Joe Kaufman surveys the Al-Arian wreckage at FrontPage:
“Today, the United States Department of Justice is announcing the indictment of Sami Al-Arian and seven co-conspirators.” That’s how United States Attorney General John Ascroft began his press conference, back in February of 2003. It was a momentous day in the war on terrorism, a triumph of the newly installed Patriot Act. We caught a leader of a terrorist ring based out of Tampa, Florida, and he and at least some of his compatriots were going to be brought to justice. Now, well over two years later, things have dramatically changed.Yesterday, Al-Arian and his three friends were acquitted. Five months of testimony, five months of evidence, five months of witnesses, all down the drain.
Until we hear from the jurors, it’s hard to say how this could possibly have happened. The judge in the trial, James S. Moody, had stipulated to the jury that the Prosecution needed to prove that the money allegedly going from Tampa to the Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ) was sent for the purpose of violence. Did the jurors actually believe that the money was just being used for charitable purposes? Is it possible that anything related to PIJ can be disassociated with violence? Or did the jurors believe that this was all one big political demonstration from Zionists that just have a different bent on the Israeli-Palestinian situation?
I cannot envision either of the above occurring. Not because it’s out of the realm of imagination, but because I attended the trial. Along with the jurors, I watched the video of the Cleveland fundraiser. Along with them, I watched Fawaz Mohammed “Abu” Damra – the individual that founded Al-Qaeda’s main American headquarters in Brooklyn – call Al-Arian’s Islamic Committee for Palestine the “active arm of the Islamic Jihad movement in Palestine.” Al-Arian was present in the video. Did he disagree? Absolutely not.
Along with the jurors, I watched (in the video) these individuals raise thousands of dollars for martyr operations, apart from raising thousands for “orphans.” “Anyone like to donate for the Intifada? A knife to stab the Jews,” Damra stated, to which the crowd loudly responded “Allahu Akbar!” (G-d is great!) The intentions of these people could not be any clearer. Granted, there were times when half the jury looked asleep, but while this video was showing, their eyes were wide open. How could they discount this startling evidence?Of the 17 counts Al-Arian was being charged with, he was acquitted on eight of them, including “conspiracy to murder and maim people abroad,” arguably the most damaging charge. The remaining nine were considered a mistrial, as the jury was deadlocked on them.
Two of his codefendants, Sameeh Hammoudeh and Ghassan Zayed Ballut, were acquitted of all charges against them. The other, Hatem Naji Fariz, was found innocent of 24 counts and jurors deadlocked on the remaining eight.
Barring the unusual circumstance that the U.S. government chooses to retry Al-Arian for the charges declared a mistrial, he will be deported, as his brother-in-law, Mazen Al-Najjar, was in August of 2002 and as his friend, Fawaz Damra, soon will be.
But is deportation for this man justice? If that were the case, Sami Al-Arian would have been deported long ago. No, Al-Arian should remain behind bars, if not worse. Regardless of what the outcome of the trial was, he was guilty of being a leader in the Palestinian Islamic Jihad.
One must consider Al-Arian’s codefendant, Ramadan Abdullah Shallah. Shallah was brought to Tampa by Al-Arian to work for the University of South Florida (USF). One day, Shallah disappeared from Florida only to reappear as the Secretary General of PIJ in Damascus, Syria. Sources say it could have easily been Al-Arian that left town for Damascus, instead of Shallah. In that case, it would have been Al-Arian ordering a suicide bombing, such as the one that happened in Netanya on Monday, not Shallah. What then? Would that have satisfied the jury?
This case was a big blow for the war on terrorism. Most people are so bombarded by news reports dealing with Iraq and Iran that they fail to see what’s going on right under their noses, right in their own country. Sami Al-Arian was a huge part of this war. Because someone like him – someone that was so blatantly involved in terrorism – was acquitted, the Justice Department may look twice at bringing future terror cases to trial. And that undoubtedly will embolden the enemy.
