) First and Fifth Amendment rights and international law."
America's counterterrorism laws are seriously flawed. They:
"effectively impose guilt by association and do not provide guidance
about what is and is not prohibited. (They) punish wholly innocent
assistance to arbitrarily blacklisted individuals and organizations,
undermine legitimate humanitarian efforts, and can be used to
prosecute innocent donors who intend to support only lawful activity
through (legitimate) religious practice, humanitarian aid, speech,
or association."
The material support statute contains no exemption for humanitarian
giving, so providing food, medicines and other vital relief to the
wrong recipients can run innocent Muslims afoul of the law with no
intent whatever to violate it.
The statute provisions are so broad that even the ICRC and other
agencies like it can be prosecuted.
Charities Denied Due Process Under the Terrorism Financing Legal
Framework
It lets the Treasury Department seize assets "pending investigation"
without charges or shutter organizations on the basis of secret
evidence unavailable to defense attorneys on grounds of national
security, so there's no way to contest it or obtain meaningful
judicial review.
Following prosecutions, independent reviews have shown that evidence
used to target Muslim charities have included "rank hearsay
inadmissible in court, news articles that do not even mention the
charity in question, or intelligence that has been inaccurately and
prejudicially translated."
Independent reviews in the UK, Canada, Sweden, and Luxembourg cleared
some targeted organizations. As a result, government officials and
courts in these countries chastened US authorities for failing to
show proof in cases under review - to no avail.
Discriminatory Counterterrorism Law Enforcement against Muslim
Charities
Of the nine charities shuttered, three so far faced criminal
prosecution, only one of which was convicted, HLF. These practices
alienated US Muslims, undermined America's standing in the Muslim
world, and contributed to charges that this country baselessly
targets Muslims and Islam.
Besides the nine charities closed, at least six others were declared
"under investigation" or raided. So far, they haven't been charged
or had their assets seized, but have suffered measurably as as
result. Two of them have closed, Help the Needy in New York and
Care International in Massachusetts.
In one case, prosecutors named some of the country's largest,
mainstream Muslim organizations as unindicted co-conspirators. Even
though no crime was charged, they got no chance to defend themselves
or reputations - in clear violation of their constitutional right
to presumption of innocence.
Intimidation of Muslim Donors
Many of them said FBI agents came to their workplaces and homes for
interrogations about their charitable giving. They also complained
that when returning from abroad, Customs and Border Protection
agents subjected them to detailed questioning about their legal
contributions. Further, they were subpoenaed to testify in more
than one charity-related grand jury investigation, contributing
more to a climate of fear.
Community members were also asked to be informants at their mosques
to monitor donations there. Those refusing risk being suspected of
something to hide.
The Impact on Religious Freedom
For observant Muslims, charitable donations are a religious obligation,
yet doing it in today's climate risks guilt by association charges
or worse. The ACLU documented a pervasive fear of intimidating
surveillance, potential arrests, subpoenas to testify in a criminal
case against other Muslims, deportation, and being denied their
constitutional rights.
The Chilling Effect on Association with Muslim Community and Religious
Organizations
Mosques are central in the lives of observant Muslims. Besides
places to pray, they serve as hubs for various religious and cultural
practices, including schools, charitable giving, and youth centers.
Yet in today's climate of fear, ongoing under Obama, Muslims are
inhibited from freely practicing their religion, associations,
charitable giving, and cultural beliefs.
Collateral Consequences Undermine Countertorrism Efforts
America's war on Islam fomented enough fear to broadly alienate
Muslims, drive charitable giving underground, and fostered a profound
distrust of government and law enforcement authorities. Rightfully,
they believe fighting terrorism is a war against them.
Conclusion
Since 9/11, the Bush and Obama administrations have violated US and
international laws that enshrine freedom of religion, expression,
association, and from discrimination. America is a signatory to
numerous laws, including the International Covenant on Civil and
Political Rights and the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms
of Racial Discrimination. Violating them is anathema, yet it's done
repeatedly, especially against Muslims and Islam.
