Comments on: USF Professor acquitted

USF Professor acquitted

whatgorilla — Wed, 07 Dec 2005 18:12:48 -0800

USF Professor acquitted of terrorism charges -- After being in prison for 3 years--much of that time in solitary confinement--Sami Al-Arian was acquitted today of 8 "key charges" (there was a hung jury on 9 other charges). In all, there was not one guilty verdict out of the 51 charges against Al-Arian and the three other men. The prosecution brought forth 80 witnesses and recorded over 20,000 hours of tapped phone calls--the defense didn't call a single witness. Now the government is trying to decide whether to retry him on the nine counts or to deport him to Israel--a move his attorney is calling "totally vindictive."

By: whatgorilla

whatgorilla — Wed, 07 Dec 2005 18:13:30 -0800

Be gentle. ::cringes:: First post.

By: five fresh fish

five fresh fish — Wed, 07 Dec 2005 18:19:35 -0800

What a great time to be American.

By: kickingtheground

kickingtheground — Wed, 07 Dec 2005 18:20:49 -0800

Um, there is a difference between deportation and extradition.

By: darkness

darkness — Wed, 07 Dec 2005 18:22:00 -0800

The prosecution took nearly five months to present its case, which included testimony from nearly 80 witnesses. Finally given a chance to respond, here's what Al-Arian's attorney told the judge: "On behalf of Dr. Al-Arian, the defense rests." Brilliant, simpily brilliant.

By: Paris Hilton

Paris Hilton — Wed, 07 Dec 2005 18:22:27 -0800

I doubt the government wants to go through another 5 month ordeal, they'll probably not try him again. And deport him to Israel? He's not a Citizen?

By: mek

mek — Wed, 07 Dec 2005 18:23:59 -0800

By: mek

mek — Wed, 07 Dec 2005 18:29:16 -0800

oh noes, i got owned.

By: whatgorilla

whatgorilla — Wed, 07 Dec 2005 18:30:44 -0800

Yeah, they used the term "deport" at the last article linked. Many of the articles I've read keep saying 'this proves the American justice system works,' but I still can't help but see a guy who lost his job, 3 years of his life, and is now being kicked out of America (if he's not retried and found guilty). Why do I hate our freedom so?!

By: spunk

spunk — Wed, 07 Dec 2005 18:32:56 -0800

the reason he was acquitted was because the jury had no idea what they were listening to. they didn't understand a thing. the hearing was way too long for them and the judge's instructions were over 90 pages long. the trial was over 6 months long, 6 months of bahbahbahbah. i bet there're glad it's finally over and don't get chosen for the the next trial after the appeal.

By: jeffburdges

jeffburdges — Wed, 07 Dec 2005 18:40:27 -0800

Here is a good comment on the purpose behind thw whole jury system (see the last one). "I sat in that room for six months. Until you've sat through something like this . . . you cannot sit in your car or at your house and determine guilt." Seems like a good thing to think about, especially after all those rape FPPs. BTW, one of the really good ideas for governmental reform is the deliberative opinion poll, it would essentially be a trial by jury for every law bassed by a legislature, congress, parliament, etc.

By: Balisong

Balisong — Wed, 07 Dec 2005 18:41:06 -0800

Does he want to kill me or not?

By: mr_roboto

mr_roboto — Wed, 07 Dec 2005 18:41:26 -0800

the reason he was acquitted was because the jury had no idea what they were listening to. they didn't understand a thing. the hearing was way too long for them and the judge's instructions were over 90 pages long. the trial was over 6 months long, 6 months of bahbahbahbah. There have been plenty of convictions in federal racketeering trials of similar length and complexity.

By: sacrilicious

sacrilicious — Wed, 07 Dec 2005 18:56:18 -0800

Jurors say they were strongly affected by the jury instructions. In particular, they kept returning to these words: "Our law does not criminalize beliefs or mere membership in an organization. A person who is in sympathy with the legitimate aim of an organization but does not intend to accomplish that aim by a resort to illegal activity is not punished for adherence to lawful purposes of speech." That's a good reminder. The government needs to keep this in mind or we may be in danger of entering into a new McCarthyism. (Nice post.)

