This is absolutely infuriating! In the private sector, these lawyers would suffer the consequences of incompetence. In this arena, nothing happens and they are allowed to continue to screw up cases we can’t afford to lose.

Sue Bob on December 6, 2005 at 5:21 pm

You would think these govt lawyers would learn? Too much detail, too much time just numbs a jury. I sm still suspicious who just who was on this jury as well. I have been in favor of military trials for all accused terrrorists since 9/11. It is a war isn’t it?

John Sobieski on December 6, 2005 at 6:57 pm

Al-Arian walks

Palestinian Islamic Jihad supporter and former University of South Florida computer science professor Sami Al-Arian was acquitted today on eight terror-related charges. The jury deadlocked on some other charges, but it remains to be seen whether or n…

Sister Toldjah on December 6, 2005 at 7:28 pm

Once upon a time in this country we embraced the concept of innocence until guilt has been proven – and that an acquital is an acquital. Law and order conservatives should understand this.

The Liberal Avenger on December 6, 2005 at 7:38 pm

Liberal Avenger. I wouldn’t say you don’t get it.
You’re smart enough.
You just hope to divert the unwary.
But I’ll spell it out so you know to waste somebody else’s time in the future.
“Innocent until proven guilty” means the state may not inflict the punishment on the defendant which is reserved for the guilty until the verdict is rendered that he is guilty. If he is not guilty, the state may not punish him.
We, on the other hand, are free to think what we like, and to remark that, as in OJ’s trial, meathead juries are major disappointments, letting the clearly guilty go.
He is legally innocent of the charges of which he is legally innocent. The rest remain to be seen.
Whether the jury reflected reality or not is another question on which we are free–First Amendment–to express an opinion.
We do not propose the state jail him for the crimes of which he is innocent. We merely wish him to disappear, in whatever fashion he chooses, from our affairs.

Richard Aubrey on December 6, 2005 at 7:54 pm

Yes, Richard – but you’d think that the jurors who sat through FIVE MONTHS of prosecution testimony understand what this person did or didn’t do far better than any of us.
It is also intellectually dishonest for Schlussel to call him the “Founder and chief” of Islamic Jihad – not that honesty has any bearing on anything that she produces.

The Liberal Avenger on December 6, 2005 at 8:01 pm

Is there anyone out there who is surprised by
this verdict? The Grand Illusion continues for
what…3 more years!

CFL Jim on December 6, 2005 at 8:05 pm

Can anybody say “Munich time”?

shleppy on December 6, 2005 at 8:31 pm

Liberal Avenger:
You may be liberal, but you aren’t much of an avenger. I am not dishonest–intellectually or otherwise. In fact, the founding document of Islamic Jihad identifies Al-Arian as one of its founders and a member of its Shura (governing) Council. Other IJ documents identified him as the worldwide leader of IJ, running it out of his USF office. You may want to believe otherwise, like the jury. But facts are stubborn things. And, likewise, sometimes self-anointed “avengers” are quite ignorant.
Debbie Schlussel

Debbie Schlussel on December 6, 2005 at 10:04 pm

Hey Liberal Avenger, I too am a liberal but a liberal looking to be free of the elitists. Elitists (the Democrats) who placed Japanese Americans into concentration camps (concentration meaning a concentration of one thing and only one thing…ethnicity), the polar opposites who dealt with Hitler (Prescott Bush) during the war while Jews were placed in death camps, while my people 522nd helped liberate Dauchau, I don’t look to one side and support it with all my heart. Like Debbie, if she finds crap from the Neo Cons side, she’ll air it to dry, unlike her loud-mouth counterpart: Ann Coulter who would bend over forwards and backwards for her group.
Deb is neither stupid nor is she insensitive, she has a concern for mankind and would do anything to make the U.S. a powerful nation it once was and not a bunch of pussies who censor someone who says anal…like the FCC about Howard Stern. I would rather see the Republicans of old step up and say: We do not support government intervention in private life than support liberals who want to take my guns away. But the removal of guns is not just a liberal issue but now it’s a Neo-con issue that the neo-libs is supporting whole-heatedly and that’s why the NRA went up against FEMA in Louisiana.
So to say that the above mentioned Islamic Jihad founder and chief Sami Al-Arian is a terrorist, I feel is correct. But I hope to God or Buddha or any beings in outer space like the Pleadians or some weird martian that the photo of Bush and…no it’s real. Our president aligned himself with a terrorist. I give up. The Illuminati won and I may as just don’t give a damn anymore.
BTW Deb, the dancing Itoh? It’s Ito not Itoh.