On this day, terrorism prevailed.
Al Arian walks,and thats stupid.I just wonder ,do the American ppl need another 9/11 god forbid to wake up and understand that there is no way to put up with Jihadists???They are gaining strength and manipulate the democracy against herself!!!!Wake up America the snake is in your garden ready to bite!!!
Sheer stupidity. Unless of course the money was in an enevelope clearly marked "Do Not Use These Funds For Other Than Charitable Works".
Islamofascism does not have to beat the West, it will give itself up like a grovelling little slut who, willing to degrade and debase herself to get imagined approval, wants to be the gangster's bitch.
Some of the remarks polluting the airwaves today sound so much like the rationale of an abused spouse. "He really loves me, he didn't mean it" or ""It wasn't HIS fault, it was something I did/said/didn't do/didn't say/should of done/should have said ad..f*cking..nauseam.
The prosecution is yet to decide if it will retry the hung counts. Yeah, right.
That naked guy who just walked by again? Yeah him. Yeah, that was that emperor guy.
What to say? This is surreal!
The door now swings wide for the entrance of barbarians to do their deeds.
A sad day for America.
Certain subjects are deemed too complicated, not only for jurors, but for ordinary judges. There are special Military Courts. There are special Tax Courts. Is the matter of terrorism akin to a case of shoplifting, or assault and battery, or even murder, or does it require special kinds of knowledge, including an understanding of the tenets of Islam, the worldview that those tents naturally engender, the opaque language of parts of the Qur'an, the principles of kitman and taqiyya? Is this the kind of knowledge that those who make up the jury pool are likely to comprehend, or be made to comprehend? And since a great many people have a great deal of respect for anything called a "religion," and since Islam is called, by many, a "religion," can one expect the necessary ability to stand back, to analyze, to be skeptical even, or perhaps especially, of someone who is called a "cleric"? Can even the phrase "in the path of God" be understood properly? And what happens if, in court, the usual highly selective quotation of Qur'anic passages occurs? And what if, as is quite likely, the defendants in such cases are, to an untutored eye, perfectly nice people, familiy men (and how), who raise their children with all those family values (and if we are to listen to Mustafa Akyol's siren song, practically Kansas fundamentalists in their desire to promote intelligent design and to find, at long last, with their "Christian brethren," a way out of the supposed moral mess that "modern science" has created).
Congress -- Tancredo, any one -- must look at this, and figure out how to set up separate courtgs, specialized courts, with special prosecutors. See if there is anyhting to be learned, anywhere, for example in the operation that Jean-Louis Bruguiere runs in France, to deal with the problem of dumb juries.
A clearly-guilty defendant let off with his freedom and his Heisman Trophy, who cannot conceivably be a further menace now that his wife is dead, is bad enough. Letting off anyone like Sami al-Arian heartens others like him everywhere, and further endangers all of us. Sentimentalism about juries has to go. Just as, in tort cases, these juries choose mindlessly to redistribute the wealth -- unable to do so at the ballot box, they do so in the courtroom, but the recipients of the transfer of gigantic sums from defendnat corporations do not get spread around, but rather go to a particular plaintiff who hardly deserves the preposterous settlement, and of course to the lawyer. That too is a problem: the Jury that is determined to redistribute wealth in the clumsiest, and most unfair, manner possible.
But this is far worse.
Hugh, I agree with you completely. But I think there is a slight flaw with your proposal: our terrorism experts know nothing about Islam. They haven't studied it intently. They don't understand the Koran, Hadith, Sira and the concept of abrogation and taqiyya. They don't understand why Muslims have such a fierce hatred of non-Muslims. I mean, even Emerson doesn't talk about Islam, but "radical Islam" as if this infidel animosity started with Qutb. I think the only person that has a good grasp of both subjects (terrorism and Islam) is that Irish fellow who grew up in Pakistan and teaches a course on Islam and anti-terrorism at some HS training school (I can't remember his name for the life of me). Other than him, we have nobody to lead us.
