Stunned.

All I can muster.

Whenever I am puzzled about an unexpected event I always reasses my earlier analysis and assumptions. That's doubly hard when I have been "wedded" to the earlier info. and to my teammates' mirroring.

I've always tried to keep in mind that my views are not chisled in stone, but are malleable and are 'awaiting further information'. Who wants to be an out of date fuddydud?

The prosecution will canvass the jurors and find out. If I were to guess, I would say the jurors got hung up on the issue of criminal intent.

I'm stunned as well.

My understanding was that he didn't even provide a defense. It seemed like a pretty sealed deal. The only possibilities I can imagine at this time is jury rebellion against the charge itself (they voted 'not guilty' even though they believed him guilty because they did not think that the charge constituted a crime), or else that in the 1000 hours of taped conversations and 70 witnesses the government had absolutely no evidence (which makes me wonder how it got through the grand jury process).

I'd really like to see some transcripts.

OK, here's the bit:

If you are going to try someone by US laws, you need to expect that US jurors will aquit unless you have evidence beyond a reasonable doubt.

That is the way the system is setup.

#5 Richard1

Yeah. These guys deserve the ol' busboy with a silencer treatment.

Very nice. Very nice indeed.

All you brave freedom fighters here bitchin' and moanin' about the American judiciary.

You just know the guy is guilty exactly how? You haven't heard the evidence. Guilty by selective googling or what?

Colt is an especially good representative of what is best about America. Hell, just give the brown skin rag head one in the ear. We don't need no stinkin' trials; right, Colt?.

Hmmmm,, I seem to remember getting a lecture from a certain someone about pre-determining outcomes of trials and executions and all that sort of tummy rot.

Are we going to that same lecture interjected at this point on this thread?

Dan?

At least Sami al-Arian is still in jail, and he will be until they decide what to do about the charges that deadlocked the jury. There may be a retrial.

All you brave freedom fighters here bitchin' and moanin' about the American judiciary

The American judiciary has a long-standing habit of freeing mafia types and members of other organizations that are capable of threatening or tampering with a jury. It's not a fault-free system, but it's better than most.

Gotti was freed many times, but it's not clear why anyone would celebrate that?

avedis, the only one whose made a racist remark here is you.

The answer is quite easy but not politically correct.

What do ALL of these juries have in common: OJ, the original Bryon de la Beckwith jury (cold bloodedly murdered Medgar Evers as he exited his car, laid in wait for him, all white jury acquitted him), and the Al-Arian jury?

Yep. Juries were infected by bigotry and hate. Anti-semitism is a well known feature in the African American community. See: Al Sharpton, Jessie Jackson ("Hymietown"), Louis Farrakhan, etc. It is my understanding that key members of the Jury were Black Muslims who do not consider killing Jews to be wrong (this is what Farrakhan preaches).

This was Jury Nullification pure and simple. Only Jews were killed so key members of the Jury decided it was no crime. No different than the first de la Beckwith jury. Trials are won or lost in jury selection, evidence has nothing to do with it.

This is WHY Avedis we cannot afford to fight terrorism with judicial action. The stakes (integrity of the nation) are simply too high. Miscarriages of justice (see Medgar Evers, Emmet Till, Nicole Brown Simpson, Mark Goldman etc) are horrible but do not threaten the integrity of the basic security of the nation. The brutal murders of 3,000 Americans DO. Even greater attacks (surely they will escalate unless you believe in fairies and unicorns, in which case e-mail me IMMEDIATELY to help out a Nigerian bond trader) are a great danger.

Using the justice system to fight the 1993 WTC bombing was a total failure. Various plotters including the mastermind were unable to be charged (particularly since intelligence from friendly foreign intelligence agencies and informers could not be used in court) and Khalid Sheik Muhammed simply repackaged the plot for bin Laden. Using the Justice System to fight terrorism is like sending in the fire department to stop the North Hollywood bank robbery.