KOAJaps on December 6, 2005 at 10:31 pm

Oh yeah, before I forget? Israel is giving Iran three months to stop making nukes, failure to do so will result on the attack on Iran. Iranís President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was speaking to his own nationís youth, the next generation. He said what his generation has always believed, that is, that Jews must be killed. Now the sick part?
http://www.halliburton.com/news/archive/2004/report.jsp
The link above is from Halliburton’s website, you know, Dick Cheney’s former company?
I give up. Both are evil.

KOAJaps on December 6, 2005 at 10:38 pm

Correct Mr. Aubrey. You are guilty as soon as you commit the criminal act. You remain guilty whatever the judge and jury says, just as if you are innocent the decisions of judge and jury do not change your innocence.
Amen on the court martial. We are seeing why Saddam should have received a military court martial the week they pulled him out of the hole.

Walter E. Wallis on December 6, 2005 at 11:16 pm

Al-Arian aquitted, thanks to incompetant prosecu..

Sister Toldjah and Cuanas report that Sami Al-Arian, the Florida professor and Islamic terrorist supporter who arranged meetings with one of the culprits in the 1993 attack on the World Trade Center, has been aquitted on all 8 terror-related charges,…

Tel-Chai Nation on December 7, 2005 at 12:59 am

This is really serious. If people don’t feel the justice system will protect them from terrorists living among us, a lot of innocent people could get hurt. I’ve often wondered if that was part of the reason for interring Japanese Americans during WWII.
The atrocities committed by Japanese troops could have made it difficult to protect innocent people with Asian features. Fear and hatred a just beneath the surface. That’s why it’s so important that these things be done correctly, and why demagogues like Howard Dean and others to use inflammatory rhetoric and reckless accusations should be shunned.
Lawyers and judges who don’t understand that the duty to convict and punish the guilty is just as important as protecting the rights of the innocent are a danger to society.

AST on December 7, 2005 at 4:41 am

You’ve already hedged, Debbie.
He’s no longer “Founder and Chief” but instead identified “as one of [IJ’s] founders and a member of its Shura (governing) Council.”
Do we really need trials when we’ve got Debbie Schlussel and Bill O’Reilly spelling out for us who is guilty or innocent?

The Liberal Avenger on December 7, 2005 at 5:54 am

“Do we need trials when we’ve got Debbie Schlussel and Bill O’Reilly spellinhg ouf for us who is guilty or innocent…” says Liberal Avenger.
However, as Joe Kaufman notes, as he sat and watched the trial…
Along with the jurors, I watched the video of the Cleveland fundraiser. Along with them, I watched Fawaz Mohammed ìAbuî Damra ñ the individual that founded Al-Qaedaís main American headquarters in Brooklyn ñ call Al-Arianís Islamic Committee for Palestine the ìactive arm of the Islamic Jihad movement in Palestine.î 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 ìorphans.î ìAnyone like to donate for the Intifada? A knife to stab the Jews,î Damra stated, to which the crowd loudly responded ìAllahu Akbar!î (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?
Well, Liberal Avenger- I guess it’s just inconceivable, that convicting an enabler of homicidists might be the decent, moral, ethical thing to do. Of course, we won’t shoot him or maim him or anything, like he has supported and accomplished, such as the dead in Netanya two days ago, and so many many others he enabled to be slaughtered.
Still, we weep for the foolishness that allow him to float on by, to continue his ‘work’, his ‘oeuvre.’
And we shall comment about the shame of it… whilst you, comment about the finery that let him go. And how dastard are those who lament this travesty of justice.
Mark