The ACLU wants it stopped and recommends policy changes to the
President, Treasury Department, Justice Department, FBI, State
Department, Congress, and against proposals to create a "white list"
of approved charities. Some include:
-- repealing Executive Order (EO) 13224 - "Blocking Property and
Prohibiting Transactions with Persons Who Commit, Threaten to Commit,
or Support Terrorism;"
-- a new EO requiring watch list name verification by credible
evidence of terrorist ties and quarterly reviews to keep current;
-- setting time limits on frozen funds, after which beneficiaries
must receive them;
-- prohibiting racial profiling;
-- ending public raids on charities under investigation and
intimidating Muslims;
-- ceasing intrusive investigations without substantive cause to
conduct them;
-- assuring the rule of law is scrupulously followed at all times;
and
-- avoid "white lists" of approved charities that could be biased
in favor of some at the expense of others, based on religion,
political affiliation, or other factors.
The ACLU also says that current laws:
"prohibiting material support for terrorism are in desperate need
of re-evaluation and reform. (They) punish wholly innocent assistance
to arbitrarily blacklisted individuals and organizations, undermine
legitimate humanitarian efforts, and can be used to prosecute
innocent donors who intend to support only lawful activity through
religious practice, humanitarian aid, speech, or association."
Federal Prosecutors Seize Four US Mosques and a Fifth Ave. Office
Tower
On November 12, the AP headlined, "US Moves to Seize 4 Mosques and
Skyscraper Tied to Iran," saying, but not proving, they're "owned
by a nonprofit Muslim organization long suspected of being secretly
controlled by the Iranian government."
In its ongoing war against Islam and hostility toward Iran, federal
prosecutors filed a civil complaint in federal court against the
Alavi Foundation seeking forfeiture of more than $500 million in
assets that include bank accounts, Islamic center schools and mosques
in New York City, Maryland, California and Houston, over 100 acres
in Virginia, and a 36-story New York office tower.
On November 12, a Justice Department (DOJ) press release headlined,
"Manhattan US Attorney Files Civil Action Seeking Forfeiture of
Alavi Foundation's Interest in Fifth Avenue Office Tower Controlled
by Iran." It continued saying:
"The Building is owned by 650 Fifth Avenue Company, a partnership
between the Alavi Foundation and Assa Corporation." An earlier
December 2008 complaint was filed. Today's amended it seeking
forfeiture of Assa's interest in the building.
"The amended Complaint alleges that the Alavi Foundation has been
providing numerous services to the Iranian Government and transferring
funds from 650 Fifth Avenue Company to Bank Melli, a bank wholly
owned and controlled by (Iran)."
The property forfeitures mentioned above were also listed "as the
proceeds of violations of the International Emergency Economic
Powers Act (IEEPA)....together with Executive Orders (12957, 12959,
13059, 12938, and 13382, Treasury) regulations, and as property
involved in and the proceeds of money laundering offenses."
Alavi was charged with managing the building for Iran and running
a charitable organization for its government. Assa was accused of
"providing numerous services to Bank Melli in contravention of IEEPA
and the Iranian Transactions Regulations promulgated thereunder...."
For 36 years, the Alavi Foundation has been an independent charitable
organization promoting better understanding of Islamic culture "by
financially supporting charitable and philanthropic causes through
educational, religious, and cultural programs."
Its eight core programs include:
-- "grants to colleges and universities;
-- donations to Persian schools;
-- donations and loans to Islamic organizations;
-- free distribution of Islamic books;
-- donations for disaster relief funds;
-- support of the arts;
-- scholarly research; (and)
-- student loans."
It's no accident that the Obama administration renewed Iranian
sanctions on the same day Alavi was targeted, just days after the
Fort Hood tragedy, and two weeks after Iran rejected a proposal to
hand over up to 80% of its low-enriched uranium in return for a
promise for 120 km of highly-enriched fissionable material more
than a year later.
