Dr. Sami Al-Arian

Byrnzie

Anyone here heard about this travesty of justice? (I know someone here has, as they are directly effected by this).

Dr. Sami Al-Arian's Struggle for Justice : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NPdpxxBR ... re=related





A 3-part series on Youtube. An inside look of Dr. Sami Al-Arian's trial by one of the jurors. A powerful testimony on what happened during the jury deliberations. A case of first amendment defense against government overreach and criminalization of political speech. An insight into the civil rights trial of the decade on the fifth anniversary of its verdict, reached on December 6, 2005.

The Al-Arian Trial (Part I) : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JNinR1nPXak
The Al-Arian Trial (Part II) : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VHwkpB9t ... re=related
The Al-Arian Trial (Part III) : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=usYDV2aq ... re=related



http://www.washington-report.org/archiv ... 04024.html
The Ordeal of Dr. Sami Al-Arian
Despite Acquittal on Terrorism Charges, No Prospect of Release for Dr. Al-Arian
By Peter Erlinder



IN DECEMBER 2005, Time Magazine reported that the Bush administration suffered its most embarrassing defeat when a Tampa jury found Palestinian activist Dr. Sami Al-Arian “not guilty” of most of the serious “terrorism” charges against him. In early 2003, then-Attorney General John Ashcroft had announced Dr. Al-Arian’s arrest in a Moscow press conference and publicly defamed him as the “major financier of terrorism in the Western Hemisphere.”

More than a year after his acquittal, however, and an agreement approved at the highest levels of the Justice Department to release him almost immediately and to assist his voluntary departure from the U.S., Dr. al-Arian remains incarcerated in a medical prison facility in North Carolina, hundreds of miles from his wife and family.

To protest the Bush administration’s failure to live up to a written agreement to release him in May 2006, Dr. Al-Arian embarked on a hunger strike on Jan. 22, 2007.

Who Is Dr. Sami Al-Arian?

Many Washington Report readers have known Dr. Al-Arian as an outspoken advocate for the rights of the Palestinian people who also encouraged increased political activism by Muslim-Americans. He earned his Ph.D. in the U.S. and has legally resided in this country for more than 30 years with his wife and five children (all U.S. citizens).

Dr. Al-Arian has no previous arrests or criminal convictions, but he is an extremely effective political activist. This was demonstrated, ironically, during the 2000 presidential election, in which Dr. Al-Arian was largely responsible for securing the support of Florida Muslims for then-candidate George W. Bush, based on Bush’s promised support for ending the use of “secret evidence” in deportation hearings.
If the Jury Acquitted Him, Why Is Dr. Al-Arian Still in Prison?

After a six-month trial, the Tampa jury acquitted Dr. Al-Arian of the most serious charges and voted 10-2 to acquit him on all charges. The case against him was so weak that he did not testify; his lawyers presented no evidence or witnesses. His only defense was the Constitution’s First Amendment rights of free speech and freedom of association was his only defense.

After holding Dr. Al-Arian in solitary confinement for nearly three years awaiting the first trial, the Justice Department tried to “save face” by threatening to keep him in solitary for another two to three years, pending a second trial. Early last year, however, the Bush Justice Department agreed to Dr. Al-Arian’s release and voluntary deportation in exchange for a guilty plea to a single count of “conspiracy.” It was an “offense” in name only, but allowed the Justice Department to proclaim a “victory” even though the jury verdict spoke a different truth.

In the written agreement made public on May 1, 2006, the Justice Department stipulated that Dr. Al-Arian:

1. had not engaged in any violent acts and had no previous knowledge of violent acts committed in the United States or the Middle East;
2. would not be required to “cooperate” by providing information to prosecutors;
3. would be released for time served, and that the Justice Department would assist in his immediate voluntary deportation.

At a May 1, 2006 sentencing hearing, the Justice Department kept its bargain by dropping all remaining charges and publicly acknowledging that Dr. Al-Arian had not been involved in any violence, and that he should be released almost immediately.