mgoldberg on December 7, 2005 at 6:32 am

Had he been convicted I would have said, “Great! They put away a bad one.”
That didn’t happen.
Is there any possibility that his prosecution might have been driven by post-9/11 hysteria?
I realize that the theme here Chez Debbie is that the only good Arab is an incarcerated or dead one…

The Liberal Avenger on December 7, 2005 at 9:47 am

Chalk up another victory for the LIBERALS (like The Liberal Avenger) on the jury. The mindset of this jury (and of The Liberal Avenger) is identical to that of the juries that deliberated in the O.J. Simpson, Robert Blake, and Michael Jackson cases.
These same asswipes (like The Liberal Avenger) would acquit Mohammad Atta and his murdering 9/11 cohorts because they’d either wouldn’t want to offend the savages by finding them guilty or because they would have an extreme case of Stockholm Syndrome, or both.
You can rest assured that this verdict will only embolden these 7th century barbarians.

Thee_Bruno on December 7, 2005 at 10:22 am

As a Muslim Lawyer, I have mixed feelings about this case.
Things were pretty different in the pre 9-11 world. For example, its common knowledge that some very influential and rich Diaspora Tamils in the US provided financial support to the LTTE. LTTE among other things also killed a lot of civilians. Likewise, Palestinian militant groups such as Hamas and Islamic Jihad provide a whole range of social services in West Bank and Gaza. At one time, Hamas was providing 60% of all social services in Gaza. In the Pre 9-11 world, I am sure a lot of Palestinian sympathizers in the US provided money or support to these radical groups with the intention that the money would be used for social services or non militant purposes or general resistance which did not involve indiscriminate killings of Israelis.
I am however not convinced that Mr Arian was a passive supporter of Islamic Jihad or was not aware of its terrorist activities. It seems to me that Mr Arian was an integral part of the Islamic Jihad fund raising activities in the US.
It might not have been a crime to raise money for Islamic Jihad in ’98, but theres a plethora of evidence available which clearly points to Mr Arian being well aware of Islamic Jihad’s murderous activities.
That makes Mr Arian morally but not criminally culpable under American Law because for criminal culpability the prosecution needed to directly connect Mr Arian to the murders committed by Islamic Jihad.
The prosecution did not meet its burden and it seems from the case that Mr Arian never did specifically direct any attacks against the Israelis.
Mr Arian is obviously a loathsome figure, but I am not threatened by his expected release. There is very little evidence that Mr Arian was plotting anything against the US and I am not going to lose any sleep out of fear because Mr Arian is going to roam the streets again.

lawman on December 7, 2005 at 2:37 pm

The previous post is yet another apologistic pile of bilge. It’s the usual Muslim tactic of equivocating, the usual Muslim tactic to claim lack of evidence (just as there was no eveidence against O.J. Simpson, Robert Blake, and Michael Jackson), mixed in with the usual Muslim tactic to claim that “terrorists do good things for the people in their neighborhood” bull$hit.
You began your spiel with, “As a Muslim lawyer…”, that says it all. You need say no more because you people are Muslims first, foremost, and last.
BTW, this 7th century barbarian, Sami Al-Arian, is still being held pending his retrial on the deadlocked counts, so, as a “Muslim lawyer” (if you really are one), you don’t have all of the facts.

Thee_Bruno on December 7, 2005 at 4:15 pm

You need say no more because you people are Muslims first, foremost, and last.
Aren’t Christians supposed to be Christians first, foremost, and last?

Auguste on December 7, 2005 at 5:34 pm

What do you consider yourself first and foremost, Thee_Bruno?
A “wingnut” ?

