Print

Email story

Comment

Email editor

Judge's words show Al-Arian's prosecution was political

Re: Al-Arian sentencing.

It was shocking and surprising to find federal Judge James Moody exercising his right of free speech in the courtroom at the sentencing hearing for Dr. Sami Al-Arian on Monday. Perhaps a pro-Israeli, progovernment rally might have been a more appropriate place for him to vent his anger and biases. His behavior may have pleased certain newspaper editors and the prosecution, but it was unprofessional and unethical. A federal judge, as representative of our country's independent judiciary, has an obligation to rule based on the facts, the jury's verdict, and the plea agreement reached by the defense and prosecution and which the judge signed.

The judge had no right to make accusations about Dr. Al-Arian promoting violence and deaths when the jury acquitted him on those charges and the prosecution acknowledged in the plea agreement that his actions did not contribute directly or indirectly to violence. The judge used these unfounded and biased statements as justification for giving Dr. Al-Arian the maximum prison sentence of 57 months. Not only is this totally unfair and a miscarriage of justice, but it provides the final proof that this case was a political prosecution and that Dr. Al-Arian and Sameeh Hammoudeh are political prisoners of our war on terrorism. Our government is violating some of our most important principles of justice, such as "innocent until proven guilty," and many of our civil liberties and constitutional rights. Muslims are guilty until proven innocent and when found not guilty by a jury in a federal court of law, continue to be incarcerated.

I urge all fair and freedom-loving Americans to speak out against these abuses and injustices and to help restore our freedom and rights.

Pilar Saad, Tampa

His sentence was too lenient

Re: Al-Arian sentencing.

Though I had great difficulty with the manner in which Dr. Sami Al-Arian's human rights were violated by federal authorities prior to his being brought to trial, I was pleased with the sentence he received. Indeed, when certain considerations are taken into account it struck me as far too lenient. Given that at least one of Palestinian Islamic Jihad's victims was a U.S. citizen, it would appear that a jurisdictional nexus exists to prosecute Al-Arian as an accessory before the fact to murder. Judge James Moody was exactly right to say that the only thing this moral hypocrite "knows about widows and orphans is how to create them."

In an earlier letter I wrote about how Al-Arian's inflammatory remarks inciting violence may not constitute protected speech under certain interpretations of the First Amendment. However, with Al-Arian's guilty plea, this has gone way beyond the issues of "freedom of speech" that many local activists have been spouting off about. It seems to me that to provide or organize financial support to an organization that you know is directly involved in the slaughter of civilians is morally no different than financing a mob hit. Al-Arian is nothing more than a violent criminal and he ought to be treated as one.

John Feeney, Tampa

A final vindictive act

Re: Judge sentences Al-Arian to limit, May 2.

The sentence given Dr. Sami Al-Arian by Judge James Moody stunned many. In spite of both defense and government recommendations for a lower sentence, the judge chose to impose the maximum - 57 months - another year and a half of prison time.

Moody's reasoning parroted the government allegations, charges the jury found unsupported by the myriad of evidence prosecutors presented. Al-Arian's calm affirmation of trust in the American jury offered a sharp contrast to the biting words of the judge who labeled Al-Arian "a master manipulator" and claimed evidence showed Al-Arian was a leader in the Palestinian Islamic Jihad and was connected to violent acts in Israel. It defined the judge's political and personal bias and degraded the judgment of jurors.

Trial by a jury of one's peers is one of our country's most cherished rights. Co-defendant Sameeh Hammoudeh, acquitted of all charges, languishes in a detention cell awaiting deportation. Why? Was he to be a "pawn" to testify against Al-Arian in the event of a new trial? He would not lie and remains detained.

The final words of the judge showed disrespect for the jury verdict. The heavy-handed sentence was the final vindictive act of a powerful government. It sent a clear message to the people.

Doris Norrito, Largo

Judge's words were on target

Re: Al-Arian sentencing.

While U.S. District Judge James Moody's instructions to the jury may have made it difficult for the jury members to convict Sami Al-Arian, the judge's words at the sentencing hearing following Al-Arian's admission of his connection to terrorist groups were certainly on target. The judge labeled Al-Arian a "master manipulator."

For more than a decade, PRIMER has used this same term to describe Sami Al-Arian's activities in our community.

Norman N. Gross, Ph. D., president, PRIMER (Promoting Responsibility in Middle East Reporting), Palm Harbor

Small deeds can be deadly

Re: Al-Arian resolution doesn't resonate, May 2.

Susan Martin quotes Israeli news correspondent Shmuel Rosner as saying "Maybe he (Sami Al-Arian) gave some money to Islamic Jihad. So What? There are many people supporting Islamic Jihad."

So what? Are we to assume that because the amount of money Al-Arian possibly sent to Palestinian Islamic Jihad was insignificant that it was of no consequence? I personally find this a stunningly ignorant example of the vacuous logic often associated with terrorism pundits. Rosner seems content to dismiss the minor players sympathetic to Palestinian Islamic Jihad, focusing his attention instead on the grand-scale support from Syria. But just suppose that one of these minor supporters funneled a relatively small amount of money to PIJ, which in turn used it to construct just one suicide vest that tragically ended the lives of 10, 20 or 30 Israelis in a restaurant? Would Rosner then say, "So what?"

Richard M. Scott, Clearwater

It's about Israel's right to exist

Re: Unfair anti-Semitism claims clog valid debate, May 1.

Molly Ivins repeatedly declares herself pro-Israel, but the thrust of her argument is anti-Israel. She speaks of "Israel's inability ... to admit the Palestinians have been treated unfairly.'' She says, "Jews are so accustomed (by reality) to thinking of themselves as victims, it is especially difficult for them to admit they have victimized others."

And who, exactly, are the "others" whom Jews have victimized? Israel's neighbor states that have repeatedly attacked Israel? Palestinians who conduct a murderous war of terrorism inside Israel? Do Israelis victimize Palestinians by defending themselves against terrorism?

Many people who are neither Jewish nor Arab support Israel's right to exist in peace. That is the bottom line, not freedom of debate or academic distinctions between anti-Semitism and anti-Israel.

Joseph H. Francis, St. Petersburg

What's in a face?

Re: Mirror image, mirror image, May 2.

I think Bob Andelman enjoys the notoriety that comes with his resemblance to Sami Al-Arian. If he bought different glasses frames, reshaped his beard or removed it, there would be no resemblance at all.

Joseph Windishman, Seminole

SHARE YOUR OPINIONS

Letters for publication should be addressed to Letters to the Editor, P.O. Box 1121, St. Petersburg, FL 33731. They can be sent by fax to (727) 893-8675 or through our Web site at: www.sptimes.com/letters. They should be brief and must include the writer's name, address and phone number. Please include a handwritten signature when possible. Letters may be edited for clarity, taste and length. We regret that not all letters can be published.

[Last modified May 5, 2006, 06:33:40]