On another note, Debbie Schlussel also predicted like Robert, that al-Arian would walk. She agrees that terrorism cannot be treated as a legal matter but as a national security issue. She also says that the Justice Dept. has a terrible record of this and is only doing this "for show" but doesn't really intend to convict any of these terrorist (lest we offend the Muslims!). She cites the case of Richard Convertino (a prosecutor who obtained a guilty verdict against terrorists) who was ruined by the Justice Dept. officials and a judge and got the verdict overturned. We can't trust them and things have got to change.
I don't think islam is that complex or hard to understand. And I don't think the powers-that-be are that ignorant. The are simply Pragmatists, who know how to brainwash people, they are determined to "hijack" islam and turn it into something that it really is'nt. And it can be done.
http://philosophy.lander.edu/intro/introbook2.1/c8397.html
Hugh & Igor:
Regrettable as this verdict is, you gentlemen might want to consider that numerous variables often contribute to a ridiculous outcome, especially in a criminal trial.
Hugh's implication that that our jury system is ill equipped to deal with the concept of Islam (clearly, a "religon" under applicable precedent and even federal tax definition) is true, but perhaps the least of the problem. Even a trusting, well-meaning jury must be educated by the prosecutor.
This case was lost because it was probably poorly prosecuted. You've got to remember that U.S. Attorneys' offices throughout the country vary considerably in terms of talent and commitment of its trial attorneys. Politics also has too much weight in who is ultimately chosen to prosecute a case such as Al-Arian--which was, unfortunately, a very important criminal case.
Juries MUST be educated about Islam in any prosecution involving Islamic terrorism, to the extent permitted by the Rules of Evidence. This is the challenge for the creative and ruthless prosecutor, and clearly was not met in this case. Challenging Islam itself MUST be be part of an overall trial strategy, even when one is unlucky enough to have a bunch of potted plants as jurors.
This is a terrible loss. Rather than giving Muslims "faith" in our supposedly wonderful judicial system, it reinforces in their minds our essential weakness. And truth be told, in the Arab culture, at least, strength is far more respected and feared than tolerance. Dhimmitude inspires only contempt for us infidels. That is a plain fact to anybody who is familiar with at least the Middle East, certainly.
Specialized terrorism courts (where juries are bypassed) may be the answer, but there is still no excuse for not pursuing a competent and intelligent prosecution, where the prosecutors have truly educated themselves about many of the things touched on in this site.
Having followed this trial & the evidence very closely from this side of the pond, I am absolutely dumbfounded that the evidence presented was not of sufficient calibre to gain a conviction.
Indeed, on this day the terrorists have won a major victory - a victory they will use again & again, when & if other members of the "Religion of Peace" are charged with similar offences in the States.
On the strength of this verdict, I cannot see the USA trying anyone else for the same offences.
A sad, sad day for all democracies & all those who do believe in justice.
Robert and Hugh:
I don't know if either of you is an attorney. If either of you is a trained lawyer, plese do not take offense at my comments as too elementary for your consumption. I do not intend to offend.
I spent some twenty years in law enforcement, a good portion of that in Courtrooms as the detective who brought the investigations and charges to the District Attorneys with whom I worked during those proceedings. Some of those case were rather complex in nature (contract murders, for example). Some cases were not so complex.
If you've spent any significant amount of time in Courtrooms, you know that juries can be influenced by many different factors, not the least of which is what they are watching during these times on TV. And we know what any jury pool is seeing regarding the war in Iraq on the nightly mainstream media news. TV does instill biases in people's minds.
Certain jurors may or may not like one of the lawyers on either side of the aisle.
A jury trial is always a roll of the dice for both sides. It is impossible to tell what really went on in the minds of the jurors in this or in any case. In many trials the prosecutor misreads some of the jurors during voir dire, the initial questioning of jurors, where jurors are supposed to honestly reveal their thoughts, experiences and biases about the questions posed by both attorneys.