The Liberal Avenger on December 7, 2005 at 5:35 pm

KOAJaps,
Halliburton should leave the oil services market in these countries to the French? Boycotts only punish those who participate.
Lawman,
Couldn’t he found a group which uses 100% of its funds for humanitarian purposes? Why should ANY part of IJ’s money go to terrorism? Critics of our war in Iraq are always including accusations of Americans killing innocent civilians, but they give Palestinians who aid and abet suicide bombers a pass.
Simple self-interest woul dictate that the Palestinians should have welcomed the Jews who brought economic development to them. Do Jews outlaw Islam? Don’t a lot of Palestinians have jobs in Israel, or did until the suicide bombers became a problem. What would they do if the Jews all moved out? Go back to herding goats for a living? Palestine was a third world backward area until the Jews came and made the desert bloom. The U.N. and people like Al Arian have helped them become victims and dependent on handouts. So whether Al Arian is guilty or not his influence has not been good for the Palestinians.

AST on December 7, 2005 at 6:09 pm

The comments of “lawman,” a Muslim attorney from the ACLU, are very telling. First, they show his ignorance. In fact, Islamic Jihad NEVER provided social services. ALL of its money went to fund terrorism, and it was ALWAYS a crime to raise money for that group. Second, he thinks Al-Arian is okay b/c he wasn’t planning to attack the U.S. Innocent Jews in Israel, no biggie. They are expendable. Third, his comments about HAMAS providing social services is incorrect. We U.S. taxpayers are mostly funding those social services through UNRWA. HAMAS only distributes our money and very little of HAMAS’ funds, which mostly fund terrorism.
Debbie Schlussel

Debbie Schlussel on December 7, 2005 at 6:20 pm

Debbie,
I never stated that killing Jews was ok. I merely pointed out the fact that I am not threatened by Mr Arians expected release from prison IN AMERICA because there is no evidence that he was plotting attacks in the US. Of course Israel would be well within its right to refuse him a visa.
This does not mean that I am condoning his vile speech and activities against the Israelis.
As I already stipulated in my earlier post, I believe that Mr Arian is morally culpable.
As far as Islamic Jihad goes, you may very well be correct in pointing out that Islamic Jihad does not do any charity. I never purported to be an expert on the actitivities of Islamic Jihad.
As far as Hamas goes, it certainly is less corrupt than the PLO. Also Hamas does get a lot of funding from the rich sheikhdoms. Even if it does get a lot of money from the UNRWA, they dont seem to apporpriate it within themselves (like the PLO and the other 3rd world govs) and actually manage to use that money for social services.
Now before people on here start getting wild, I am not endorsing Hamas or its activities. They however do a good job of providing social services and in fact arguably a better job than most Arab governments. For those interested, Fareed Zakaria in his book ‘Illiberal Democracy’ does a good job of explaining why groups like Hamas and Hizbullah are so popular in the Arab world.
Thee Bruno,
I mentioned the fact that I am a Muslim so that you can get a different perspective on this issue.
AST,
As I stated in my first post, I believe Mr Arian was wrong in raising money for Islamic Jihad.

