Now this is odd: the Rumpled Academic is resting his entire defense on freedom of speech: "The government has not proven Dr. Al-Arian has done anything but speak." Sure. All he did was speak: speak to call for death to America and death to Israel. Speak to bring Ramadan Shallah, who is now head of the Islamic Jihad terrorist group, to Florida. Speak -- above all -- to raise money to provide for more murderers of Israeli civilians. "Fired professor presents no defense in terrorism-support trial," from AP, with thanks to the Constantinopolitan Irredentist:
After hearing from government witnesses for nearly five months, an attorney for a fired college professor charged with aiding Palestinian terrorists rested his case Thursday without calling a single witness.After summoning more than 70 witnesses, federal prosecutors rested their case earlier Thursday morning against Sami Al-Arian and three other defendants accused of raising money and supporting the murderous mission of the Palestinian Islamic Jihad or PIJ.
Al-Arian's attorney, William Moffitt, stunned most in the courtroom when he told U.S. District Judge James S. Moody Jr. that he also would rest. Attorneys for Al-Arian's three co-defendants began presenting their cases, which could take weeks more.
When asked about the decision, Moffitt would say only that Al-Arian has done nothing wrong and the U.S. Constitution protects his right to speak.
"The government has not proven Dr. Al-Arian has done anything but speak," Moffitt said....
Prosecutors built their case around hundreds of pages of transcripts of wiretapped phone calls and faxes they say proves that the defendants raised money to fund the cycle of suicide bombings that killed hundreds.
The conversations and correspondence, intercepted by the FBI from the mid-1990s to about 2003, have included discussions about the direction and financing of the PIJ. Other times, the participants appear to celebrate suicide attacks that killed Israelis and speak glowingly of the Palestinian "martyrs" who carried them out.
I'm not a betting woman, but something tells me that Al-Arian's defense council is going to be as successful in arguing this point as Lynne Stewart's was. (In other words, not very.)
The only move open to the defence who had to know that Sami was dead meat if more attention was brought to his activities, or if he were subject to cross examination.
Now the other fools can blame it all on Sami recklessly and without limit.
Well Sami, infamy now or infamy later, or both.
From what I have read, juror post-trial interviews are overwhelmingly negative when no defense case is presented other than cross examination of the prosecution's witnesses is overwhelmingly negative. They resent the presumption of the defense attorney that no further rebuttal is needed.
He may be plotting with the other attorneys, and betting on a 'great' closing argument defense. We'll see.
I hope they throw the book at him.
sami should not be tried in civil court,
sami is at war with us and proud of it.
He doesn't care whether he goes to jail or not,
not really, he gets moh points by going to jail where he can write political tracts and make his wudu and say his prayers paid for by you and me, sami is a slimebucket and we should not waste money on his upkeep. He should be stripped of all assets and sent back to ummahville along with his family, all his family, even aunts and uncles and especially brothers and male cousins.
"Just speaking" can on occasion constitute legitimate grounds for a guilty verdict on the (serious) charge of sedition-and others as well. I suspect that will happen in this case.
Adios, al-Arian! Make lots of license plates at the pen!!!
I'll even send you a nailfile!! (or not).
This is interesting. Al-Arian apparantly has no defense against these charges other then the right to "free speech".Of course "free speech" isn't really "free" and speech that involves conspiracy, sedition or treason can get you life in prison or even death in the US.Hopefully in the case of Al-Arian they will throw away the key.
JohnSobieski:
You are probably right that the defence will get up on its hind legs for the summation, after the prosecution rests, and full of fury it will be, but like George Galloway's blustering denials before the Senate Committee on Oil-for-Food, signifying nothing more than a non-existent case for the defence.
Also to be expected: a motion to appeal on a lame pretext.