And potential jurors do tell lies to both attorneys in order to either get removed from, or place on, the jury for the trial at hand. The voir dire process, while efficient for the most part, does not ferret out all biases among the jury pool. It is impossible to read the minds and thoughts of those who choose to conceal them.
And I'm not suggesting that any jurors lied during voir dire in this case, because I don't know that to be true in this case.
And I agree with you, Hugh, that attorneys who prosecute terrorism cases should have at least a working knowledge of the fundamentals of Islam, dhimmitude, and jihad, because Islamic motives will always be central to the terrorism charges. Moreover, the attorney must have at his disposal at least one expert witness to present those basic concepts of Islam to the jury in a way that is concise and readily digestible. Hugh Fitzgerald and Robert Spencer come to mind as excellent potential expert witnesses.
Lastly, the simpler the prosecutor makes his case, the better. Too much extraneous or peripheral evidentiary material can result in too much for the juries to logically sort. Each witness who takes the stand presents an opportunity for the defense attorney to mount an attack during cross examination. Weak or contradictory testimony by a peripheral witness can become central to the defense's case. A competent defense lawyer will magnify and use such testimony during closing arguments to cause confusion among the jurors about the merits of the case in total.
Anyway, the only thing to do with this case is now to not dwell in anger on that which the jury decided. We must move on to the next case and hope for the truth and justice to prevail.
All best to you at Jihadwatch.
"Hugh Fitzgerald and Robert Spencer come to mind as excellent potential expert witnesses."
In a fantasy world, perhaps. But not in the tragically irrational reality of our PC-dominated society.
Now might be a good time for sami to take a trip to Judea. I hear that huntin' season's open again.
Get used to it! This is just the beginning because NONE of YOU want to distroy the great generator of suicide bombers! You will have plenty of mentally ill people to pick on and complain about until you discredit that Book that they have all been brainwashed by!!! When are you all going to get it! It.s not mentally ill brainwashed people! IT'S THE KORAN STUPID!
OT: Everyone should check out fjordman's latest update on the Muhammad cartoons.
An excerpt:
The United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights understands the concern in Muslim countries over the 12 cartoons of the prophet Muhammad and expects UN experts on racism to deal with the matter. At the same time as Islamic countries in a meeting in Mecca are going to discuss joint action against Denmark, the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights Louise Arbour has involved herself in the discussion.
My guess is that something similar to the OJ trial happened. Lawyers are very clever at selecting juries likely to be sympathetic to the defendant for one reason or another. Often this hinges on ethnicity, a very emotional issue. That could be the case here, whether relevant or not. People who feel persecuted are likely to sympathize with Palestinians protrayed as persecuted. Or they can be made to sympathize. Heck, even many white affluent liberals are now sympathizing with Palestinians to the point of overlooking or justifying Palestinian terror. Welcom to politics.
Here I'm afraid that the Government, at least its judiciary branch, is to blame. What killed the case was the astounding ruling from the bench that the US had to prove funding of specific acts of violence- COMPLETELY NOTWITHSTANDING the fact that the statute in question criminalizes funding for any GROUP designated as a terrorist organization. And of course the idea that PIJ "charity" money and "murder" money are not the same is as dumb as believing Tom DeLay didn't distribute corporate contributions to Texas candidates....
This is a very disappointing result, but no reason to tamper with the jury system. The jury can only convict on the basis of the evidence, and it is up to the prosecution to make the case. Having expert witnesses seems like a better solution.
Fraud and tax cases are different. They are often too complex for the layman to understand. However, there is nothing about Islam that an ordinary person cannot understand, if the experts present it to them properly. Islam is a very simple ideology, designed by a simple man for simple-minded people.
I don't know, Interested. There was some stunning evidence presented by the prosecution, so it would seem that some members of this panel didn't get it.