Contrary to a series of recent Supreme Court cases that have reinforced the importance of juries, however, Federal District Judge James S. Moody rejected the Justice Department agreement and extended Dr. al Arian’s imprisonment by nearly one more year. The judge justified his action by publicly declaring that Dr. Al-Arian was guilty of the same offenses of which the jury had acquitted him.

The judge’s misuse of “acquitted conduct” undermines all Americans’ right to a jury trial for everyone and is being appealed to the Supreme Court. His nearly one-year extension of Dr. Al-Arian’s sentence was not the fault of the Bush-Gonzales Justice Department, but what happened after the judge’s unconstitutional rejection of the jury verdict certainly was.
The Gonzalez Justice Department “Plea” Agreement: Just Another Lie

In November 2006, and again in January 2007, an assistant U.S. attorney in the Eastern District of Virginia named Gordon Kromberg (see p. 30) called Dr. Al-Arian to testify before a grand jury—despite the explicit terms of the agreement with the Bush-Gonzales Justice Department that Dr. Al-Arian need not “cooperate” as part of his plea agreement. The law of the 4th Circuit which governs cases in Virginia is clear: a non-cooperation agreement means no testimony before a grand jury—period. And had Dr. Al-Arian been released as agreed in May 2006, a grand jury subpoena would never even have been possible.

This was not the first time that Muslim or Arab defendants who had been acquitted of “terrorism” charges were subpoenaed by Mr. Kromberg, however. Other acquitted defendants who agreed to speak with him, or who testified before a grand jury, were re-indicted for lying when he disagreed with what they said. Sworn affidavits filed by Dr. Al-Arian’s Tampa lawyers detail scurrilous anti-Muslim diatribes by Kromberg in which he states he is using his prosecutorial power to prevent the “Islamization” of America.

In light of this pattern of bias and abuse of power by Assistant U.S. Attorney Kromberg, Dr. Al-Arian’s lawyers have instructed him not to answer any questions before the Kromberg-controlled grand jury and to insist that the “Justice” Department respect its May 2006 agreement.

Dr. Al-Arian embarked on his hunger strike the moment that Alexandria, VA Federal District Judge Gerald Lee endorsed Kromberg’s actions by holding Dr. Al-Arian in “contempt of court” for insisting that the Justice Department respect the agreement that made it possible to “resolve” the case last May. The judicial rulings are being challenged on appeal, and will eventually succeed.

The problem is, however, that while Dr. Al-Arian is being held on “contempt,” the original criminal sentence is not running. Moreover, after the first contempt finding he might still continue to be held for 18 or 36 months under “civil contempt”—and for much longer if Kromberg chooses to charge him with “criminal contempt.” Despite the “promise” that he would be released in May 2006, Dr. Al-Arian could well be held in prison for years!

Any way you look at it, Mr. Kromberg’s bosses, Alberto Gonzales and George W. Bush, are either permitting a “rogue prosecutor” to violate the law with impunity, or they have a prosecutor who is carrying out their policies. In either case, the “promise” to release Dr. Al-Arian in May 2006 has turned out to be a lie….but, after the lies used to justify the invasion of Iraq, perhaps this should not be surprising.

Peter Erlinder is appeals counsel for Dr. Sami Al-Arian and a professor of law at the William Mitchell College of Law in St. Paul, MN.

MotoDC

He was acquitted for half the charges, jury deadlocked on the other half, and eventually pleaded guilty to conspiring to contribute services to the PIJ (Palestine Islamic Jihad). He served his time for that, I believe, and is now serving time for contempt of court.

According to wiki and your article, as a part of his deal, the Justice Department agreed that there would be limitations on how much he would have to testify in other trials. The extent of those limitations is a bit gray to me, since I can't be assed to search the introwebz to find the actual deal documents.

