February 21, 2003
From the desk of Jane Galt:So the Florida professor who engendered a storm of controversy when his university tried to fire him over his alleged ties to Palestinian terror groups has now been arrested, along with eight others, for raising money for Islamic Jihad.
I don't know enough about the particulars of the case to comment on whether it's likely that he's guilty. What I want to say is this: we need to watch this case like hawks.
We're emotional about terrorism, justifiably so. But that emotion has got to make it tempting for a prosecutor to make too much out of a weak case because of the political payoff if it sticks has to be enormous. And in cases like this, the evidence is often tenuous. It's better we free a man who is likely guilty than imprison one who is possibly innocent, even in a case involving terrorism.
I'll be looking for bloggers and journalists who expose the facts of the case beyond the press releases from the DA and the defense, and cheering them on whatever the conclusions they draw. I think it's really, really important that we make it attractive for them to try to discover the truth.
Posted by Jane Galt at February 21, 2003 2:07 PM | TrackBack | Technorati inbound linksI'd begin by keeping an eye on the St. Petersburg Times (http://www.sptimes.com). It's been a pretty good newspaper for a long time and is local. Most folks think only of the Tampa newspaper.
j
I apologize as this is not related to the discussion topic but I am interested to hear you views on religion in general.
If you want me to be more specific with my request please let me know. I am just suprised that you have sections on your page dedicated to Pundits and Open source etc but you have no discussion on the topic of religion.
Hope to hear from you.
very well said...good to see you blogging again. Don't be disheartened by the 2 X 4 backlash.
I'm a bit confused, Megan: everything about this guy - even from an outsider's perspective - drew suspicion, right down to his videotaped rallies in solidarity with Hamas, Hezbollah & Co. He reminds me of Capone, good enough to keep the cops at bay for years before finally slipping up somewhere, all the while flaunting his untouchable ties (no pun intended).
Perhaps this is my very un-libertarian mind at work, but I generally trust the FBI to nab a man they know they can conscionably convict.
Clarification: Alamoudi vocally supports Hamas and Hezbollah. Al-Arian is game for "Let us damn America, let us damn Israel. Let us damn their allies until death," and "Victory to Islam, death to Israel" while on camera.
Even so, Devil with devil, as Milton said for his inadvertant entry into the archive of clichés, damned Firm concord holds. I'm sure folks working for Islamic Jihad end up aiding Hamas and Hezbollah, if only indirectly.
Here's a generally pro-Al Arian link from Adnan, a Muslim blogger of Pakistani descent who is attending college in Florida.
I just read that pro Al Arian link and it is hard to take someone serious when their first point is that he is not Al Qaeda. So killing Israelis is OK, just not Americans?
As for declaring someone guilty before the trial, there is such thing as everyone getting to make up their own mind. If this guy is going to run around making speaches about death to Israel and death to the US, well his defenders are going to have to accept that people might pre-judge him.
I saw the O'Reilly interview with him, he did not support himself very well in it. His excuses for his speaches are just idiotic, he did not mean death to Israel he meant it as a generalization about occupation.....it seems every thing that he has ever said does not mean what he said.
Yes I want to see more evidence on this guy, but right now with the little I have to go on I would side on the fact that he is not a nice guy for starters. It's hard for me to be impartial about someone who hangs out with terrorists and the leader of terrorist organizations. Sure guilt by association is not a crime, but until the evidence shows otherwise I am not going to side with this man whose friend became the head of Islamic Jihad and now kills babies. You do have some responsibility in life for who you choose to associate with.
By the way, in reference to the court of public opinion, we know the courts said OJ was not guilty but you as the public, what do you think.
Sorry, but I hope they take him down to Gitmo and don't even bother with a trail.
We will not win this struggle worrying about terrorists's rights as though they were mere criminals. They are not. And the law-enforcement model is not at all appropriate to fighting against them.
Societies that pussy-foot with this kind of thing end up losing to the bad guys, after a heck of a lot of killing and destroying.
As for worrying about an innocent man being dealt with badly, the law-enforcement machinery is terrible at two things: convicting the guilty and avoiding convicting the innocent. It is far too deeply corrupted by harmful career incentives for both prosecutors and defense attorneys, and rendered utterly idiotic by Judges worrying more about somebody stepping on a crack than anything else.