Iran's Press TV reported the announcement as follows:
"The seizure of the places of worship is seen as a blow to the very
first amendment to the United States Constitution in which freedom
of worship is enshrined and guaranteed as an inalienable right of
all its citizens. On (November 12), US President, Barack Obama,
renewed Washington's economic sanctions against Iran for another
year despite talks of trying to seek a 'new beginning' with the
Islamic Republic....Iran has been under US sanction since the 1979
Islamic Revolution toppled the country US-backed monarch, Mohammad
Reza Pahlavi."
On November 15, AP headlined that "Iran Condemns US Mosque Seizure"
calling the act "disgraceful." Parliament Speaker Ali Larijani said
it showed Obama is the same as George Bush. He told parliament:
"Extension of sanctions and restrictions against Iran for another
year by the American president and the blocking the accounts and
assets of the Alavi Foundation in America is a real disgrace."
In a later radio broadcast he added:
"After a year of empty speeches and slogans, the behavior and conduct
of this president in practice is no better than the actions of his
predecessor. The recent actions of this country (America), presenting
unimportant and irrational proposals in the nuclear issue which
they have called just and fair, all indicate that the alleged change
was nothing but a deceitful symbol aimed at deceiving naive
politicians."
John Winter, Alavi lawyer, said he'll contest the seizure and expects
to prevail because it's blatantly illegal. He explained that the
foundation has been cooperating with the government's investigation
for nearly a year and added:
"Obviously the foundation is disappointed that the government has
decided to bring this action." Doing so will further alienate Muslims
globally and fuel more anti-American sentiment.
On November 13, Houston Chronicle writers Moises Mendoza, Mary Flood
and Lindsay Wise headlined, "Muslims decry move to seize Houston
mosque,"
referring to the Islamic Education Center (IEC) of Houston where
the city's Shia Muslims worship and send their children to an Islamic
school.
Board chairman Faheem Kazimi said IEC leases the building from the
Alavi Foundation, but has no other connection. "The Islamic Education
Center is a nonprofit independent organization, not affiliated with
any other (one)." John Floyd, IEC's lawyer, said he spoke to New
York prosecutors who apologized for the timing so close to the Fort
Hood tragedy. He added that:
"The government said they are not interested in any of the leaseholders
or tenants and they see the (IEC) as another lease holder."
Nonetheless, distraught worshippers milled around the Center on
November 12 avoiding reporters and guarding the gated entrance.
Others were concerned about a community backlash and possibility
they'll lose their mosque and school. And according to Hussein Abdi
who's worshipped at IEC for two decades:
"It makes me furious. We're under attack" for being Muslims.
IEC's web site says the following:
It "serves the community as a center for the Friday congregation,
Islamic celebrations, community programs, and above all - a center
for imparting knowledge about Islam and promoting Islamic values.
(It tries) to inform and educate non-Muslims and Muslims about
Islam, and to provide information about Islam on varying levels of
inquiry...." It preaches love, not hate, and is has no connection
to terrorism.
Ibrahim Hooper, spokesperson for the Muslim civil liberties and
advocacy group, Council on American Islamic Relation (CAIR), told
Democracy Now's Amy Goodman and Juan Gonzales that seizing four
mosques and other US properties has First Amendment and religious
freedom implications. With special concern got the mosques he said:
"And whenever you're having the government seize houses of worship,
whether it's mosques or churches or synagogues, I think that has a
chilling effect on the First Amendment freedom of religion, and I
think it'll send a very negative message to the Muslim world....I'm
already seeing (online) headlines in Muslim media around the world,
in the Arab world (saying): "US Government Seizes Mosques in America."
He expressed concern about US headlines like a Sacramento, CA one
saying:
"Local Mosque Tied to Terror." It has about 50 families that "have
nothing to do with terrorism....they just go to the mosque (to)
pray."
We've also "seen charity after charity shut down, the assets seized.
You know, there's really not a lot left in terms of institutions
for charitable giving in the United States, given the eight years
of the Bush administration. And, you know, quite frankly, we haven't
seen a great improvement under the Obama administration."
After Fort Hood, Muslims have felt a backlash nationwide. "We had
the police at our headquarters last night taking a report about
death threats we've received." They've been many other reports about
intimidation, Muslims called terrorists, and a "lot of hate emails,
a lot of threats around the country,"
and anti-Muslim rhetoric on right-wing talk radio, what's been
ongoing since 9/11.