So what's the tragedy here? He admitted to helping a terrorist organization and then later -- apparently -- violated his plea agreement by refusing to testify in another trial. What are your primary issues with his "conviction" (does it technically count as a conviction when you plead out? probably not.)?

- Whether PIJ had been declared a terrorist org at the time he was helping them?
- Whether PIJ should be considered a terrorist org to begin with?
- Whether his plea deal actually allowed him not to testify in the circumstances that he was called to do so?

Your article (written conveniently by Al-Arian's attorney) claims that a "rogue" judge is keeping him locked up by refusing to honor the "no cooperation" clause, but according to wiki:

"Al-Arian was subpoenaed three times to testify in terrorism-related investigations before Virginia federal grand juries between 2006 and 2008. Each time, he refused to testify. He challenged the initial subpoena in four different federal courts, each of which held that he was in fact required to testify."

If Al-Arian truly had a broad no-cooperation clause, then yeah, the contempt charge seems borne of a judge with an agenda, but the little I've read on it does not imply that it's that clear-cut.

Byrnzie

MotoDC wrote:

He was acquitted for half the charges, jury deadlocked on the other half, and eventually pleaded guilty to conspiring to contribute services to the PIJ (Palestine Islamic Jihad).

But he wasn't found guilty of any of the charges.


http://www.counterpunch.org/cockburn03032007.html
'In December 2005, despite Moody's diligence, the jury acquitted al-Arian of the most serious charges. On those remaining, the usual prosecutorial flailings under conspiracy statutes, jurors voted 10 to 2 for acquittal.'

As for his refusal to testify:

http://www.counterpunch.org/cockburn03032007.html
'The defense rested without calling a single witness or presenting any evidence since the government's case rested entirely on First Amendment­protected activities.'

Byrnzie

http://goatmilkblog.com/2008/06/18/sami ... secutions/

Sami Al-Arian’s Catch-22: Terror prosecutions


Sami Al-Arian has two choices: either testify, face perjury charges, and spend perhaps 10 years in jail, or refuse to testify, be found in criminal contempt, and spend at least five years in jail. Not even the military brass of Joseph Heller’s Catch-22 could have come up with this.

By John Halliwell, June 17, 2008


The case against Clevinger was open and shut. The only thing missing was something to charge him with.
- Joseph Heller, Catch-22

Having lived as an American expatriate in Cairo for almost five years, I am often asked the question, “How are Muslims treated in America?” My response is invariably, “The vast majority of Muslims in America are left in peace; however, there are a few individuals the American government ruthlessly persecutes.” When I say “a few individuals,” I have at the forefront of my mind a certain Palestinian-American Muslim intellectual by the name of Sami Al-Arian.

After a failed trial whose verdict was declared by Time Magazine to be “one of the Justice Department’s most embarrassing legal setbacks since 9/11,” the American government has been resorting to legal ruses and an outright manipulation of the judicial system to keep Al-Arian imprisoned indefinitely. Now, after five years of imprisonment under conditions condemned by Amnesty International as “gratuitously punitive”, Al-Arian could be sentenced any day to at least five more years, and very possibly much more than that.

Al-Arian’s case captures all of the absurd qualities of the Bush administration’s putative “war on terror”. Much like Yossarian, the protagonist of Joseph Heller’s telling anti-war novel Catch-22, Al-Arian has been caught at the mercy of powerful individuals whose farcical logic and self-defeating strategies would be highly comical as the substance of a novel, but which are only that much more terrifying in the real world.

Take, for example, the fact that while Mohamed Atta — the ringleader of the 9/11 hijackers — was taking flight lessons in the same state where Dr Al-Arian lived, the FBI ignored him and spent their energies on wiretapping Al-Arian and his whole family, even though they knew he was not connected to any terrorist activities. The fact that the FBI was following Al-Arian for political and not security reasons has been confirmed by former FBI counterterrorism chief Bob Blitzer, who told reporter John Sugg unambiguously that Al-Arian had broken “no federal laws”. Similarly, an anonymous FBI source in December 2005 told Time Magazine that when Attorney General John Ashcroft ordered Al-Arian’s arrest in early 2003, federal professionals assigned to the case were utterly perplexed. “We were in shock, but those were our marching orders,” one FBI supervisor who was involved in the case noted.