The anti-terrorist folks are far more dedicated to not wasting time bothering the innocent, and finding the guilty, than the law-enforcement system is to either.
Regards.
A war on 'terror' can easily get out of control and we must never fail to call out innocents even if they aren't "nice people." Hawks indeed...I don't trust the FBI to nab only 'the right people' and it is our responsibility as citizens to make sure they do.
That being said I have a feeling that the case against Al-Arian is legit. Apparently the Feds have been after him for 8 years. Its not like he just said some awful stuff after 9/11 and all of a sudden his is under suspicion. His interaction with terrorists pre-dates the war, only now they apparently have the evidence to charge him.
Regarding this --
but I generally trust the FBI to nab a man they know they can conscionably convict.
-- and this --
Sorry, but I hope they take him down to Gitmo and don't even bother with a trail.
-- I daresay that's the kind of talk that eventually gets you into a totalitarian state. But on the other hand, this --
As for worrying about an innocent man being dealt with badly, the law-enforcement machinery is terrible at two things: convicting the guilty and avoiding convicting the innocent. It is far too deeply corrupted by harmful career incentives for both prosecutors and defense attorneys, and rendered utterly idiotic by Judges worrying more about somebody stepping on a crack than anything else.
-- is the kind of talk that eventually gets you into a backwoods Montanan cabin.
We would be well-advised to pay careful attention to this case. In the past, when the government has wanted to clamp down on unpopular ideas, the way it has chilled civil liberties has been to bring trumped up "conspiracy" charges. The First Amendment protects the right of people like Al-Arian to shout "Death to Israel", no matter how many people it offends.
Sounds like you're looking to transform this site into something like a John Doe 2 conspiracy site...say it ain't so! :)
btw, as long as we're all web seluths, can anyone in NJ pop down to see what Lakehurst University is all about? Best of the Web noted it awhile back but never followed up with anything more concrete. Apparently Lakehurst granted an honorary degree to a Saudi named Saleh Kamel -- for those of you not familiar with him, you'll note that he's the chairman of the Dallah Al-Baraka Group. Among other things he owns quite a few banks, including none other than the Al-Aqsa Bank in Palestine. Anyway, it's awfully strange that a university that's not really a university (or presumably anything else for that matter) is granting honorary degrees to Saudi's. Not only that, the Saudi's took it seriously and accepted.
Aw, c'mon, A-Mouse. I trust the cops, and for that I don't apologize. I happen to differ with many of the FBI's protocols and some of its investigations - particularly with the anthrax attacks - but agents are family friends. It ain't a cabal. Your statements, if I were to be as hyperbolic, lead to hunkering down with automatic weapons in armored Montanan bunkers. Lighten up on the Patrick Henry schtick, will you? :-)
Maybe he's guilty, but you're right, it's extraordinarily suspicious that it all just *happened* to turn out this way. Guess we'll see.
"It ain't a cabal."
Well, it was in the 60s, but I guess not anymore. Still, "they're good people, not part of a conspiracy" is not incompatible with "well he's close enough to guilty, let's nail him."
Michael Ubaldi: I have reasonable faith in the system inasmuch as (a) it works fairly well and (b) I don't see any better options on the horizon.
But I know something else: Pick *ANY* point in our history you care to look into, and put a little serious research into it, and you can find examples of abuse, under-the-table dealings, corruption, etc. These are certainly not the majority, but they are most definitely not absent.
I would consider myself the greater fool if I believed stuff like that can't, or isn't, happening right now.
I also have no use for the type of people who look for a conspiracy theory under every doormat. But anywhere money and/or power are concentrated, I keep my trust guarded. Suspicion of government was a founding principle of our national political structure, yes?
I wonder, really wonder, if this guy is going to get a fair trial.
(a) Because there will be enough people baying for his blood, even though shouting Death to Israel (while not nice) is not actually illegal in your country.
(b) Because there will be enough people who will agitate (I am thinking Wen Ho Lee) that it's all to do with race, and no proof will seem enough.
It's got to be near-impossible to just let facts and law to speak for themselves.
I am also thinking OJ. We found out race trumps gender. What will trump in this case?