9/11 Suspects to Get New York Civil Court Trial with No Prospect
for Due Process or Judicial Fairness
On November 13, Reuters reported that:
"The accused mastermind of the September 11 attacks and four
co-conspirators will be sent to New York for trial in a court near
the site of the World Trade Centre. (Civil liberties) advocates
hailed the decision....but Republicans lashed out, arguing that
bringing them to US soil could make New York a magnet for new attacks
and that the men deserved military trials." Senator John McCain
condemned the decision saying they're "war criminals, who committed
acts of war against our citizens and those of dozens of other
nations."
Some New Yorkers were also "angry at the prospect of the men coming
to a city traumatized by the hijacked-plane attacks eight years
ago, but others voiced relief that justice may soon be done." They'll
arrive in January, be held at a federal detention facility, and be
tried on confessions obtained under torture that the Supreme Court
ruled constitutionally inadmissible in Brown v.
Mississippi (February 1936), saying:
"The rack and torture chamber may not be substituted for the witness
stand."
It cited an earlier Fisher v. State (November 1926) High Court
decision, stating:
"Coercing the supposed state's criminals into confessions and using
such confessions so coerced from them against them in trials has
been the curse of all countries. It was the chief iniquity, the
crowning infamy of the Star Chamber (the nororious 15th - 17th
century English court), and the Inquisition, and other similar
institutions. The Constitution recognized the evils that lay behind
these practices and prohibited them in this country....wherever the
court is clearly satisfied that such violations exist, it will
refuse to sanction such violation and will apply the corrective."
The alleged guilt of these men is very suspect given that they
confessed under torture. More evidence also raises doubts. According
to Mark Denebeaux and other Seton Hall University Law professors,
unclassified government data obtained through Freedom of Information
Act (FOIA) requests revealed evidentiary summaries from 2004 military
hearings on whether 517 Guantanamo detainees were enemy combatants.
They showed that:
-- at most, few Afghan Guantanamo prisoners committed violent acts;
-- 95% were seized by bounty hunters paid $5,000 per claimed Taliban
and $25,000 for alleged Al Queda members; and
-- 20 were children, some as young as 13, but all were brutally
tortured as later revealed.
Serious questions thus remain regarding the claimed guilt of these
suspects, including the alleged mastermind, Khalid Shaikh Mohammed.
He had:
-- no lawyer;
-- was isolated at black sites for over two years, including the
secret "Dark Prison" near Kabul International Airport, infamous for
its absolute lack of light combined with brutalizing torture;
-- another north of Kabul called the "Salt Pit," where in 2002, a
detainee was stripped naked and left chained to the floor in freezing
temperatures until he died;
-- while in Afghanistan, Mohammed was hog-tied, stripped naked,
hooded, and abused repeatedly in numerous ways, including being:
-- kept in a prolonged state of sensory deprivation for months;
-- waterboarded numerous times;
-- chained naked to a metal ring in his cell in a painful crouch
in intense heat and extreme cold;
-- bombarded with deafening sounds round the clock for weeks;
-- thrown against walls forcefully, a procedure called walling;
-- suspended from the ceiling by his arms so his toes barely touched
the ground;
-- beaten with electric cables;
-- given electric shocks; and
-- forced to endure a variety of stress positions for extended
periods, causing excruciating pain until;
-- in 2006, he was sent to Guantanamo where his torture continued,
included being waterboarded over 180 times. The other four suspects
received similar treatment.
An ICRC report said high-level Al Queda prisoners were repeatedly
tortured, especially Mohammed for his alleged mastermind role. To
exact a confession he was told: "We're not going to kill you. But
we're going to take you to the brink of your death and back."
Whether he and the others plotted 9/11 must seriously be questioned
given that international law is clear and unequivocal. Torture is
prohibited at all times, under all circumstances, with no allowed
exceptions. Evidence so obtained is unreliable and inadmissible as
explained above. Yet, it will be used making a proper defense
impossible, especially from court-appointed lawyers, picked to give
prosecutors an open field to convict.