By: narebuc

narebuc — Wed, 07 Dec 2005 18:59:50 -0800

What's funny is that this trial probably helped turn a Senate race in Florida last year -- as Mel Martinez (Republican) beat (former USF President) Betty Castor as he accused her pro-Al-Arian, and, so, of course, under Republican logic -- pro-terror. She was not really a big defender of him....but at any rate, this verdict puts a new spin on stuff.

By: Rothko

Rothko — Wed, 07 Dec 2005 19:04:39 -0800

If they deport, he had better hope he doesn't have get on a plane to fly over to Israel. It's apparently dangerous to fly with a suntan, these days.

By: darkstar

darkstar — Wed, 07 Dec 2005 19:13:55 -0800

So, the guy is innocent. Did he at least get an apology and compensation from someone for being put through the ordeal? /in a better world

By: spunk

spunk — Wed, 07 Dec 2005 19:14:40 -0800

seriously though, can you spend 6 months trying to figure out if this guy is guilty? listening to hundreds of hours, of taped conversations, through an interpreter. are you even allowed to take notes? and how much do much do jurors make?

By: ahughey

ahughey — Wed, 07 Dec 2005 19:16:39 -0800

Academic Freedom, Due Process, and Sami al-Arian at USF

By: mathowie

mathowie — Wed, 07 Dec 2005 19:17:41 -0800

Dan Gillmor had a great point, his argument that the headlines should instead say

In a major victory for civil liberties, a jury in Florida deadlocked on or rejected outright 51 criminal charges brought agains a former professor and three co-defendants whose stands on Middle East issues led to a test case of recently passed "anti-terrorism" laws that defense lawyers say were designed to curb unpopular speech.

By: jeffburdges

jeffburdges — Wed, 07 Dec 2005 19:22:03 -0800

spunk, Here is an f-ing hint, the accused is innocent if the entire defense is "On behalf of Dr. Al-Arian, the defense rests."

By: deadfather

deadfather — Wed, 07 Dec 2005 19:31:08 -0800

What's funny is that this trial probably helped turn a Senate race in Florida last year -- as Mel Martinez (Republican) beat (former USF President) Betty Castor as he accused her pro-Al-Arian, and, so, of course, under Republican logic -- pro-terror. Well, then. Let me just say. Ahem. Fuck, Martinez. Fuck, fuck, Martinez.

By: photoslob

photoslob — Wed, 07 Dec 2005 20:06:18 -0800

The St. Petersburg Times has ton of great background info on the Al-Arian story including a great piece on the verdict and the jurors involved.

By: mystyk

mystyk — Wed, 07 Dec 2005 20:12:35 -0800

That is certainly the best defense argument I've ever heard. It doesn't necessarily mean the accused is innocent, but it certainly casts a picture about the strength of the evidence for their guilt.

By: photoslob

photoslob — Wed, 07 Dec 2005 20:16:54 -0800

Also worth noting is the part the Tampa Tribune played in prosecution's case against Al-Arian.

By: mystyk

mystyk — Wed, 07 Dec 2005 20:17:16 -0800

Still, this proves that when given a chance, our judicial system largely works. Therefore, what we need to worry about is when other branches of government place limits on the judiciary by, say, getting rid of the writ of habeas corpus.....

By: five fresh fish

five fresh fish — Wed, 07 Dec 2005 20:22:09 -0800

Largely works? If it "largely works" then this poor bastard wouldn't have been largely incarcerated these past three years on trumped bullshit charges that exist only because the rat bastards who run your country are taking advantage of every fucking opportunity to enact overly broad and aggressive laws against everything the US Constitution has held near and dear these past few hundred years. For fucks sake, don't excuse this sort of shit.

By: delmoi

delmoi — Wed, 07 Dec 2005 20:31:08 -0800

If they deport, he had better hope he doesn't have get on a plane to fly over to Israel. It's apparently dangerous to fly with a suntan, these days. Only if you're bipolar and off your meds. seriously though, can you spend 6 months trying to figure out if this guy is guilty? listening to hundreds of hours, of taped conversations, through an interpreter. are you even allowed to take notes? and how much do much do jurors make? More then the zero months you spent looking at the evidence.