Or take, for instance, the fact that while the Justice Department was trying to have the book thrown at Al-Arian for his alleged support of terrorism, Bob O’Neill, one of the lead prosecutors, was co-owner of an Irish pub in Tampa that publicly raised money for the political wing of the terrorist Irish Republican Army.

Or consider that, while Ashcroft declared Al-Arian to be “the most dangerous financier of Palestinian Islamic Jihad in the Western Hemisphere,” the chief prosecutor in Al-Arian’s trial, US attorney Paul Perez, freely admitted that, “Mr Al-Arian was not directly linked to any of the violent acts that we showed during the trial.”

The government’s attorneys weren’t the only ones employing questionable logic. After the jury acquitted Al-Arian of the eight most serious charges and hung 10 to two in favour of acquittal for the rest, one of the two jurors who voted for conviction explained her reasoning: “For me, the absence of evidence didn’t mean there was no evidence. For me, it suggested a cover-up.” So if there’s evidence, he’s guilty as charged; if there isn’t any evidence, he’s still guilty. Catch-22 indeed.

The fact is that the government tried to hold Dr Al-Arian accountable for a terrorist website he never visited, but whose link was posted on another website visited by one of his co-defendants (try going back and reading that sentence at least two more times). The prosecution also entered into evidence a conversation one of Al-Arian’s co-defendants had had with him in a dream.

If all this were just literary fiction assigned to first-year English majors it would be an entertaining satire of contemporary American society. But it’s not; this is the grotesque nightmare Sami Al-Arian and his family have had to live through for the past five years. Just as Joseph Heller tried to convey, the logic of power can be farcical, short sighted and self-defeating, but it is also uncompromisingly ruthless and senseless in the way that it destroys men’s lives.

Unfortunately, unlike Heller’s protagonist who, after years of dreadful military service, eventually flees toward the horizon to escape his dismal lot, our Palestinian Yossarian’s plight did not end here. After the verdicts were pronounced, the government publicly threatened to retry the case — perfectly legal, but highly irregular given the overwhelming support of the jurors for acquittal. By contrast, around the time of Al-Arian’s trial, a jury hung six to six in a case where the founder of Hooters restaurant was charged with tax evasion; the government realised that it could not realistically convict him in a retrial and let the case go.

Privately, however, the government wanted to minimise the embarrassment of losing the suit it had hyped up as the domestic terror case of the century, so they made Al-Arian an offer he couldn’t refuse. The government would release him as soon as possible and have him deported; all he had to do was confess to three minor acts: first, hiring an attorney for his brother-in-law, Mazen Al-Najjar, during the latter’s deportation hearings in the late 1990s; second, filling out immigration forms for a resident Palestinian scholar from Britain; and third, not disclosing details of his colleague’s political associations to a local reporter. Since the government claims the three people in question were associated with the Palestinian Islamic Jihad, it could twist the language and say that Al-Arian was pleading guilty to “conspiracy to make or receive contributions of funds, goods or services to or for the benefit of the Palestinian Islamic Jihad.”

After the plea agreement was signed, the prosecution recommended to the judge that Al-Arian be given the minimum sentence possible. The judge, however, had different ideas. He proceeded to give Al-Arian the maximum sentence allowed, absurdly claiming that Al-Arian’s “only connection to widows and orphans is that [he] create them,” despite the jury’s overwhelming conclusion to the contrary.

