US mosques and New York skyscraper seized over alleged Iran links

(The Guardian, Friday 13 November 2009)

Federal investigators moved to seize four mosques in the US and a skyscraper in Manhattan yesterday over their alleged financial aid to Iran, in an extraordinary step likely to worsen relations between Washington and Tehran.

Prosecutors in Manhattan filed a civil complaint in the federal court seeking the forfeiture of more than $500m in assets of the Alavi Foundation, which describes itself as a charitable foundation, and a company, Assa.

The mosques are in New York City, Maryland, California and Texas.

Prosecutors claim that the foundation and the company have been engaged in money laundering, with the cash sent back to Tehran.

The move could be designed to punish the Tehran government at a time when its relations with the US are already strained over Iran's alleged nuclear weapons programme.

But the Obama administration also risks incurring the anger of American Muslims if the mosques, all Shia, are seized. The takeover of mosques would also raise constitutional questions around the right of freedom to religion.

............

I have been pondering the implications of this action. What will happen is this - the seizures will result in the case going into the courts, and the questions raised are constitutional.

Can the government seize a house of worship?

I think the eventual outcome will be that the courts will rule the action unconstitituional. No matter what you think of Muslims or Islam, it will happen.

Let's examine a parallel action, wholly hypothetical, of course.

Suppose that a Catholic diocese had to settle a sexual abuse case or cases. Let's say that a group of predator priests had buggered children over decades and the lawyers went after damages from the church. Then let's assume the courts ordered (as a settlement) that the church must pay damages to the abused individuals.

Suppose now that the church did not pay those damages. The government then steps in and seizes the parish churches and auctions off the properties in order to raise the cash to satisfy the damage awards.

Now, would you agree to that? The seizure of church properties would be tossed out by any court in the land as unconstitutional.

What is the difference here? Yes, the seized mosques are not Christian, but that makes no difference. They are houses of worship, and the constitution says "hands off" to government interference in the right to worship. Seizing any house of worship violates the U.S. Constitution.

So we are looking at a dilemma that will take a long time to play out. Hopefully, by then, the Iranian government will be in better hands and the Shia worshippers will get their properties back.

As for the commercial 30-story building, that is another case. It is not a house of worship. It must be held in trust until the differences with the Iranians has been settled.

Whether or not you don't like Muslims, Islam or Shia worshippers has no bearing on the legality of this case. What matters is the questions raised by the actions and whether or not those actions are Constitutional.

What is your opinion?