France faced in the early 1960's a terrorist effort to overthrow the government and keep fighting the Algerian War. The OAS was crushed not by trials but by covert action to kill them. Was Israel wrong to kill the Munich murderers (itself an extension of the Nazi hunting program)?

Pretty much every Democrat would answer YES. Because Jews and Americans don't have the right of self-defense. Instead the position of Avedis as I understand it is that Israelis and Americans should understand that it was right and proper for Olympic athletes or 75 year old men in wheelchairs to be brutally murdered because the US and Israel are the source of all evil in the world and we all deserve to be killed. Because we are all "little Eichmans."

Addendum: this pretty much destroys the Dem argument that "law enforcement" is the answer to terrorism. As if 9/11 wasn't proof enough. Only a matter of time before Al-Arian raises more money for terrorists to kill.

Richard1:

They had thousands of hours of wiretapped phone calls, intercepted e-mails, faxes, and bank records dating back over a decade. How anyone can look at something like something like the February 1995 letter al-Arian sent to al-Shatti in Kuwait and not conclude that he was trying to raise money for Palestinian Islamic Jihad is beyond me. Or the wiretapped phone calls in which al-Arian is discussing salaries with other Palestinian Islamic Jihad members.

avedis:

You want to jump up to defend al-Arian, go right ahead. The American judiciary isn't a perfect system, one would think you'd have recognized that given that Scooter Libby wasn't indicted for whatever Israeli-led conspiracy you think he's at the heart of. Conspiracy charges are difficult to prove (though I'll stand by my own personal assessment of al-Arian's guilt - you want to defend him, go right ahead) because the conspirators in question control most of the evidence against them. That's how the mafia has been able to stay in business for so long.

Colt is likely speaking out of anger that is no doubt borne out of the fact that if memory serves (please feel free to correct if I'm wrong on this count, Colt), he volunteered to be in the IDF and al-Arian seeks the death of himself, his comrades, and indeed of Jews as a people if you examine the statements that were presented to the jury. If somebody wanted you dead, I don't think that anyone would hold it against you for wanting the reverse.

As far as my earlier lecture to you, here again if memory serves you commented on my blog that you wanted the neocons eliminated as a class (only later adding the legality of a trial and execution) because you regard them as more or less being at the center of an Israeli-led conspiracy that controls 25% of US foreign policy together with the military-industrial complex and all the other fixtures of conspiracy theory. The fact that you see no distinction whatsoever between al-Arian and the neocons (just as you saw no distinction between Bush and Ahmadinejad as far as their religious beliefs are concerned) is just further evidence of how far into moral equivalence your views are.

Jim Rockford:

A central premise in your claim is that jury was made up of Black Muslims - I don't have any evidence disputing this, but I'd also like to see that backed up by some evidence. I would also dispute your claim as far as anti-Semitism being a "well known feature" of the African-American community. While it's true that African-American leaders have certainly made anti-Semitic statements over the years, I think that if you look at most respectable actors within the community you'll find that it's hardly a fixture among the political class.

Here's the DOJ statement:

The Justice Department has a strong track record of success in prosecuting terrorists and those who support terrorist activities, as evidenced by the convictions in recent weeks in the Abu Ali and Paracha cases. We remain focused on the important task at hand, which is to protect our country through our ongoing vigorous prosecution of terrorism cases. While we respect the jury’s verdict, we stand by the evidence we presented in court against Sami Al Arian and his co-defendants. Discussions are ongoing as to whether the government will seek to retry defendants Al Arian and Hatem Fariz on the outstanding charges.

Prediction: They will retry the defendants on the outstanding charges.

Prosecutions under the Patriot Act are now obviously in trouble. The Act has been found wanting.

Try him again on charges of racketeering and income tax evasion, and make sure it's the Fed's prosecuting and it's not a local jury. And that (unlike OJ's jury) they're literate.

And keep the SOB locked up while it's all being figured out -- his choice: mainland America or Guantanamo.

I take it WoC comments policy is to make reckless charges without bothering with any link. According to the newspaper, three members of the jury are African American. I can't find mention of any of the jurors being Muslim.

