Posted on 12/06/2005 12:40:23 PM PST by Halfmanhalfamazing
There it is. Turn on the news it should be on right about now. His co-conspirators too.
I'll drink to that! Here in Tucson, I am a transplanted native Californian. I never planned to come here but my employer at the time shut down the plant CA where I worked (on 9/11/01, incidently! I'll never forget that day!), and I had an opportunity to transfer down here. I sold my crappy little 2 bedroom there for $400+K, paid off the $190K mortgage, and bought free and clear my much nicer home down here.
All that said, transplants such as myself are not all liberals. I sure don't miss CA politics!
Great summation of the reasons to declare war. Thanks for pinging me on it!
I agree totally with your statement. Others have said that the difficulty in the WOT is that there is no nation-state or entity to declare war upon. How about a war on Islamic-Fascist organizations that resist democratic reforms, and the countries that harbor them.
That definition takes in a pretty wide swath of the Islamic world.....but it represents reality.
I think a properly written declaration might have simplified things with this case.
Probably part of the problem is that some of what Al Arian did was legal at the time he did it. Proving the connection between him and the people he supported is easy; proving the connection between him and the actions they took gets more difficult.
But if you declare yourself at war with a given group, it ought to be much easier to simply demonstrate that he is on their side and either take him into custody on that basis alone, or revoke his citizenship on that basis alone.
Lincoln has been criticized for revoking Habeus Corpus during the Civil War, and threatening to jail judges. Whatever the particulars of the individual cases, he at least understood that he was at war, and he was prepared to do what he had to do. When you are at war, you are in what in many countries is called a "state of emergency". If people declare their support for the enemy, you round them up. You can always apologize later after the war is won.
The stupidity here is using the legal system to prosecute terrorists when we are at war. Protections afforded accused criminals are not meant to protect unlawful combatants and terrorists.
Man, I like that policy. However in the current circumstances, it would require a new "Democrat Wing" at Gitmo!!
Specificaly, on Sami al-Arian. I read that much of the governments case was weakened by the requirement to protect undercover sources and methods.
Got any info on that angle?
http://www.castorfacts.com/
what difference does that make - they let the guy off, period.
It makes a difference...appeals and he is not "innocent". He is not "off"..there are other counts.
yes - other counts - none of which this jury would convict on.
what this case shows is that the guy who was/is the leader of palestinian islamic jihad in the US - could not be convicted in a US criminal court. you can point to reason A, B, C - but the simple fact remains. we have juries in this country that would be more then happy to get a case and find the boy scouts liable for being "anti-gay", but think that being a fund raiser for islamic jihad is protected by the constitution. and you don't think that's a problem?
Yes he did. We gotta give him that.
I wouldn't have heard much about this if not for O'Reilly (and FR, of course)
I concede your points. Yes, I too have a problem with the outcome of this trial. I would be very interested in hearing more about this trial and the jury.
the LIBERAL MEDIA have done an EXCELLENT job at not reminding the public of 9/11.
I heard Steve Emerson's take on it (I trust his opinion). The evidence was "old" he said - alot of the material was from the mid 90s. Not that this should mean much legally, if there is a statute of limitations involved - so be it, that's the law. But apparently there was a feeling that this wasn't "fresh" evidence?
Well how about that - former KKK persons are convicted of lynchings in the south that occurred 20-30 years ago, but somehow this jury figures that unless you were in Islamic Jihad "last week", its old news and you get a pass. God help us.
the best news to come out of this - the new trial will involve a new jury.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1616991/posts?page=26#26
You want to fight the war on jihadists like a lawyer. Everything that does not meet an evidentiary standard of provable "beyond a reasonable doubt" will not satisfy you. Unfortunately, when dealing with jihadists we may sometimes, even often, have to act without sufficient evidence to satisfy you. The alternative is much worse.
As far as 'fighting the war on terror like a lawyer' goes, if you are going to bring charges against a guy, you have to be able to prove those charges. You may be all in favor of changing our justice system to deal with terrorists. I'm not. You are correct about ONE thing. In prosecuting jihadists, I DO want the evidence to carry the 'beyond a reasonable doubt' burden. Because that's the law. And has been for the entirety of our existence. You may want to let the jihadists serve as the justification for gutting our entire system of law and governance. I don't.
Characterizing my post as a claim that he is "innocent" is simply dishonest.
What I was "mocking" was those who will substitute their own judgment for those who have actually SEEN the evidence.
I DON'T KNOW if Al-Arian was guilty of the charges against him. I've seen or read very little of the evidence. I wouldn't presume to claim that I know more about it than those who spent weeks and weeks looking at that evidence.
And while people like Al-Arian "may be judged guilty by reasonable people of good will," that doesn't subject one to punishment by the state under our system of government unless the LEGAL standard of guilt is satisfied. You seem to wish that were different, i.e. that some folks could just say "Hmmm, it SEEMS like he's guilty, and he's said some bad things, so I think he's guilty", and that this would allow the state to impose sentence. That ain't how it works, and if that ever becomes how it works we have lost our country as surely as we would if the Black Flag of jihad were flying over it.
Now, quit making up positions to ascribe to me and try to be at least minimally honest.
blah, blah, blah, blah..... I can see why you are so widely despised around here..... you always have to throw in personal insults instead of keeping to the point in a reasoned discussion. No one cares about your feeble ravings, so get over yourself.
TAMPA - A judge sentenced former professor Sami Al-Arian on Monday to another year and a half in prison before he will be deported in his terrorism conspiracy case, calling him ''an active leader'' in a Palestinian terror group.
Al-Arian, 48, was sentenced to four years and nine months, but he will get credit for the three years and three months he already has served.
Attorney Linda Moreno asked U.S. District Judge James S. Moody Jr. to release her client now, but the judge refused and called Al-Arian ``a master manipulator.''
Al-Arian signed a plea agreement April 14 in which he admitted providing support to members of the Palestinian Islamic Jihad, a State Department-designated terrorist group responsible for hundreds of deaths in Israel and the Palestinian territories.
The former University of South Florida computer engineering professor took the plea deal even though a jury failed to convict him on any of the 17 charges against him after a six-month trial last year. His family said he took the deal to get out of jail and end their suffering.
I like this comment from Judge Moody:
Dismissing the defense contentions that money was raised for charities, Moody said: ``Your only connection to widows and orphans was that you create them.''
Actually, he got hoodwinked. He thought he was just going to be deported and get no more time. The judge didn't agree.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.