"And potential jurors do tell lies to both attorneys in order to either get removed from, or place on, the jury for the trial at hand."
The only potential jurors who had to tell lies while being vetted were jurors who believe that Islam is a problem insofar as it nourishes extremism and terrorism.
Imaginative scenario:
Defense attorney interrogating potential juror#1:
"What do you think of Islam and Muslims?"
Potential juror #1:
"I think most Muslims are good and decent people, and that while there is a tiny minority of extremists who are engaging in violence, their beliefs and actions have nothing to do with Islam, a great religion of peace."
Defense attorney: "Thank you. I have no objections to #1 becoming a juror."
Judge: "The Prosecution?"
Prosecuting attorney asking potential juror #1: "What do you think of the Middle Eastern conflict with regard to Israel and Palestine?"
Potential juror #1:
"I think both sides are to blame and both sides want peace and have their sincere, good sides, but it seems that very complicated circumstances have frustrated this so far."
Prosecuting attorney: "Thank you. I have no objections to #1 becoming a juror."
Defense attorney: "I agree."
Judge: "Let juror #1 be inducated into the jury. You may now ask questions of potential juror #2..."
And so on, ad NAUSEAM.
Any news on reaction from the Moslems?
Looking on the bright side, now maybe now that all the excitement's over Sami can catch some quality rounds of golf with O.J.
t-ham
I agree with you, all this treason stinks to heaven of well-placed Saudi money.
Also the media's never-blame-islam bias stinks of saudi money.
With the media, the judiciary, politicians and academics in their pocket, the Muslims have only to sit down, relax and wait until our society is ripe for takeover.
LOL @ Dr. Pepper.
Soooo true.
Godefroi de Boulogne "What killed the case was the astounding ruling from the bench that the US had to prove funding of specific acts of violence"
I'm not sure what the exact legal standards were for the statutes in this case, but I bet it is something similar to what Godefroi said. That payment X that was collected from Al-Arian on a particular date was given to this particular terrorist who used it to buy chemicals which were used to make explosives on this date at this location which was later used to bomb this bus on this date, all of which had to have witnesses at each step to show that it was the same payment X at each step in the process.
Same standard used to apply to the Mafia. They had to find a person who witnessed the capo give the specific order to kill this specific person. Of course, the only witnesses present were other members of the mafia who were not about to commit suicide by informing on their friends and family. And, if the order was "Get rid of him!" or "Make him go away!" or "Take him on a one-way ride" etc. it could be ambiguous to a jury (the standard is beyond a doubt, and it's pretty easy to raise a doubt no matter how ludicrous).
Al Capone was never convicted of any of the numerous murders that he undoubtably committed; he was only convicted of tax fraud, because that didn't require getting testimony from fellow mafioso.
Eventually the standard for organized crime was changed, with the RICO act. Now it is enough to prove membership in the group, and that the group has a pattern of committing crimes. I think updating the law to match the reality is a better solution than changing the Constitution to get rid of "dumb juries". I'm very interested in the composition of the jury and how they explain their verdict, but I'm guessing that they felt they couldn't meet an impossibly strict standard for conviction.
Dr. Pepper:
C'mon. What defence attorney worth his salt would confirm the selection of a juror who didn't think Israel is a racist apartheid state guilty of all sorts of human rights violations?
It seems that 64 years after the "day in infamy" has come another day in infamy - this time the acquital of a terrorist in the US courts. It seems as if understanding Islam is like rocket science to far too many people, despite the contents of the Koran, sira and hadith, and despite the history of that religion, right up to the present day.
it would seem that some members of this panel didn't get it
'Getting' Islam is as much about the heart as it is about the head. Many intelligent people, perhaps 'experts', with a great deal of knowledge about the history of Islamic peoples, simply cannot bring themselves to face up to the truth. Or if they know the truth, they cannot bring themselves to present it honestly to others.