lawman on December 7, 2005 at 6:41 pm

To Auguste,
You vomited the following;
“Aren’t Christians supposed to be Christians first, foremost, and last?”
Christians and Jews are responsible for Western Civilization and all of the scientific, medical, and technological advances. ALSO, they ASSIMILATED into every country that they emigrated to – adopting those country’s customs and traditions, i.e. the Europeans who came to America during the 19th & 20th centuries became AMERICANS – they adopted America’s traditions and culture. Sure, they are still Christians and Jews, but they also became a part of their adopted country and they vowed their allegiance to their adopted country. They fought and died in America’s wars – unlike Muslims, who have allegiance to NO country, except to ISLAM. That’s what makes them so dangerous! Muslims, throughout history, have wrought nothing but death and desolation to whatever lands they raped and pillaged. Read history – you a$$wipe.
As for The Liberal Avenger…you are incapable of contributing anything sensible to a reasoned and thoughtful debate except for your visceral hatred for America and anything that resembles a civilized society. Therfore, I will not spend any more time on you – you America-hating, worthless piece of $hit.
Lastly, as for the purported “Muslim Lawyer” – your perspective is the same as the perspective of those who fly airplanes into buildings, and those who strap bombs to themselves. I got “your” perspective on 9/11.
You believe that Sami Al-Arian was wrong in raisng money for Islamic Jihad, but you believe that he committed no crimes. That’s like saying Charles Manson was wrong for instructing his cult followers to kill, but that he wasn’t responsible for the murders.
You are nothing but a deceptive Muslim who makes excuses for those who murder innocent people. You make excuses for those who raise money to fund Islamic murder across the globe. You, as well as your brethren who are here and abroad conspiring to kill us, are well-versed in the Qur’ an’s instructions regarding the deceptive practices one should employ about how to deceive the infidel to advance the cause of Islam through jihad (murder). So, spare me your moral relativism when it comes to those who use our laws against us to conspire to kill us.
Do us a favor, Abdul, go back to that rat-infested cesspool that you crawled out of, i.e. Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, Indonesia, Turkey, or any of the rest of those primitive, barbaric Islamic societies that are economic and social basketcases, which are incapable of producing anything to benefit mankind except to turn out murderers in the name of some false god – a god invented by a demon-obsessed, illiterate pedophile.

Thee_Bruno on December 7, 2005 at 9:04 pm

Thee_Bruno,
I am presuming that you are not a big fan of ‘beyond reasonable doubt’. Can you comprehend the simple fact that Al Arian was wrong in raising money for Islamic Jihad but there was not enough evidence to hold him criminally liable.

lawman on December 8, 2005 at 10:06 am

Thee_Bruno,
I am presuming that you are not a big fan of ‘beyond reasonable doubt’. Can you comprehend the simple fact that Al Arian was wrong in raising money for Islamic Jihad but there was not enough evidence to hold him criminally liable.

lawman on December 8, 2005 at 10:07 am

On the contrary – I AM a big fan of reasonable doubt, just as I was during the O.J. Simpson, Robert Blake, and Michael Jackson trials. However, when it comes to a Muslim being tried in the Land of the Infidels, the threshold of reasonable doubt for fellow Muslims couldn’t be raised high enough.
If Yasser Arafat was tried in the U.S. as a terrorist who murdered innocent Americans (he did murder innocent Americans) and you were on the jury, you would vote to acquit because;
A. You agree with his/your cause (just as you agree with this savage who was found not guilty on some counts),
B. Arafat is not being tried in a Muslim court under Sharia Law.
You see, Abdul, as you know, Islam calls for all Mohammedans to be tried under Sharia Law. Islam recognizes no other law other than Sharia – so no matter what verdict the jury came up with, you would still find this savage not guilty of his crimes. Sure, you would equivocate, and blow smoke about moral relativism, but it’s all typical Muslim double-talk – just what you’re doing here.
I just hope you’re never selected to serve on a jury in which a Muslim is tried on terrorism charges – your religion would dictate that you acquit him because he’s doing allah’s work (read the Qur’ an).

Thee_Bruno on December 8, 2005 at 4:09 pm

Justice Department Speculation

I read this post and initially thought the parts that I’ve excerpted below were, well, bunk. Crap. Signs that its author had been smoking something really good, metaphorically speaking.

Bread and Circuses on December 12, 2005 at 12:29 am

Hey there! I just wanted to ask if you ever have any trouble with hackers?
My last blog (wordpress) was hacked and I ended
up losing several weeks of hard work due to no backup.
Do you have any solutions to protect against hackers?

search on October 2, 2014 at 4:49 pm