I haven't followed the case all that carefully to read what sort of evidence the government actually had (as distinct from what they hyped unilaterally at the time of the arrest), so I won't comment on the verdict itself. But to attribute the result to the causes Mr Rockford has without adducing a shred of evidence is despicable.

That was my concern as well (as I noted in #12), AJL, and thanks for the info debunking it.

This thread is a neat micro for why the right wing ends up getting labeled as fascist.

Dan, the author, had already convicted a man - in his mind - without hearing all of the evidence.

Colt, who Dan defends, is just a pissed off (Likudnik?) Jew that wants to dispense with trials; perferring to simply assassinate anyone accused as being a terrorist group affiliate. Somehow, in Dan's mind being a pissed off Jew is carte blanche for lynch mobbing.

Jim Rockford wants to blame the lack of a conviction on stupid minorities; minorities that are, in his opinion, generally subverting our judicial system.

When I point these things out, Dan tries to spin my point by, essentially, linking me with the alleged terrorist sponsor. Yeah, Dan, I'd defend the guy (if I was a lawyer) because in our country under our system of government a person is presumed innocent until proven guilty and each accused person is entitled to a defense and fair trial.

This post dovetails nicely with a more recent one where you can't bring yourself to find fault with extraordinary rendition and torture and secret torture camps. You don't seem to care that some innocent people are caught up in all that. Nor do you care about the image that such activities send to the rest of the world. Morals, ethics.....it would be useless to discuss those with you.....

I just find it interesting to see how readily the "freedom is on the march" crowd will dispense with the Bill of Rights and other Constitutional garuantees that make us free.

Freedom is great as long as you're the dictator?

Dan is there anything about the rules of evidence, or the judicial procedures, which might have led to this outcome? Here in the UK, we sometimes get to hear of certain facts about the accused which are ruled inadmissible in court, so the verdict is delivered in a state of partial ignorance. Such information can also be subject to press restrictions until the trial is over. A prime example of this happened only last week, when the sister of a suicide bomber was acquitted by a jury which was denied information of her membership of an extremist group.
Also, (and please forgive my ignorance here,)what was the standard for conviction in this case, would it have required a unanimous or simple majority verdict?

Great post, avedis.

I thought O.J. was guilty. I still think this sack of crap is guilty. Oh well.

Next question is how did the government screw it up. Let's figure that out so this doesn't happen again. It is a waste of resources.

In case anyone's curious, his supporters have a web site which might explain why this case perhaps wasn't as clear cut as some are implying http://www.freesamialarian.com/home.htm.

There's interesting background & links on wikipedia. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sami_Al-Arian)

It's also perhaps worth mentioning that his co-defendants were both acquitted. Also the guy lost his job and has been imprisoned for almost 3 years.

What surprises me is that he was acquitted. Even if (just for the sake of argument) what Jim Rockford says was true, unless all of the jurors were predisposed to acquit, the presence of some such jurors should have resulted in a deadlock, not acquittal.

I didn't follow the case that closely, so I'm not "stunned," though I am a little surprised (and if he was guilty, dismayed). I'll be interested in hearing from the jury. Will they be as obvious morons (e.g., being unable to comprehend rules of evidence, science, or basic logic) in post-trial interviews as the OJ jurors were?

Avedis...

"Morals, ethics.....it would be useless to discuss those with you....."

Funny, after the wild charges you've made here and elsewhere, and the fundamental conspiracy-theory antisemitism at the heart of your world view (which are, I submit, far closer to the fascist worldview that the people you vilify), I was thinking the exact same thing.

Dan has read some of the material related to this trial, and is aware of the level of evidence compiled. It is not at all strange that he would form an opinion, and then be shocked if the verdict went a radically different way. This is normal - and perfectly acceptable. A trial is a formal and legal declaration of guilt or innocence - it does NOT stipulate that others must agree with its opinion on a personal, moral, or factual level.