Sadly, even this was not the end. Going back to the plea agreement, the government initially wanted to include a cooperation-clause in the agreement, which is standard practice in the Middle District of Florida, and which would have required Al-Arian to testify at any other trial he might be subpoenaed to. His lawyers were adamant that this clause be removed and that their client not be required to cooperate with the government. Prosecutors backed down and removed the clause.

Al-Arian was scheduled to be released 7 April, but a federal judge blatantly ignored the plea bargain and summoned Al-Arian to testify before another grand jury in an unrelated case. The government has never denied the understanding of the plea bargain (indeed, some government attorneys unusually offered to testify about its negotiation in front of a judge in Florida, but the judge was not interested), arguing only that the absence of an explicit clause exempting Al-Arian from testifying means that he can be forced to testify. Dr Al-Arian’s lawyers point out that this is bogus since the government’s oral promises are just as binding as their written ones.

Why would Dr Al-Arian be afraid to testify? If he’s innocent, what’s there to hide?

This brings us to the last and most cruel Catch-22 of all. As Jonathan Turley, one of Al-Arian’s lawyers, points out, “If the government wants to charge your client with perjury, it is almost certain to be able to do so by asking enough questions over the course of the proceeding.”

And indeed, the government has already attempted to distort Al-Arian’s words to try to convict him of just that. In 2000, while testifying at an immigration hearing for his brother-in-law, a prosecutor asked Al-Arian if he “believed in the use of violence to free Islam”. Dr Al-Arian answered “No” to this absurd question. Three years later, one of the charges against Al-Arian in the 53-count indictment was an obstruction of justice count based on his response to that question (Al-Arian was subsequently acquitted of the charge). Additionally, given that Al-Arian was under 24-hour surveillance by the government for at least a decade prior to his arrest, it is entirely implausible that the government cannot produce whatever information they want from him by other means.

In other words, Dr Al-Arian has two choices: either testify, face perjury charges, and spend perhaps 10 years in jail, or refuse to testify, be found in criminal contempt, and spend at least five years in jail. Not even the deranged military brass of Joseph Heller’s bizarre dystopia could have come up with such a cruel catch.

Dr Al-Arian, who is diabetic, began a hunger strike on 3 March. For the first 17 days he refrained from both food and water; he continued the hunger strike for 57 consecutive days, losing more than 18 kilograms of weight. Despite requests from thousands of supporters to ensure that Dr Al-Arian be given adequate medical attention, the US government never provided it and indeed at times displayed criminal negligence.

On 20 March, Al-Arian was brought before the court and, on the counsel of his attorneys, refused to testify. Any day now, he could be brought before the judge and found in criminal contempt.

The trial of Sami Al-Arian made it clear that the government was really punishing him for supporting the Palestinian cause. As reporter John Sugg wrote, the “onslaught” against Al-Arian “has been an organised, concerted effort” stretching back more than 10 years to when Israel’s right wing was seeking to undermine the Oslo peace process. Al-Arian spoke out as “an emerging voice that differed with the only politically correct narrative on the Middle East”. In the name of peace and justice, Al-Arian “was vigorously trying to communicate with our government and its leaders,” and was successful, “making speeches to intelligence and military commanders” and “inviting the FBI and other officials to attend meetings of his groups. People were beginning to listen…” As Al-Arian soon found out, “No Arab voice could be tolerated.”

While the judge allowed the prosecution to put 21 Israeli witnesses on the stand to testify to the horrors of Palestinian suicide bombings (even though the chief prosecutor freely admitted that Al-Arian was not directly linked to these acts of violence, as cited above), he would not allow the defence to talk about the plight of the Palestinians in any way, shape or form, going so far as to prevent them from discussing UN Security Council Resolution 242 which addresses the Arab-Israeli conflict. The fact is that Al-Arian’s activism for Palestinian issues, which he promoted through peaceful, democratic means, was far more of a threat to hardliner pro-Israel zealots than any suicide-bomber ever could be. His real crime was his commitment to the American ideal of free speech.