Jason and A-Mouse: both of what you've said makes sense. I just don't think this guy serves as a good example of possible enforcement overstep. While my thoughts alone can't convict, I've always perceived this situation in terms of "after years we've finally amassed enough evidence to bag al-Arian" as opposed to "criminy, we haven't put anyone high-profile behind bars on the domestic front in months; let's wing it with al-Arian."
I do think the operative phrase is "we'll see." It'll be interesting to see how the trial forms up.
Liberals often have a hard time taking seriously those like Sami Al-Arian who advocate such views as “death to Israel.” We must remember that these folks are the intellectual relatives of Bill “I never had sex with that woman” Clinton who normally abuse language. Thus, when presented with an Al-Arian they are tempted to dismiss his rhetoric as over the top and facetious. The same thing happened when Adolph Hitler released his “Mein Kampf.” Numerous readers considered Hitler to be exaggerating about wanting to murder Jews.
The militant Islamic adherent has no hesitation to lie to us. We are the infidels who should be treated as scum of the earth. They also do not think twice of taking advantage of our political freedoms to use against us. This was a standard operating procedure of the totalitarian communists---and remains so regarding the Islamic fascists.
Yes, it's preferable to acquit the guilty rather than to convict the innocent. But the idea is supposed to be not to do either. Moreover, a criminal defendant is entitled to the preumption of innocence from the court and the jury, but not from observers outside the proceedings, who are free to believe whatever they want based on any evidentiary standard they like.
BTW, total haiirsplitting pedantry, I know, but this is a federal prosecution, so references to "the DA" are incorrect. (Of course, in Florida, state prosecutors aren't called DA's either--they're SA's).
David Thomson: And of course there are no conservatives/conservative-oriented sites that do the exact same thing. *cough*
Please do leave the "liberals this/conservatives that" broad brush out of these discussions, eh? It is nothing more than a subversive rhetorical tool, and just like careless invective, it says more about the person using it than the parties being addressed.
"Please do leave the "liberals this/conservatives that" broad brush out of these discussions, eh?"
I'm afraid that Liberals are guilty of this particular human frailty. What about the Conservatives? They are often guilty of greed and looking the other way when the Saudis and others offered them a few dollars. There is plenty of blame to go around.
Dwight Eisenhower goofed up badly by not permitting the Israelis and the French to resolve the Suez Canal crisis. The Republicans are probably more responsible than the Democrats in getting this whole mess started some forty-fifty years ago. Does that make you feel better?
MIchael: 'I've always perceived this situation in terms of "after years we've finally amassed enough evidence to bag al-Arian" as opposed to "criminy, we haven't put anyone high-profile behind bars on the domestic front in months; let's wing it with al-Arian."'
You just made me more worried about the al-Arian case. They may have been successful in hunting terrorists in other countries, but the only ones they've bagged in this country lately were pitiful losers - Jose Padilla, or that guy that couldn't learn to fly an airplane...
Greetings from my cabin in Montana.
(Just kidding. People who want to see the military and security forces of the US strengthened and given their heads don’t end up hiding out in Montana, as Michael Ubaldi may have been hinting.)
You can worry about the harm that would be done by government error or abuse of extraordinary, counter-terrorist methods.
Or you can worry about the harm done by our enemies made possible by our reliance on the normal (more or less) methods of the law enforcement system.
Given the complete incapacity of law enforcement methods relative to the task at hand, I am much more afraid of the dangers of the latter course.
No one ever defeats significant terrorist movements by law enforcement methods. Not ever. Not in Spain. Not in Colombia. Not in Italy. Not in Britain. Not anywhere.
In contrast, counter-terrorist methods work just fine. Governments that employ them win. The more vigorous, pitiless, and relentless the methods, the quicker the victories.
Of course, years later, after a return to normalcy, similar dangers may recur. So what? Do it again, harder.
David: One counterexample falsifies a generalization. When you use a generalization ("liberals" as opposed to, say, "many liberals" which at least leaves room for exceptions), you give your debating opponents some very cheap and accessible ammunition.
I, for one, very much hope that Arian gets a trial. The war with the terrorists is going to last a long time, and as much as I disdain what some lawyers do, I think we need some clarity in our legal system in order to prevent the rights of Americans from disappearing down some slippery slope.
Arian was legally here, as a permanent resident, and he's not accused of being an illegal combatant. Now, since the newspapers say that intelligence information was essential to the indictment, I wouldn't mind a closed trial. But I think we should get him a lawyer with a security clearance who can at least view the evidence against him, even if (for obvious reasons) he doesn't get to, and continue with a jury trial of some kind.
