[Enchante]

"Characterizing my post as a claim that he is "innocent" is simply dishonest"

That's b.s. The legal standard is "innocent until proven guilty" - so when you are denouncing and mocking people who think he is guilty of involvement with terrorism even if the legal criminal standard "beyond a reasonable doubt" has not been met, you are implying that he still falls under the "innocent until proven guilty" presumption. I am saying that terrorists and their co-conspirators (i.e., even people like Al-Arian who may never make a bomb or crash an airplane, etc.) may be judged guilty by reasonable people of good will even when the standards of civlian courts have not been met.

[lugsoul]

You can't even twist your way out of your own lies.

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.