Alas for Sami, he lives at a time when this sort of twisted logic reigns over our justice system. Alas for Sami, alas for us all.

MotoDC

Wow another winner of an article, there, B. First one from the defendant's attorney, then this drivel? So many outlandish statements with no support. Google didn't find anything conclusive about who John Halliwell is, but I hope he doesn't call himself a journalist. It's easy to get caught up in the emotional aspect when you read nothing but articles like the ones you've posted.

However, none of this addresses the fact that four separate courts ruled that he should have to testify in the other cases, nor the fact that his plea bargain did not specifically address his no-cooperation request. Strange that his attorneys would "adamantly" insist that he not be required to testify in future trials, and then accept a plea bargain that didn't mention it.

It doesn't address the fact that he admitted to conspiring to assist a terrorist organization.

Also, the defense resting with their case solely on the grounds of protected 1st amendment speech has nothing to do with him testifying (or not) at future trials. He wasn't a defendant in the trials where he refused to testify.

Byrnzie

MotoDC wrote:

It doesn't address the fact that he admitted to conspiring to assist a terrorist organization.

This is what he admitted to:

'hiring an attorney for his brother-in-law, Mazen Al-Najjar, during the latter’s deportation hearings in the late 1990s; second, filling out immigration forms for a resident Palestinian scholar from Britain; and third, not disclosing details of his colleague’s political associations to a local reporter.'


Do you think this is a valid case of someone supporting terrorism and deserving imprisonment and expulsion from the country?

Pepe Silvia

MotoDC wrote:

He was acquitted for half the charges, jury deadlocked on the other half, and eventually pleaded guilty to conspiring to contribute services to the PIJ (Palestine Islamic Jihad). He served his time for that, I believe, and is now serving time for contempt of court.

According to wiki and your article, as a part of his deal, the Justice Department agreed that there would be limitations on how much he would have to testify in other trials. The extent of those limitations is a bit gray to me, since I can't be assed to search the introwebz to find the actual deal documents.

So what's the tragedy here? He admitted to helping a terrorist organization and then later -- apparently -- violated his plea agreement by refusing to testify in another trial. What are your primary issues with his "conviction" (does it technically count as a conviction when you plead out? probably not.)?

- Whether PIJ had been declared a terrorist org at the time he was helping them?
- Whether PIJ should be considered a terrorist org to begin with?
- Whether his plea deal actually allowed him not to testify in the circumstances that he was called to do so?

Your article (written conveniently by Al-Arian's attorney) claims that a "rogue" judge is keeping him locked up by refusing to honor the "no cooperation" clause, but according to wiki:

"Al-Arian was subpoenaed three times to testify in terrorism-related investigations before Virginia federal grand juries between 2006 and 2008. Each time, he refused to testify. He challenged the initial subpoena in four different federal courts, each of which held that he was in fact required to testify."

If Al-Arian truly had a broad no-cooperation clause, then yeah, the contempt charge seems borne of a judge with an agenda, but the little I've read on it does not imply that it's that clear-cut.

10-2 is hardly a deadlock

MotoDC

Byrnzie wrote:

MotoDC wrote:

It doesn't address the fact that he admitted to conspiring to assist a terrorist organization.

This is what he admitted to:

'hiring an attorney for his brother-in-law, Mazen Al-Najjar, during the latter’s deportation hearings in the late 1990s; second, filling out immigration forms for a resident Palestinian scholar from Britain; and third, not disclosing details of his colleague’s political associations to a local reporter.'


Do you think this is a valid case of someone supporting terrorism and deserving imprisonment and expulsion from the country?

...All three of whom were at least suspected of being involved with the PIJ.

"Conspiring to provide services to..." That's what that is.

Pepe wrote:

10-2 is hardly a deadlock

Well, yeah, actually it is. Deadlock doesn't mean "tie". It means they reached a point where they were legally unable to make a decision.