John Gotti being a perfect example. Obviously, anyone who thought he was guilty in the early trials must be a torturing fascist. Right?

Have you any conception of the cartoon you (re)present?

The question is, of course, rhetorical.

Finally...

Andrew is correct that making charges of racial/ religious jury nulliication ought to be backed up by some evidence. It was a really dumb idea to advance that theory without doing the research to confirm its most basic premise, and the result reflected that.

Of course, Andrew prefaces it by claiming its lack to be Winds comments policy, thus committing the exact same offense. Nice "own goal" there.

Also the guy lost his job and has been imprisoned for almost 3 years

..and he's still in jail. Thank goodness the government managed to accomplish that much.

If someone is a member of a terror-supporting organization, they should be considered to be an enemy combatant, and their prosecution should be a military matter. If someone contributes money to a terror supporting organization, (even if the terror-supporting organization feeds orphans between head-chopping assignments) membership should be a given.

Terrorists don't rely on winning hearts and minds, they rely on the cash raised by people like al-Arian. Taking the money men out of the equation would do more to destroy Islamist terrorism than any other action.

Our laws probably will be amended, when our government choses to wage war against terrorism.

I wonder if the way the FBI has been screwing the pooch in Miami made a difference to the jury. Some FBI officials there are currently under investigation for fabricating evidence, back-dating documents, in earlier, also failed prosecutions.

The jury would have been instructed to avoid news about the case they were hearing. That might not have included news about FBI malfeasance in Miami, which got significant coverage.

If the FBI is suspected of just making stuff up in similar trials, it's not a large jump to conclude they were here, too.

There was some doubt in Bush's mind at one time about guilt of Sami al-Arian. Sami even went to a White House briefing with Karl Rove!
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0302/S00207.htm
http://www.sullivan-county.com/bush/al-arian3.htm
Ok, so Bill (Falafel) O'Reilly did a job on the guy, and he may have links to Palestinian groups. What is he guilty of? The jury is not sure. Martin Niemoeller's message seems appropriate;
First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out--
because I was not a communist;
Then they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out--
because I was not a socialist;
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out--
because I was not a trade unionist;
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out--
because I was not a Jew;
Then they came for me--
and there was no one left to speak out for me.

John George - are you quoting Niemoeller's message in defense of a terror-supporter?

If so, that's foul beyond belief.

avedis:

I think you have a very hard time calling me a fascist with any regard for intellectual consistency for claiming that al-Arian's guilty absent a conviction given your own stated view that the neocons are guilty and should be executed for a variety of high crimes in the absence of the same. Then again, intellectual consistency may not matter much to you in cases where you want to engage in moral equivalence. Interesting how you're willing to grant al-Arian more of a benefit of a doubt than you will the neocons. I think that Michael Jackson and OJ are guilty too, as long as I'm throwing out opinions.

As I said before, Colt's opinion of al-Arian is no doubt do in part to the fact that the man is on record as far as saying that he wants him and other people of his background dead. To the best of my knowledge, no one disputes that al-Arian holds to these kinds of extremist views, it's a key part of the argument that his trial is political rather than criminal in nature.

"This post dovetails nicely with a more recent one where you can't bring yourself to find fault with extraordinary rendition and torture and secret torture camps. You don't seem to care that some innocent people are caught up in all that. Nor do you care about the image that such activities send to the rest of the world. Morals, ethics.....it would be useless to discuss those with you....."

That's a real nice way to caricature my views given my own enthusiastic support for the McCain Amendment and open statement in the post that we can have a debate over interrogation without revealing CIA facilities in the process. Actually, I do care about the problems that some of these activities send to the rest of the world insofar as they provide the enemy with free propaganda, which is here again one of the reasons I support the McCain amendment.

"Freedom is great as long as you're the dictator?"

I'll have to get back to you on that, Lord Sidious is calling ...

John George:

Actually, I'm aware of the fact that al-Arian was a strong supporter of Bush for sometime, it's one of the things that makes it so implausible in my mind for this to be politically-motivated.