By: sacrilicious

sacrilicious — Wed, 07 Dec 2005 20:55:41 -0800

Hm...sounds familiar. Remember that Muslim Army chaplain at Guantanamo Bay? The poor guy was held in solitary confinement for 76 days and then released with an honorary discharge. It makes me wonder what kind of evidence the government could possibly have in these cases that would justify such harsh treatment and yet not be adequate enough to even require a defense.

By: Mitrovarr

Mitrovarr — Wed, 07 Dec 2005 21:26:22 -0800

Well, it's worth considering that the jury did deadlock on 9 of the charges. So it's possible that the prosecution's case isn't as bad as all that, and guilt or innocence in this case was just extremely hard to determine. Then again, I'm not going to say that the government wasn't railroading him either. It's just hard to determine without a long examination of the evidence. With regard to the deportation, apparently he's not a citizen, so it is an option. It might not be a bad one, either. The case did prove that he associated with Palestinian Islamic Jihad before association with them was illegal. While we cannot (and should not) arrest or charge someone for that, I think it's reasonable to consider such things in immigration cases. We don't have any obligation to let non-citizens in the country or to let them stay, so if we think he's any kind of threat, no need to risk it.

By: mystyk

mystyk — Wed, 07 Dec 2005 21:27:32 -0800

fff, by 'largely works' I mean they can still get a fair trial. Notice I was only referring to the judiciary. Or did that conveniently slip your mind? And if you'd read the last line of that comment, you'd see a direct attack on the idea of these indefinite improsonments. Maybe 'habeas corpus' was too big a term for you. Maybe old english derived from even older latin was just too much for you to comprehend. Perhaps I should try to make my comments into easily digestable 'gerber baby-food' chunks just for you. Or maybe the problem's not me. Maybe I shouldn't change a thing about that comment. Maybe I shouldn't even waste my time defending myself to you. Maybe you should grow the fuck up and learn how to parse a very basic statement.

By: IronLizard

IronLizard — Wed, 07 Dec 2005 21:40:09 -0800

The hate, my my. Feud elsewhere, eh?

By: kenko

kenko — Wed, 07 Dec 2005 21:49:21 -0800

spunk: "seriously though, can you spend 6 months trying to figure out if thisguy is guilty? listening to hundreds of hours, of taped conversations,through an interpreter. are you even allowed to take notes? and howmuch do much do jurors make?" Actually, the jury can ask questions at any point, of the judge or witnesses, and might be able to call their own witnesses, and I believe have a hell of a lot more powers that judges aren't allowed to tell them about. Judges also aren't allowed to tell jurors about jury nullification, even though it's totally legit.

By: sacrilicious

sacrilicious — Wed, 07 Dec 2005 22:28:25 -0800

Well, it's worth considering that the jury did deadlock on 9 of the charges. Yes, but they deadlocked on a case with NO defense. That tells you the prosecution's case was all the defense required. And from the last link: "Ten of us wanted to acquit them on all charges, but two wouldn't tell us what the evidence was to convict, but wouldn't go along with acquittal," said Ron. So even the deadlock may not have been based on actual evidence.

By: LouieLoco

LouieLoco — Wed, 07 Dec 2005 22:57:08 -0800

Well, then. Let me just say. Ahem. Fuck, Martinez. Fuck, fuck, Martinez. best use of a 2 live crew quote ever.

By: dhartung

dhartung — Wed, 07 Dec 2005 22:57:59 -0800

Actually, the jury can ask questions at any point, of the judge or witnesses, and might be able to call their own witnesses, and I believe have a hell of a lot more powers that judges aren't allowed to tell them about. Don't confuse criminal trial juries with grand juries. A grand jury essentially acts as a group to investigate whether a crime may have been committed, and as such is something like a prosecutorial committee. A criminal trial jury has much more circumscribed powers.