You guys aren't going to "win" this little faux debate on legal grounds. He admitted to conspiring and he violated his plea bargain by refusing to testify (according to four separate federal courts). However, on the face of it, does it seem like his punishment doesn't suit his crime? Yeah, maybe; again, it seems that way especially if all you read are incredibly biased articles like the ones posted here. Regardless, that's a broader legal and social question -- much like automatic jail time for minor drug offenses -- which isn't really being addressed in your posts.

polaris_x

admitting is a joke of a term when it comes to US justice ...

you guys can torture a child for 8 years and take shelter in that he "admitted" to crimes ...

MotoDC

polaris_x wrote:

admitting is a joke of a term when it comes to US justice ...

you guys can torture a child for 8 years and take shelter in that he "admitted" to crimes ...

So your claim is that Al-Arian's confession was tortured out of him? I haven't seen anything that indicates that.

polaris_x

MotoDC wrote:

polaris_x wrote:

admitting is a joke of a term when it comes to US justice ...

you guys can torture a child for 8 years and take shelter in that he "admitted" to crimes ...

So your claim is that Al-Arian's confession was tortured out of him? I haven't seen anything that indicates that.

no ... simply that if your assessment of the situation is based on a confession - it really isn't substantial ... look at the WM3 ... if you put someone in solitary for 3 years which is essentially torture to me ... i'm sure you can get him to sign anything to get his release ...

MotoDC

polaris_x wrote:

MotoDC wrote:

polaris_x wrote:

admitting is a joke of a term when it comes to US justice ...

you guys can torture a child for 8 years and take shelter in that he "admitted" to crimes ...

So your claim is that Al-Arian's confession was tortured out of him? I haven't seen anything that indicates that.

no ... simply that if your assessment of the situation is based on a confession - it really isn't substantial ... look at the WM3 ... if you put someone in solitary for 3 years which is essentially torture to me ... i'm sure you can get him to sign anything to get his release ...

I've definitely read/heard that the worst part of prison is doing solitary time. That's it's one of the worst forms of punishment. So I don't mean to minimize that with my next statment, but I believe Al-Arian's trial lasted only 6 months. His confession came at the end of that, before his true incarceration began. Are you saying he was he in solitary for those 6 months?

polaris_x

MotoDC wrote:

I've definitely read/heard that the worst part of prison is doing solitary time. That's it's one of the worst forms of punishment. So I don't mean to minimize that with my next statment, but I believe Al-Arian's trial lasted only 6 months. His confession came at the end of that, before his true incarceration began. Are you saying he was he in solitary for those 6 months?

from the first post ...

After holding Dr. Al-Arian in solitary confinement for nearly three years awaiting the first trial

MotoDC

polaris_x wrote:

MotoDC wrote:

I've definitely read/heard that the worst part of prison is doing solitary time. That's it's one of the worst forms of punishment. So I don't mean to minimize that with my next statment, but I believe Al-Arian's trial lasted only 6 months. His confession came at the end of that, before his true incarceration began. Are you saying he was he in solitary for those 6 months?

from the first post ...

After holding Dr. Al-Arian in solitary confinement for nearly three years awaiting the first trial

Fair enough, but I've already mentioned the questionable source for the article Byrnzie posted. To wit:

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2005/dec20 ... -d08.shtml
"Al-Arian has been kept in prison for nearly three years, a large portion of it in solitary confinement."
Not quite 3 years total, and only a "large portion" in solitary confinement.

http://www.sptimes.com/2004/03/22/Hills ... y_be.shtml
No mention of solitary in an article clearly in favor of Al-Arian.

May seem like splitting hairs, but when your argument relies entirely on believing that Al-Arian lied in his confession due to duress, determining the true nature of that duress is relevant.

Pepe Silvia

MotoDC wrote:

Pepe wrote:

10-2 is hardly a deadlock

Well, yeah, actually it is. Deadlock doesn't mean "tie". It means they reached a point where they were legally unable to make a decision.