Also, (and please forgive my ignorance here,)what was the standard for conviction in this case, would it have required a unanimous or simple majority verdict?

A unanimous verdict from 12 jurors that the defendant(s) were guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. To acquit, 12 jurors would have had to unanimously agree that the prosecution had not proven the criminal offense beyond a reasonable doubt. The judge will try to get the jurors to reach a unanimous conclusion one way or the other, but if the jury cannot reach unanimity, the jury is said to be hung and a mistrial is called. In a mistrial, the prosecution has the choice of either dropping the charges or retrying the case in front of a new jury.

American jurors are under no duty of confidentiality as to their deliberations (something which I believe is different than in the UK). Thus, we do learn from time to time that the jurors misapplied the jury instructions, relied upon information they shouldn't have, or maybe simply found a key witness not credible.

I think this detailed summary of Defense Counsel's closing argument is as close as we can get to the potential jury rationale, short of jury interviews.

Some thoughts:

1. Can the government prosecute a criminal case with redacted documents? Does this alone give the jury reasonable doubt that the redacted portions might contradict the government's claims. Did the judge vouch for the redaction?

2. Were the references to the First Amendment proper? If the jury is the finder of facts and the judge the keeper of the law, why is a legal argument about the scope of the First Amendment being addressed to the jury?

3. I notice there were issues with the government's translators. How are we going to get more Arab speakers?

4. This is an interesting slippery slopes argument:

"The government wants you to believe there's something terribly wrong with what's in those magazines," she said. "It's un-American to bar books." Later, Moreno pointed out that Noam Chomsky and former Congressman Paul Findley were both contributing writers for Inquiry.

5. One of the key arguments was that Al-Arian had given to a number of charitable organizations (including his Islamic Academy of Florida), which ran against the argument that he intended to help fund terrorist attacks. The blurring of the charitable with the terrible is going to be a problem in proving criminal intent.

avedis:

Dan is mostly correct. I'm leaving for Israel in February to enlist in the IDF. Al-Arian has been quite explicit about wanting Jews massacred and Israel destroyed, which would include me and my family, and numerous friends and relatives. I take that pretty personally. I retain my right to opine that a jury can be wrong, and point to the overwhelming evidence against al-Arian and his co-terrorists.

As for advoating his death, yeah, I do. The unit I plan to join is the one that usually clashes with Islamic Jihad in Nablus and the surrounding area, so I or one of my pissed-off-Jew colleagues could well be shot, blown up or otherwise wounded or killed with munitions purchased with money sent by al-Arian and the U.S.-based Islamic Jihad. I'd take that pretty personally, too.

Operation Wrath of G-d was a good model and ought to be used again.

Colt, "Al-Arian has been quite explicit about wanting Jews massacred and Israel destroyed" ,"As for advoating his death, yeah, I do."

It's called freedom of speach. It's a cornerstone of democracy. I suppose somewhere - like Saddam's Iraq - you can be tortured and killed for expressing your views. That is not supposed to happen in America.

Dan, As for my calling for the execution of treasonous neocons - yes I wrote that. It was over the top and I admit it. It was an emotionally generated statement. Really, I prefer a fair, open, honest trial. If they were to be found guilty in a court of law, I would be in favor of capital punishment. Their crimes against this country would have been that great. It is not something that I'd take lightly, however.

Joe, John Gotti is John Gotti and Al Arian is Al Arian. Invoking the name of one does nothing to suggest the guilt or innocence of the other. Each trial is conducted on the merits of that specific case. So I don't know what your point is other than trying to merge a criminal figure (Gotti) with an acquited man (al Arian) in the minds of your readers. I have no idea whether or nor Al Arian actually did the things he was accused of. Maybe he's all that and worse. Doesn't matter. We live by our system or we decline into the brutishness and savagery that has a hold on so much of the world. He was found not guilty by a jury of his peers that heard the best evidence the prosecution could offer. What an armchair general/prosecuter such as yoursekf thinks is irrelevant.