For one thing, I don't think *that* much of the intelligence information is that sensitive; pardon my cynicism, but if it was that sensitive the foreign intelligence community would never have handed it over to the Justice Department. No reflection on the Justice Department, just my observation about the nature of bureaucratic rivalries and distrust.
Slothful chatterers, it's more (self)-important to discuss the theory--guilt/innocence, trust/distrust of government and its agents, and on, and on. Get real.
The first link below is a good site for some history--media, academia, muslim spokespersons, friends. The second link is to the indictment.
What I found most interesting in the indictment was the amount of info, apparently from wiretaps, where al-Arian is working for violence against Oslo (or any 'peace process', but the TIME is right for anti-Oslo).
Indictment is not evidence, but I'd bet on some high quality for this. And the transcripts themselves will really be fun!
http://w3.usf.edu/~uff/AlArian/Current.html
http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/flm/pr/022003indict.pdf
double tap...
just saw the intro to patriot games, and it highlighted the whole problem with our fight against terrorism...
harrison ford/jack ryan stops the assasination of hrh the prince of wales. but he leaves one terrorist standing (and a bunh escape)... then the cops/guards come and arrest the terrorist...
wtf?? you catch terrorists in flagrante, you put two through the head for each of them! remember this!
as for al arian... its yet another case of bad law from the 60s, where a death threat is legal, as long as it's political. we need to repeal the case that kept the naacp from getting ricod
(a boycott of segregationist white stores led to an exhortation and threat to kill any blacks who didn't keep the boycott, this was ruled permissible)
the us doesn't respect revolutionnaries and terrorists.. counseling terrorism or armed rebellion should get you on to a scaffold... and association with terrorists should get you there too... enough pussy footing around and fight this freaking war!!!! the us just thinks hahaha all that funny talk... believe them, respect them, and kill the bastards!
Okay, I'm going to straddle the topic here regarding treason.
Article III, Section 3, Paragraph I of the Constitution basically provides for protection of verbalized or contemplated treason. Susan Sontag and Jane Fonda may live another day. :-)
But once plans are underway - and from a review of that rap sheet PDF, al-Arian seems up to his neck - a man is game. Game on.
Dr. Al-Arian was my Login Design professor for my CS undergrad degree at USF. I took his class a long time ago (early-mid 90s). He was actually a very good professor.
Ironically, the main lab assignment was to build a digital clock, with date and everything. Not sure if it had an alarm. Not that it was teaching people how to design bombs, but it's an interesting coincidence.
However this goes to point out how dangerous our enemies are. This guy is an extremely intelligent Phd, with knowledge that while he may not have been using it in that manner, could cause us a lot of trouble. Did he do consulting for the government in his area of research? What about his grad students, did he have any with terrorist ties too? (i think i read something about this). This is really disturbing.
Never assume that education and fanaticism are mutually exclusive.
There are trained aeronautics engineers who believe that the Sun and all the planets revolve around the Earth, skilled neurosurgeons who run activist groups that spread the belief that the blood of black people is completely incompatible with the blood of white people (and that millions die every year due to "politically correct" blood transfusions), and law-school graduates who inject themselves with mass quantities of colloidal silver in the belief that it will protect them from all diseases, only to die of metal poisoning.
Michael,
I think Jane Fonda going to Hanoi probably counts as considerably more than "verbalized or contemplated treason." A celebrity providing propaganda services is certainly giving material aid and comfort to the enemy. If Lord Haw-Haw or Tokyo Rose (a US citizen) deserved to hang, so did she.
David, the ":-)" symbol indicated the heavy impaction of my tongue into my cheek!
Tatter, Augusto's not making a correlation between intelligence and the penchant for Islamism, as far as I can see. He's simply suggesting that, were al-Arian truly to be a leader for Islamic Jihad, his intellect embodies the guile and potential of the enemies we face.
Sorry, David, I misread your statement. Yes, Fonda walked one hell of a tightrope, didn't she?
He's simply suggesting that, were al-Arian truly to be a leader for Islamic Jihad, his intellect embodies the guile and potential of the enemies we face.
Exactly, you said it better than myself.