Ditch the jury system for these cases and there is a danger of politicising law enforcement. If a panel of experts were called on to decide these cases, who would appoint them? And would those who appoint them perhaps feel obliged, in the name of balance, to appoint some who understood Islam and disliked it and spoke out against it, and some, with equal knowledge, who had not yet admitted the truth, to themselves or to others.
Sharia courts have no juries. Their decisions are made by 'scholars'.
"'Getting' Islam is as much about the heart as it is about the head."
There is a complex of assumptions that are enshrined in the PC nebula and which millions (perhaps the majority) of ordinary and elite Westerners accept as givens:
1) Islam is a world religion
a) world religions cannot be faulted as a whole -- only small parts may have flaws, which do not reflect on the goodness of the whole
2) You can't condemn or even criticize certain large categories of people, including Nations, Races, Religions because that would be racism or proto-genocide or fascist bigotry -- you can only find fault with small portions or individuals within those large categories (see #1a)
3) As your criticism of individuals or small parts of Islam begins to reach a suspicious threshhold where you seem to be criticizing Islam as a whole, we will have the reflexive spasm of two responses:
a) remind you of #2
b) remind you that "all peoples, nations and religions have their problems -- especially the West: look at the West's terrible record: the Crusades, the Inquisition, witch-burnings, Christian persecutions of Jews, Colonialism, Slavery, genocide of American Indians and Third World peoples in general under Western expansion, the evils of Capitalist exploitation, the soulless materialistic decadence of our Consumer Culture..." etc.
With this Complex of Assumptions (1-3) locked into place in the minds of millions (if not a slim majority) of Westerners, "getting" Islam won't stand a snowball's chance in the Saudi desert.
I posted a message yesterday, supporting the right of every citizen accused of criminal offense to trial by jury. Since Sami Al-Arian is to be deported, I conclude, with my razor sharp reasoning capabilities, that he is not a citizen. I am red-faced, but not for the first time in my life, nor the last.
Nevertheless, my advocacy of the jury system stands. It's an important part of what sets the West apart from rest. I can't help but feel that the forces at work here are playing both ends against the middle, what with terrorists and their sympathizers on the one hand working with impunity and with advocates of restricted civil liberties working on the other. It may not be clear which side wins but it's a lead-pipe cinch that Joe Average is going to lose. The same Joe Average whose forebears came to West to genuinely find peace and a better life, to live and let live. The criminal justice system is made for those few malefactors whose motivation for breaking the law is self gain or indulgence.
Admittedly, the architects of the criminal justice system probably did not anticipate that there would be apearing before it those whose actions were directed towards the dissolution of society itself. Such actions constitute acts of war. If we're at war, as we've been told, then I suppose tribunals can be countenanced. But while we're at it, let's start rationing fuel. And still while we're at it, let's freeze the assets of hostile states, then identify enemy aliens and either repatriate them, hold them for interrogation (while adhering strictly to the terms of the Geneva Convention) or have them report once a week to a parole officer. And by the way, who's interested in signing up?
But we're not doing any of those things. In many respects, it's business as usual. We seem to be afflicted with a mental laziness, a morbid obesity of the will towards getting involved at all or a childish impatience to hurry up and make things better all at once. But neither attitude is viable. The problem isn't going away and it was a long time in the preparation, so we're in this for the long haul. We can't just let some politician cherry pick what rights we're going to relinquish without asking when are we going to get them back. Lots of good people fought and died to make sure we got them in the first place. I don't like the idea of anybody getting away with spitting on these rights, but I for one do not want to see us become what we detest.
Chatillon:
"...I for one do not want to see us become what we detest."
Well, who does? It seems to me that you are making a lot of assumptions about rhetoric and meaning, assumptions that are more commonly heard in the rantings of those on the other side - and I'm not accusing you here of anything but taking the easy way out of the argument. Bear with me; I know your heart and mind are in the right place withal.