By: lupus_yonderboy

lupus_yonderboy — Wed, 07 Dec 2005 23:06:33 -0800

"On behalf of Dr. Al-Arian, the defense rests." Brilliant, brave and wonderful. Oh, and Mitrovarr? We don't have any obligation to let non-citizens in the country or to let them stay, so if we think he's any kind of threat, no need to risk it. Do remember -- you're saying this about an innocent man, a university professor already jailed for three years for *nothing*. Now you wish to finish destroying his life "just in case"? Are you really that evil?

By: lupus_yonderboy

lupus_yonderboy — Wed, 07 Dec 2005 23:07:23 -0800

And, whatgorilla, great first post, well-researched without being too heavy.

By: Mitrovarr

Mitrovarr — Wed, 07 Dec 2005 23:34:30 -0800

lupus_yonderboy: Do remember -- you're saying this about an innocent man, a university professor already jailed for three years for *nothing*. Now you wish to finish destroying his life "just in case"? First of all, we don't know for sure he did nothing; the jury did deadlock on some of the charges, and he might be brought up on those charges again. Second, it's not our responsibility to preserve his quality of life by letting him stay in the country. He came in by invitation, and is here as our guest. He doesn't have to commit a crime for us to have reason to throw him out. I think it's safe to say that the vast majority of the citizens in this country don't want anyone who is friendly with an obviously islamo-terrorist organization in this country. His welcome is gone.

By: notmydesk

notmydesk — Wed, 07 Dec 2005 23:50:39 -0800

The jury deadlocked on 9 of 17 charges. Maybe a more brilliant move on the part of the defense would be to, you know, actually call a witness. Hey, maybe put the man himself on the stand? Crazy thought.

By: Firas

Firas — Wed, 07 Dec 2005 23:55:21 -0800

Mitrovarr, you want to deport someone to a prison in a country where he's obviously going to be fucked over because you don't agree with his political views? Tell me, do you want all Russans in the USA to be handcuffed to Chechnya?

By: salmacis

salmacis — Thu, 08 Dec 2005 01:16:04 -0800

Mitrovarr, you're an idiot. A scary idiot. It's people like you who allowed Stalinist purges, allowed the Nazis into power and allowed McCarthyism.

By: fullerine

fullerine — Thu, 08 Dec 2005 02:18:28 -0800

First of all, we don't know for sure he did nothing; Mitrovarr, we don't know for sure you did nothing, care to join him on the plane?

By: srboisvert

srboisvert — Thu, 08 Dec 2005 02:35:29 -0800

He came in by invitation, and is here as our guest. He doesn't have to commit a crime for us to have reason to throw him out. I think it's safe to say that the vast majority of the citizens in this country don't want anyone who is friendly with an obviously islamo-terrorist organization in this country. His welcome is gone. Dinner Party at Mitrovarrs!

By: twistedonion

twistedonion — Thu, 08 Dec 2005 02:40:37 -0800

Mitrovarr - are you all for trying people for thought crimes then? Or crime by association? That is extremely scary talk. I say you should be deported for those obviously shameful thoughts that go through your pea brained excuse for a brain.

By: lemonpillows

lemonpillows — Thu, 08 Dec 2005 02:41:33 -0800

First of all, we don't know for sure he did nothing What happened to innocent until proven guilty??

By: Mitrovarr

Mitrovarr — Thu, 08 Dec 2005 03:48:19 -0800

twistedonion: Mitrovarr - are you all for trying people for thought crimes then? Or crime by association? No. But do you think we should allow people to immigrate without regard to their philosophy and values and without checking for ties to terrorist groups? It would be a very dark day when we start investigating our citizens for thought crimes or crimes of associations, but investigating potential immigrants and visitors just seems like good sense. Do you think we should just start randomly bringing people over without checking them at all? With regard to the 'innocent before proven guilty' people, I'm not saying he's guilty of anything. I was just pointing out that the verdict wasn't innocent all the way across, and thus the case might not has been quite as open and shut as everyone thought. My consideration of the idea of deportation is based on his proven association with the Palestinian Islamic Jihad group, not those charges on which the jury is still hung. Man, I know how you guys feel. I hate the idea of thought crimes or banned groups and such. But I think the idea that we should just import people without regard to their philosophy and associations (even if they are pro-terrorism) seems like an insane security risk. We can't (and shouldn't) investigate or arrest citizens for it, because of constitutional rights. However, the immigration process, because immigration is a privilege and not a right, seems like it should be different. We don't let people move over if they are unhealthy, or too poor, or have poor job prospects, because they would be detrimental for the country. Ties to a known terrorist group seem like a lot more valid reason for rejecting a candidate. With regard to what will happen when he gets back, I haven't looked into the case enough to know if they'll be hostile there. If they are, though, I don't know if that should matter. Should we let someone stay here just because they ruined things for themselves in their own country? I don't know.