What chance then have these men (or Major Malik Nadal Hasan, the
alleged Fort Hood shooter) for due process and judicial fairness
when prosecutors have pre-determined their guilt. The media-driven
court of public opinion already convicted them, and responsible
attorneys are now intimidated by the incarceration of human rights
lawyer Lynne Stewart for defending an unpopular client, at the
request of former US Attorney General Ramzy Clark.
Yet due process is enshrined in US constitutional law. The Fifth
Amendment (applied to the federal government) says:
"No person shall....be deprived of life, liberty, or property without
due process of law....;" and
The Fourteenth Amendment (applied to the states) reads:
No "State (may) deprive any person of life, liberty, or property,
without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its
jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
In 1770, a future US president, John Adams, applied the principle
by defending eight British soldiers charged with killing five
Americans on March 5, 1770, the so-called Boston Massacre, even
though he knew it might jeopardize his law practice. Initially it
suffered, but over time his reputation grew enough to make him
George Washington's Vice President, then the second President of
the United States.
Adams later called his effort "one of the most gallant, generous,
manly, and disinterested actions of my whole life, and one of the
best pieces of service I ever rendered my country." The jury acquitted
six of the eight soldiers, convicting the other two for manslaughter.
Juries today are intimidated to convict anyone charged with terrorism
or conspiracy to commit it. It means no one so charged has a chance,
even with expert counsel these suspects won't have.
They'll get subservient court-appointed ones, but either way, who'll
put their careers on the line for them, try explaining why they're
defending "jidahists," be willing to deal with the torrent of media
abuse, besides risk possible future targeting and incarceration
like Lynne Stewart.
Who'll take on the government full-force, demand due process and
judicial fairness, that witch-hunt prosecutions stop, and that no
one be pre-determined guilty like these men. Who understands that,
in a climate of fear and intimidation, we're all as vulnerable as
they are for being Muslims at the wrong time in America.
Stephen Lendman is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research
on Globalization. He lives in Chicago and can be reached at
lendman...@sbcglobal.net<mailto:lendman...@sbcglobal.net>.
Also visit his blog site sjlendman.blogspot.com and listen to The
Global Research News Hour on RepublicBroadcasting.org Monday -
Friday at 10AM US Central time for cutting-edge discussions with
distinguished guests on world and national issues. All programs are
archived for easy listening.
___________________________ subscribe mailto:
newslog+...@googlegroups.com<mailto:newslog+...@googlegroups.com>
websites:
http://www.governourselves.org/ http://escapingthematrix.org/
http://thecreditbankdevelopmentmodel.blogspot.com/ http://cyberjournal.org
archives:
http://groups.google.com/group/newslog/topics
http://groups.google.com/group/cyberjournal/topics
Moderator: r...@quaylargo.com<mailto:r...@quaylargo.com> (comments
welcome)
__._,_.___
Your email settings: Individual Email|Traditional Change settings
via the
Web<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/newslog/join;_ylc=X3oDMTJnOGdsb3VmBF9TAzk3N
Dc2NTkwBGdycElkAzIwMTUzOTc2BGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNTA2MDQ3MQRzZWMDZnRyBHNsawNzdG5ncw
RzdGltZQMxMjU5MDAwNTc3> (Yahoo! ID required) Change settings via
email: Switch delivery to Daily
Digest<mailto:newslog...@yahoogroups.com?subject=Email%20Delivery:%20Dige
st> | Switch to Fully
Featured<mailto:newslog-fu...@yahoogroups.com?subject=Change%20Deliver
y%20Format:%20Fully%20Featured> Visit Your Group
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/newslog;_ylc=X3oDMTJlazhnMjE2BF9TAzk3NDc2NTkwB
GdycElkAzIwMTUzOTc2BGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNTA2MDQ3MQRzZWMDZnRyBHNsawNocGYEc3RpbWUDMT
I1OTAwMDU3Nw--> | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use
<http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> | Unsubscribe
<mailto:newslog-u...@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe>
__,_._,___