Becoming what we detest would require a far less flexible and effective political system than the one we have - witness, oh, say, Europe. The USA has always come back from periods of repression with even greater liberties than were extant previous. Always. Just cast your mind back to the periods after the Civil War and World War II.
I'm not suggesting that things can't get bad (and I don't say "worse" because most of the whinging about loss of liberty in this country right now is based on nothing but fantasy and magical thinking.) My point is that if we find ourselves in a dark time as a response to the depradations of Islamic culture - and assuming we prevail, which I admit is not a foregone conclusion at this point - we will find our way back, and our history and culture assure me that we would end up once again as a beacon of liberty to the world.
I also have to take issue with your catalog of failures to address our war footing, even though I agree with every single internal item:
"...let's start rationing fuel. And still while we're at it, let's freeze the assets of hostile states, then identify enemy aliens and either repatriate them, hold them for interrogation (while adhering strictly to the terms of the Geneva Convention) or have them report once a week to a parole officer. And by the way, who's interested in signing up?"
I would simply say here, the perfect is the enemy of the good. If not freezing our enemies' assets invalidates the use of tribunals, then perhaps you could show us the button we can push to make everything happen perfectly at exactly the time we need it to defeat our enemies. Otherwise, let's embrace the tactics we need to follow. I happen to know that my support of waterboarding terrorists or putting underwear on their heads won't compromise my sense of justice if - and I know it's a big IF - Islamic culture suddenly embraces humanity and asks to join the 21st century. I suspect you could say the same.
"Eventually the standard for organized crime was changed, with the RICO act. Now it is enough to prove membership in the group, and that the group has a pattern of committing crimes. I think updating the law to match the reality is a better solution than changing the Constitution to get rid of "dumb juries"." I'm very interested in the composition of the
Perhaps a better model would be the International Convention on Piracy, which has remained essentially unchanged from its prototypes 300 years ago: pirates are "stateless persons", and any nation has jurisdiction to apprehend, try and execute them. Note that "pirate" means any crewmember aboard a ship engaged in piracy.
When I read that lawyers were 'in the targeting loop' during the war in Afghanistan, I concluded that the war was lost. I was too hasty. Though the lawyers apparently cost us an opportunity to kill OBL, we might recover from this judicial foolishness, yet.
War simply cannot be waged in a courtroom. We need a President with the character of Lincoln - who is willing to suspend habeas corpus and jail any citizen (including any judge) who interferes with the prosecution of the war. We need a President who will say, "I am the Commander-in-Chief - prosecution of the war is mine, and mine alone."
One of our biggest missteps was the failure, on September 12th, to seek a declaration of war. This would have given us the power to censor the press which so bedevils us, today. Now, without another major attack on our soil, we could not get such a declaration.
Also, we need to outlaw islam and begin the deportation of muslims. It is so obvious that it should not need to be said. But, we do need to say so.
Whatever, I do not intend to surrender. Ever - Regardless of what our betters in DC come up with. This isn't over till the fat lady sings.
Many of us are so young that we do not realize that, during World War II, we had full press censorship here in the USA. News outlets were not allowed to publish/broadcast anything that would impede the war effort or comfort the enemy.
In fact, it is said that our newspapers were not even allowed to publish photos of American war dead until the last year of the war. The first such photos published were of American dead on the beaches of Tarawa.
Lest some fool muslims out there take heart over Sami Al Arian's aquittal, we have not yet begun to fight.
This verdict is yet another sign of the pending chaos this country is headed for. The Federal Government has failed in it's main purpose for being, which is to protect the citizenry. This goes to the Executive Branch and the Oath of Office.
We didn't start this war. Apparently we can't prosecute it. It's time to pass the leadership to someone who can actually lead and not just read great script from the speech-writers.
The Democrats don't recognize the problem, the Republicans recognize it, but bungle doing anything about it.
I'm about ready to join the Minuteman group and take my chances with them.