By: jb

jb — Thu, 08 Dec 2005 05:04:24 -0800

Mitrovar, if he is innocent before proven guilty, then the burden of proof is on the prosecution side, not on his. They had to prove he was guilty, and they failed. This means that in the eyes of the law, he is wholly innocent. He may not even have ties to a known terrorist group - those "terrorists" he knows? Many of them on equally trumped up charges. So guilt by association with people who may or may not be guilty - sounds like a classic McCarthy witchhunt. As for the issue of academic freedom, I wonder how many Americans are aware that the University of Southern Florida has overstepped bounderies that the ultra-nationalist war-time government of Japan thought was going too far. In about 1944, several economics professors, all of whom were espoused communists, were brought to trial under the then anti-Communism laws - but were aquitted, because they had academic freedom. Similarly, when the Director of the Max Planck institute in Germany fled to the US (to work for the Atomic Bomb project, which was an act of treason), the Nazi government felt they could not fire him, out of respect for academic freedom, and created a new position for the new head. And I'm sure someone is going to call Godwin on this example, but when Nazi's have more respect for academic freedom than your government, maybe you should stop trying to look for the mote in your landed immigrants' eyes, and look at the plank in the eyes of your government.

By: jb

jb — Thu, 08 Dec 2005 05:04:58 -0800

Damn. What is that apostrophe doing there? I'm going to go practice my self-flagellation now.

By: jb

jb — Thu, 08 Dec 2005 05:10:34 -0800

Okay, I've been corrected - my husband studies terrorism. Al-Arian does know a terrorist - he once invited a guy to come work at his think tank who later became a member of a terrorist group - "I think it was Islamic Jihad". Then again, my husband knows someone (very respected and very patriotic) who once supervised someone else who is now being arraigned for war crimes at the Hague. Does this mean the supervisor should be clapped in jail?

By: nkyad

nkyad — Thu, 08 Dec 2005 05:54:13 -0800

jb writes "he once invited a guy to come work at his think tank who later became a member of a terrorist group" Well, many members of the present United States government once befriended and did business with a man that some years later was found to be Saddam Hussein (a man presently accused of genocide). Shouldn't they be prosecuted too?

By: Colloquial Collision

Colloquial Collision — Thu, 08 Dec 2005 07:04:57 -0800

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation. Does something like this fucked-up mess qualify as legitimate cause which "impels them to the seperation?" Over 20,000 hours of wire-tapping and they had nothing on Mr. al-Arian? Personally, I feel very impelled right now. Time to get the hell out of Dodge. Ten years of that shit. Way to go, Executive Branch.

By: chunking express

chunking express — Thu, 08 Dec 2005 08:07:43 -0800

Well at least they weren't just shot in their beds in the middle of the night three years ago. That's gotta count for something.

By: wakko

wakko — Thu, 08 Dec 2005 08:22:43 -0800

so, um, spunk, your entire stupid argument in support of this guy's guilt is that the trial took a long time?

By: rockabilly_pete

rockabilly_pete — Thu, 08 Dec 2005 09:06:55 -0800

It would be a very dark day when we start investigating our citizens for thought crimes or crimes of associations, but investigating potential immigrants and visitors just seems like good sense. Do you think we should just start randomly bringing people over without checking them at all? Here's an idea - deny entry to the United States to every man and woman over 17 years of age from the State of Israel. Don't you find the idea of somebody you know to have given tactical support to a racist military State with a documented chain of human rights abuses to be... frightening? Oh wait, I forgot... it's the ARABS that are the bad guys. D'oh!