Last week, we discussed the view that the Global War on Terror has lost support because of the Bush Administration's zealousness. This article supports that assumption. It describes the current predicament which 50-year-old Sami al-Arian finds himself in. This Palestinian professor who taught computer science and legally lived in the United States has been arrested and convicted on charges that he aided the US-recognized terrorist organization "Palestinian Islamic Jihad."
Apparently al-Arian and the US government made a deal were he would plead guilty and be deported in exchange for not having to testify in additional cases. However, the government says the latter part was not part of the deal as al-Arian is reporting it to be. His situation is doubly messy because his earlier sentencing to 57 months in prison has recently been fulfilled...but the government still wants to make him testify in additional cases, so Immigration and Customs Enforcement now has custody over him since he can't really be held in prison.
But the real issue that pertains to decreased support for fighting terrorism is the result of 17 accussations about his ties to Palestinian Islamic Jihad. For six months he stood trial for different terrorism-related crimes, but the jury acquitted him on eight counts, and it couldn't reach a consensus on the other nine. Clearly, this didn't make the Administration look good. Instead, it just fed the fire that the Bush Administration is too aggressive and overreaching in its hunting of terrorists, and that it isn't cautious enough--sometimes attempting to convict people of crimes they can't be proven to have committed.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
This article was pretty vague in the specifics of what al-Arian was charged with and what he pleaded guilty to. The only thing that was clear was the author's dislike of the Bush administration's handling of the war on terror- which is surprising coming from a NY Times columnist.
The article did say that al-Arian's complaints stem from on an implied verbal agreement between him and the government. If this is so, he needs a new lawyer. He should have had everything in the agreement in writing. It's no wonder that the 11th circuit denied his appeals.
What the article doesn't mention is how difficult it can be to prosecute terrorism, particularly the logistical supporters. The author seems to imply that because the jury couldn't convict al-Arian of the nine other charges, he is innocent. I don't know if that is the case or not, but it's dishonest of critics to make that implication. It's very possible that al-Arian was a major PIJ supporter, but that none of his activities were expressly illegal (money transfers, etc). Several of the authors we read made the point that going after the logistical supporters of terrorists is basically the same as going after the terrorists themselves.
The decision to prosecute aggressively represents a tradeoff, between individual liberty and security, and that line has to be drawn somewhere. This article make no mention of that fact, and it seems the author would have his cake (defeating terrorism) and eat it too (no infringement on individual freedom).
I agree with what both Ryan and Root mentioned, but I'm curious to know exactly what PIJ involvement al-Arian is accused of. The only charge I could tell was aiding people associated with the PIJ with immigration. I wonder if they were friends or relatives, if he knew them through his PIJ associations, or if they were complete stranges that PIJ leaders wanted him to help.
It seems like when we don't know all of the facts we're so quick to jump on the bandwagon of presuming someone's innocence and the vileness of the state. But frankly, with so many gaps in the facts anybody can look innocent. I think this is a rather irresponsible action taken by the writer of this article. I can't deny the possibility that the Bush Administration may have been over zealous in their prosecution, but even though they may be quite the "demon" I refuse to believe that they're knowingly stretching facts in order to seek convictions or such. I know those kinds of things happen occasionally (Duke Lacrosse), but normally those are on a much smaller scale than federal crimes. I think we need to have faith that the system does work more often than not. That doesn't mean the writer didn't do a good job of presenting questions to it, but really I think he assumes far too much the worst.
If most of the guys held in Guantanamo were guilty, why is Habeus Corpus restricted in thier case? I feel everyone should have the right to defend themselves in the court of law. After seeing the stories of people held from the prosess of Rendition and were innocent even though they were turtured brutally; it is very important that they are tried fairly on firm accusations.
Post a Comment