You guys aren't going to "win" this little faux debate on legal grounds. He admitted to conspiring and he violated his plea bargain by refusing to testify (according to four separate federal courts). However, on the face of it, does it seem like his punishment doesn't suit his crime? Yeah, maybe; again, it seems that way especially if all you read are incredibly biased articles like the ones posted here. Regardless, that's a broader legal and social question -- much like automatic jail time for minor drug offenses -- which isn't really being addressed in your posts.

well, no, actually it is not

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/deadlock

dead·lock noun \ˈded-ˌläk\
Definition of DEADLOCK

1
: a state of inaction or neutralization resulting from the opposition of equally powerful uncompromising persons or factions : standstill <the deadlock was broken with a key compromise>
2
: a tie score

you say it was on won the faux debate on legal grounds, i say it was won because there was really no evidence and it was a huge fucking waste of time and money not to mention what his family must have had to endure.

of course drug offenses weren't brought up, this case didn't involve it. it also didn't talk about double rainbows, what's the point?

you can shrug and say 'yeah, maybe it was a little harsh, who knows?' and go about your day but that is someone's dad, someone's husband....that had to go through this for years over some pretty shitty 'evidence', like web sites he nor any of the other defendants even accessed (wtf??) if you watched the videos one of the jurors even says he didn't understand how a lot of the 'evidence' got put into the trial since it had no links to anything

MotoDC

Pepe Silvia wrote:

MotoDC wrote:

Well, yeah, actually it is. Deadlock doesn't mean "tie". It means they reached a point where they were legally unable to make a decision.

well, no, actually it is not

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/deadlock

dead·lock noun \ˈded-ˌläk\
Definition of DEADLOCK

1
: a state of inaction or neutralization resulting from the opposition of equally powerful uncompromising persons or factions : standstill <the deadlock was broken with a key compromise>
2
: a tie score

you say it was on won the faux debate on legal grounds, i say it was won because there was really no evidence and it was a huge fucking waste of time and money not to mention what his family must have had to endure.

:roll:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/deadlock

dead·lock   /ˈdɛdˌlɒk/ Show Spelled
[ded-lok] Show IPA

–noun
1. a state in which progress is impossible, as in a dispute, produced by the counteraction of opposing forces; standstill; stalemate: The union and management reached a deadlock over fringe benefits.
2. deadbolt.
3. a maximum-security cell for the solitary confinement of a prisoner.

Weird, words have meanings! In this context, it doesn't mean a "tie".

pepe wrote:

of course drug offenses weren't brought up, this case didn't involve it. it also didn't talk about double rainbows, what's the point?

Really? You misunderstood my point that completely? I was making a comparison related to a punishment fitting the crime, or rather, whether our legal system always deals with situations in the best manner. I said nothing about drug charges being a facet of this case.

polaris_x

MotoDC wrote:

from the first post ...

After holding Dr. Al-Arian in solitary confinement for nearly three years awaiting the first trial

Fair enough, but I've already mentioned the questionable source for the article Byrnzie posted. To wit:

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2005/dec20 ... -d08.shtml
"Al-Arian has been kept in prison for nearly three years, a large portion of it in solitary confinement."
Not quite 3 years total, and only a "large portion" in solitary confinement.

http://www.sptimes.com/2004/03/22/Hills ... y_be.shtml
No mention of solitary in an article clearly in favor of Al-Arian.

May seem like splitting hairs, but when your argument relies entirely on believing that Al-Arian lied in his confession due to duress, determining the true nature of that duress is relevant.[/quote]

i'm not as familiar with this case as i am with say omar khadr ... all i'm saying is when it comes to detainees - especially when it comes under the guise of "terrorism" - the US does not have great record on justice ... we are all probably leaning towards our biases here ... all i'm saying is that if you are focusing strictly on some admission done under some kind of negotiations - it's not always what it appears ...