Three reasons to take W's speeches lightly:
1. W's speeches are just words.
2. W doesn't write the words.
3. W doesn't understand the words in any case.
Anyway, five years into his presidency, the time for talk is past.
I would be very interested in a canvas of the Jury. To start with that part of Florida is very conservative,lots of Cubans, Jews, and outside of the city :"red necks"
Florida is a red state, has anyone forgot? Florida made Jeb governor and Dubya President (twice), has anyone forgot?
How many Muslims were on the jury? (Our Jurisprudence demands a jury of peers, and the only peers a muslim has are muslims).
There is a complex of assumptions that are enshrined in the PC nebula and which millions (perhaps the majority) of ordinary and elite Westerners accept as givens
Dr Pepper, I think you are mistaken. I think many ordinary people 'get' Islam better than do many of the elite. The same was true of Communism.
If there is such a thing, read the American equivalent of The Sun (downmarket tabloid) or The Mail (slightly less downmarket) and compare it with The Guardian ('quality' newspaper). All the best people read The Telegraph, of course.
I would rather change the law than tamper with the jury system. Countries with trial by jury, like countries with democracy, are better than those without. Democracy is frustrating, because so many people are stupid. Likewise jurors. But the alternatives, where there are no checks and balances, are so much worse.
'Experts' could easily be of the Tarik Ramadan variety. I would trust the man on the Clapham omnibus over him any day.
So change the law. As a first step, Islam should be designated a political movement, which is what it is by its own tenets, and which can easily be demonstrated. Start with abolition of charitable status for tax purposes. Comparisons could be made with Amnesty International or War on Want (are you listening, Gorgeous George?), both of which were deemed too political to be charities. As a political movement, Islam can be criticised more openly than it can as a religion. And piece by piece it can be outlawed. Jurors can then decide on points of law, rather than religious doctrine.
Arian has permanent resident status, his citizenship application previously denied,,at least we can now give him the boot..perhaps he'd
care to move to Gaza..
One problem with a jury trial in this sort of case is the fact that 35% of Hispanics and blacks
are anti-semitic..no need for the defense attorney(in this case a Hispanic)to load a Muslim onto the panel.
Dread Pirate Gryphon:
Thanks for your comments. You make some good points.
I particularly agree that "perfect" and "good enough" are incompatible, especially where time is of the essence. What constitutes "good enough" is the real issue in question. My conscience bothers me when I wonder whether I would ever support torture to obtain information that might save innocent lives. It is one thing for an individual to turn their own cheek to further abuse, it is quite another to ask one's child to do so. I pray never to be put to such a test, even as I fear that the test is before us all. Our enemies, on the other hand, have shown all too frequently that they are not constrained by such moral niceties
The Free World is indeed being put to the test, a very clever and diabolical one at that. Our values -live and let live- dearly bought after centuries of trying it the other way, are being exploited by those who are unencumbered by any such notions. This struggle becomes a struggle to balance notions of personal liberty and tolerance against the possibility of cultural and spiritual collapse. However, I will also say that the forces working for collapse are internal as well as external to the system.
That is why I am reluctant to sign on to extraordinary measures without the clear emphasis that these are extraordinary times. This is our real defence: the recognition of who we are and what we stand for and what we are -temporarily- putting aside in order to prevent its outright destruction. When Lincoln suspended Habeas Corpus, it created quite a furore and understandably so. Do we have the likes of Lincoln in this day, who knows when and why to invoke extraordinary measures, and further who would be willing to reinstitute them? And what criteria are to be used for their reinstitution? I'm sure you get my point.
This struggle has been waged in the gray areas of ambiguity, certainly within the public's awareness. This awareness is what is not "good enough" in my view, both on the threat being presented from the outside and the "remedies" that may prove problematic if ever the external threats are removed. It is my belief that the tools for our defence are already in our hands if we are clear-headed and engaged enough in the issues to use them. Our first line of defence is the law, the transparency of its proceedings and our energy in supporting it.