Michael,
As I understand it, :-) indicates happiness while ;-) is sarcasm.
However this goes to point out how dangerous our enemies are. This guy is an extremely intelligent Phd, with knowledge that while he may not have been using it in that manner, could cause us a lot of trouble.
Guilty, guilty guilty!
I agree with Jane that this case should be watched carefully. The press accounts of him are pretty damning, but there is a hitch. His support of PIJ prior to 1995 (I think) were legal under our laws. After that activity was illegalized, there is scant evidence of him engaging in it. This is what we ought to be wary about -- prosecuting someone for doing legal things when there were legal.
The really interesting question is, what if he had any connection to al-Qaeda? In that case, the president, with the support of the courts, has asserted the right to hold him in secret and indefinitely, without the benefit of a lawyer, without pressing charges, and without access to his family. Under Patriot II, John Ashcroft would have the right to revoke his citizenship (if he's a citizen), unless he proves his own innocence, when in the real world proving a negative is often a difficult task. Is this the kind of country we want to live in?
Amitava, if al-Arian is verifiably connected to al Qaeda, he's about as undeniably an enemy of free nations as one can be. Terrorists and their administrators are constitutional hustlers of the highest order; incarceration should not be waylaid by their favorite obstacles.
ah yes, this would be the same al Arian whose entire family posed with George and Laura Bush in a Rove arranged photo-op during 2000 campaign.
if gore was trashed for 'campaigning at a Buddhist temple' and Clinton trashed for his Chinese campaign contribution, what must we do to GWB?
I'm such a liberal these days, but I don't think it should be a crime to be a friend of an Al-Qaida member, or a crime to believe that the U.S. is the evil empire. That should be legal. We may not like it, but it should be legal. We went through the whole red-scare not too long ago... it shouldn't of been illegal to believe in communism. It's like believing in god or satan. who cares? as long as you don't plan on blowing anyone up or destroying another wtc, I don't care what they you believe in. However, the media WILL convict someone on the basis of association or belief. I just hope the courts won't. That's what we have to watch out for.
"We will not win this struggle worrying about terrorists's rights as though they were mere criminals."
Under the Constitution, they *are* criminals. Under the Constitution, we are not currently at war with any country.
Further, 5th Amendment specifically forbids the federal government (and the 14th extends this to state governments) from depriving any "person" (including citizens of other countries) inside the U.S. of "life, liberty, or property, without due process of law" (which includes all rights available under the Constitution and its amendments).
Terrorists can take our lives, but they can never take our freedom. Our own government can do both.
"We will not win this struggle worrying about terrorists's rights as though they were mere criminals."
Under the Constitution, they *are* criminals. Under the Constitution, we are not currently at war with any country.
Further, 5th Amendment specifically forbids the federal government (and the 14th extends this to state governments) from depriving any "person" (including citizens of other countries) inside the U.S. of "life, liberty, or property, without due process of law" (which includes all rights available under the Constitution and its amendments).
Terrorists can take our lives, but they can never take our freedom. Our own government can do both.
"Under Patriot II, John Ashcroft would have the right to revoke his citizenship (if he's a citizen),..."
He is not. He was born in Kuwait, and came to the U.S. from Egypt.
P.S. My apologies for the previous double post.
"ah yes, this would be the same al Arian whose entire family posed with George and Laura Bush in a Rove arranged photo-op during 2000 campaign.
if gore was trashed for 'campaigning at a Buddhist temple' and Clinton trashed for his Chinese campaign contribution, what must we do to GWB?"
Ummmm...nothing, I would think!
It's against the law to receive political campaign contributions from foreign nationals. (Does this surprise you?)
It's neither against the law, nor even particularly tacky, to pose for a photograph with the family of a university professor.
Even if it later turns out that the federal government (of which G.W. Bush was NOT a part, in 2000) is secretly investigating that professor at the time.
"Perhaps this is my very un-libertarian mind at work, but I generally trust the FBI to nab a man they know they can conscionably convict."
The problem is, sometimes the FBI acts unconscionably.
Get Hoover's name off that building! (Probably should be renamed the Salvati building.)
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/UpClose/DailyNews/Salvati_Email.html
"No one ever defeats significant terrorist movements by law enforcement methods. Not ever."
And nobody ever strengthens the Constitution by violating it. Not ever.
Comments are Closed.