"Operation Wrath of G-d was a good model"

Colt, keep your powder dry and good luck with your Jihad.

They declare jihad on you, you declare jihad on them. They say you started it. You say they started it. No one really knows or even cares anymore. It's war without end. You and your enemy are both nuts.

I hope you check in from time to time. I'll be interested in hearing about how much pride and joy you feel over your first confirmed kill. Nothing quite like lining up the front sight post, perfectly lollipopped, on some "sub-human's" center of mass and letting him have it. I'm sure the experience will fill your sails and carry you off to a satisfying glory. Again, be sure tell us how good it feels to kill first chance you get.

And allow me to add one more item; all this I'm a Jew and I'm pissed off and I have a right to hate, etc, etc ad nauseum is total B.S.

Your enabled to feel that way by the certain factions in the US and, to a much lesser degree by various European factions.

Isreal has a reasonable right to self defense, of course. However, Isreal also has the responsibility to work out issues with the Palistinians. But I digress. I would like to point out a hypocrisy that seldom is mentioned.

The Armenians were on the receiving end of a genocide that was, proportionally to the population, every bit as horrendous as what the Nazis did to the Jews.

To this day the Turks will not even acknowledge what they did. To this day the Turks and their Azeri brethern threaten the security and economic well being of Armenia. There have been winters with no gas for heating because pipelines leading into the country were cut. There are threats to border security and outright invasion. There is third class citizen treatment of Armeniansd in Turkey.

Becuase Armenians have expressed anger towards the Turks over these deplorable circumstances the United States put Armenia on the Terrorist Watch List immediately following 9/11.

When I was still a young buck I thought about going over and joining the fight in Karabakh. I decided to serve this country instead.

If I had, I would be on a terrorist watch list or worse.

But Colt, our Jewish friend, is considered some sort of hero.

It's all relative I guess.

#31

" I take that pretty personally. "

I don't think it is a stretch to believe that if someone is a Likudnik, your view of the Middle East and Arabs is going to be much different than Gentile America.

And, by this quote, I am not saying better, just more intimate.

For example, you might have an extra special reason (or 12, as in SCUDS) for hating Saddam and wanting him deposed.

I am afraid that many Jews are guilty of anti-Arab racism, and that this colors their ability to render objective analysis on Middle East situations.

avedis,

You have shown me some of the most disgusting examples of moral equivalency I have ever seen.

The Armenian Genocide was disgusting. So why are you defending people who publically call for genocide, in the name of "free speech"?

And now you claim that if Israel acts in self-defence it's equivalent to acts of terrorism aimed at wiping them off the face of the earth, for no good reason other than thousands of years of harboured resentments?

I don't know how you can live with yourself.

The new question for Jury consultants in the 21st century.

"Do you blog?"

Obviously Dan was convinced the guy was guilty.

The jury, after five months of the prosecution making it's case, 80 witnesses, and 20,000 hours of wiretap tapes, reached a different conclusion.

Much like in the case of the Lackawanna Six, though I don't know if Dan was also convinced they were guilty.

Before we devolve into rants about black (mostly nonexistant) jurors or anti-semitism why don't we consider the most obvious possibility?

The government presented a lousy case. There was nothing in those 20,000 hours of wiretaps that reasonable people found conclusive evidence.

Of course we could just sit around wondering why everyone in America but us hates America. Seems to be a lot of that going around these days.

I think the government made their case too complicated for anyone to understand. I followed the proceedings (as reported by the Tampa Tribune) closely and most of the time I couldn't make heads or tails of what was going on.

I saw a parent of a child killed by one of the groups supported by Sami al-Arian on television the other night. He said he was preparing a civil suit against al-Arian. Is it possible that al-Arian is not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, but more than likely guilty?

#32 avedis

They declare jihad on you, you declare jihad on them. They say you started it. You say they started it. No one really knows or even cares anymore. It's war without end. You and your enemy are both nuts.

They're you're enemy too, and if they finish us off, they'll make that very clear. Hell, they may not even wait.

