IN 2002 The Bush - Ashcroft Justice Department which announced that the case of US v. Sami Al-Arian was a major trial in the so called "war on terror," and which put Mr. Al Arian in JAIL for several years has lost the trial in a resounding defeat. No telling how much --- probably $50 million has been squandered on trying an innocent man on false charges. Can this administration do anything right?

The verdict is still out on whether the Bush Administration can do anything right, but I'm just glad that Mr. Al-Arian was found not guilty.

How soon until we see the goose-step on Pennsylvania Ave?

Typical Lawyer Don T, only presenting half of the story. :p

But the 12 jurors deadlocked on the other counts, and officials did not rule out a retrial for al-Arian.
The jury failed to reach a decision on some of the key counts against al-Arian, including racketeering conspiracy, money laundering, conspiracy to provide material support, and conspiracy to make and receive contributions of funds, goods or services to terrorists, reports Reuters.

I have to believe that if the prosecution feels that strongly about this man having ties of some sort to terrorism, then they will retry him on the charges that the jury remained deadlocked on. If this case was a bogus case from the start, and the prosecution knows this, then I don't think that you'll see the prosecution retry this case.


Don Cardi

What did this guy do?

IS THAT'S SAMI AL ARIAN?!!

Nothing. He was found "not guilty". The phrase you're looking for is "What was this guy falsely accused of and imprisoned for?"

Nothing. He was found "not guilty". The phrase you're looking for is "What was this guy falsely accused of and imprisoned for?" [/b][/quote]Pardon me Dr. "What was this guy falsely accused of and imprisoned for?" And who is he?

Dunno.

Aw, let 'em all run free and loose. Then maybe when some of y'all left-wingers wake up with orange afros from a dirty bomb, you'll see the light.

Maybe some of y'all from the right will see the light when our civil liberties have been abridged to the extent that we are no longer living in a free society.

BTW, I'm as worried about a dirty bomb as the next guy.

That's why I'd like to see a program where we effecively control our borders and inspect more than the 5% or so of what comes into this country on container ships and the like.

Now that would go a long way towards helping to wage an effective war against terror.

As far as this particular case goes, I must confess to my unfamiliarity with it, so I did a little reading about it this morning.

By no means am I familiar with all of it, but as near as I can tell, this Al Arian guy - a college professor - contributed money to the political arm of an organization which is pro-Palistinian and anti-Israeli and also has a "militiant" arm as well which preaches Jihad.

He has also made some rather inflamatory statements in the past about the Arab-Israeli conflict

The case ssems to raise some serious questions about freedom of speech and one's right to support unpopular political causes.

What seems to be in doubt is whether or not he was contributing to terrorism.

I must say, though, that given the current climate of fear and anti-terrorism in this country today, the government must have had a horribly weak case if they were uanbale to convict the man of what he was chrged with.

I would also ask all of those who were so quick to condemn or defend him in this thread how much they really know about the case in the first place.

Professor Al-Arian has not detonated his dirty bomb yet and my hair is still black, I guess we can all thank God for that. :rolleyes:

We already have no freedoms thanks to folks like the ACLU and the 9th Circuit Court of Liberals - er - Appeals!

Funny, you speak facetiously, but you don't know how precisely correct you are, dude. Talk about irony.

Exactly what freedoms do we no longer have?

I didn't know nothing about it so that is why I asked.

Exactly what freedoms do we no longer have? [/b][/quote]Can't display certain symbols, can't say anything that might "offend" someone, can't just attach any name to a ball team, can't pray, can't say "under God," can't...you really want me to go on?

Bingo Plaw. That's exactly right. This administration's border policy SUCKS in plain english. I could never understand how they could be so lax on border patrol and advocate such support from the people in the war on terror. I have to give you that one Plaw.

As for this case in particular, I followed it somewhat and yes it looks as though, IMO the prosecution may have faltered in their presentation of all those taped conversations, etc. According to what I've read, those conversations did not really support the prosecution's charges. However there are several charges that the jury remained deadlocked on. As I said above, if the prosecution feels that they have a solid case with solid evidence, then I'm sure they'll retry him on those charges. I also believe that if they don't retry him, then they know damn well that their charges against him were unfounded in the first place, and that they just added these charges, to make a long laundry list, the first time he was originally charged.


That's my take on this case.


Don Cardi

Exactly what freedoms do we no longer have? [/b][/quote]Can't display certain symbols, can't say anything that might "offend" someone, can't just attach any name to a ball team, can't pray, can't say "under God," can't...you really want me to go on? [/b][/quote]No, you don't have to go on. We can start with these.

Explain to me what symbols you no longer have the freedom to display, what you are no longer permitted to say that might offend someone, how exactly you can't pray. when you can't say "under God", who says you can't name your ball team whatever you wish....

Last time I looked you were perfectly free to display whatever you wished to on your private property.

Last time I looked we still had freedom of speech and freedom of the press so you could say or write pretty much whatever you chose to whether it offended anyone or not.

You are still perfectly free to choose whatever religion you care to, worship that religion in any manner that you choose, and pray in any manner in which you see fit to anyGod that you care to.

If you want to add the words "Under God" to the pledge of Allegiance, there's no one stopping you from doing that either.

And if you own a ball team, you're free to name it anything you want to.

There are no laws against any of that. So what freedoms have you lost?

On private property even?? Tell that to the guy that put up a "bound n' gagged" Santa in his yard under the free speech banner and now has to remove it. As far as the rest of your post goes, plaw, you have GOT to be kidding me, man!! I refer you to the latest, ludicrous rulings of the 9th Circuit and just about every other bench in the country where the minority "speaks for" the majority!

I'll tell you something about that. Freedom of expression, speech or whatever ammendment they want to file it under, someone doing something like that tells me that they are a bit disturbed. A Bound and gagged Santa hanging from a noose! The neighbors should be very careful of this man. He Sounds a little sick to me.


Don Cardi

I don't know, D.C. He was probably making a statement about the commercialization of Christmas. I applaud his stance, but thumbs-down on his display. Too many kids to get upset.

Al-Arian was found not guilty, but he was definitely not innocent. They had him on tape praising successful suicide bombings, etc, but couldn't come up with solid evidence that he was directly raising funds even though he was meeting with key jihadists. They were unable to get a Muslim FBI agent to record him on tape, which would have made the case airtight. As it is, they may still be able to kick him out of the country on immigration violations.

Just because O.J. Simpson was aquitted doesn't mean he was innocent.

There's a difference between O.J. Simpson and Sami Al-Arian. Sami Al-Arian has not killed anyone. O.J. Simpson killed his wife and her boyfriend, great Running Back though. :rolleyes:

I guess you see to fail the point.

Don A., I think the point you're trying to make is that although Dr. Al-Arian was not convicted of anything there have been some accusations against him and as the saying goes where there's smoke, there's fire. I respect your right to put forth this point but I strongly disagree.

Dr. Al-Arian is a respected academic who has been wrongly accused and was rightfully exonerated. The charges against him were found to be without merit and one hopes that he will not be further harassed and will be allowed to continue living his life the way he sees fit (provided of course that he respects the laws of the country in which he resides).

The evidence against Mr. Simpson on the other hand was very strong and the decision of the jury that declared him not guilty has been questioned by many legal experts and the North American public in general. Mr. Simpson acted as a thug and literally got away with murder. His claim to pursue the "real killers" is a further slap in the face to the families of those whom he murdered. To compare Mr. Al-Arian with such a man is simply not right.

http://www.freesamialarian.com/home.htm

Fair enough.