But Colt, our Jewish friend, is considered some sort of hero.

By whom, exactly? (Anyone thinking of piping up should save it for the guys who've actually done something.)

BTW, I'm not really Jewish.

#34 Scarface

I don't think it is a stretch to believe that if someone is a Likudnik, your view of the Middle East and Arabs is going to be much different than Gentile America.

Really? Ask the one in three Americans who considers themselves a born-again Christian what they think Israel's foreign policy. 'Gentile America' doesn't think much of the palestinians.

I am afraid that many Jews are guilty of anti-Arab racism, and that this colors their ability to render objective analysis on Middle East situations.

I object to the term 'racism'. It is far from 'racist' to say that Arabs have a cultural leaning towards antisemitism, or the actions that Jew-hatred leads to.

I also dislike the 'objective analysis' comment. Its very easy to be 'objective' when it is happening to Other People.

avedis:

Thank you for demonstrating my point. You believe, on the basis of whatever evidence you believe proves your contention, that the neocons are guilty of "crimes against this country" in the absence of even a court case to that effect. I'm failing to see how what you're doing to them is all that different from what I'm doing with al-Arian.

Also, in reference to Joe you said:

"What an armchair general/prosecuter such as yoursekf thinks is irrelevant."

I agree, at least so far as the issue of al-Arian's guilt or innocence is concerned. Which then goes back to the question of why you want to launch into such moral outrage that we are expressing our thoughts on the subject given that you just did the exact same thing (in the absence of a court case, no less) concerning the neocons?

I also doubt that you would be on the terrorist watch list for going to fight in Nargono-Karabakh on the Armenian side, as the relevant figures the watch list was set up to track fought alongside the Azeris.

Davebo:

Like Robert, I followed the case through the Tampa Tribune, which I think had some of the best reporting on the subject. I think that the explanation made in #30 is probably the most reasonable by far that I've seen so far, especially with regard to the blurring of the issue of criminal intent. Robert's suggestion that the case became to complicated for most people to follow was also likely a factor, in which case the sheer amount of evidence used by the government may in fact have worked against it.

Colt:

I strongly suspect that for most people who are going to engage in the kinds of moral equivalence we've seen here that the views of born-again Christians on foreign policy don't matter that much to them since they're nothing more than analogous to Islamists to begin with (yet another sickening display of moral equivalence, but at least a consistent one for those who want to make Israel and its supporters as bad as the people they're fighting) and hence aren't worthy of having their views seriously considered.

Dan,

Yep. Either they are irrelevant due to their stupidity, or overwhelming relevant due to their power. Sometimes both.

Dan,

You're probably right about the sheer volume of evidence. But doesn't that say something about the case itself?

I'm fairly certain that the jury could have listened to one wiretapped phone conversation and returned a guilty verdict. The problem, which seems apparant to me, is that we didn't have one wiretapped phone conversation that would convince them.

And playing them 500 hours of conversations that wouldn't convince them anyway doesn't look like it succeeded.

Hmm, this thread seems kind of quiet and boring. I think I'll add something to liven it up a bit:

http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/009357.php

Seems that the Jihad Watch people were not all that surprised that Al-Arian was acquitted, and they're pointing a finger at a certain FBI agent who they think has, at the least, divided loyalties.

On March 2, 2006, Al-Arian secretly pled guilty to one count of conspiracy "to make or receive contributions of funds, goods or services to or for the benefit of the Palestinian Islamic Jihad, a Specially Designated Terrorist". In return, the U.S. Attorney agreed to dismiss the other eight remaining charges in the superseding indictment, agreed not to charge Al-Arian with any other crimes, entered no recommendation of a fine, and recommended "that the defendant receive a sentence at the low end of the applicable guideline." As part of the deal, Al-Arian agreed to expedited deportation. The plea agreement was unsealed and accepted by Judge James S. Moody on April 17, 2006. Al-Arian's sentencing was scheduled for May 1, 2006. Al-Arian remained in custody pending his sentencing and deportation.