Jeff Taylor considers the case of PATRIOT Act poster boy Sami Al-Arian.
Reason Magazine
Most Popular Stories
Reason RUPE: Public Opinion Survey
- Romney Most Electable Candidate, Yet Gingrich in Statistical Tie Among GOP Voters (1.31)
- Explaining Newt’s Second Surge (1.26)
- George Washington Would Beat Out Romney as Richest President; John Kerry Would Have, Too (1.25)
- New Poll: Americans Aren't Ready for Another War (1.20)
- 2012 Election Match Up: Romney Wins, Paul Might (1.13)
advertisements
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsSite comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time.
|12.9.05 @ 11:59AM|#
Just to nitpick, it was my understanding that 8 of the 17 counts were "not guilty" leaving 9 as "deadlocked", which means that "...al-Arian and his co-defendants were found not guilty of most charges..." is not entirely correct.
But I do agree with the article.
However, is anyone really surprised the PATRIOT Act got extended?
Asshats. (Tip 'o' the hat to Warren.)
|12.9.05 @ 12:42PM|#
Tell me, if anyone knows, is this just an Americanism, or do other countries deconstruct a crime into more than a dozen individual charges? For all its baroque complexity, the government's charge was essentially pretty simple: that al-Arian was a fundraiser for a terrorist organization.
While the press reports are long on "reaction" and short on "analysis," it appears as though the jury concluded that his fundraising occured at a time when the group wasn't listed as a terrorist organization, that is, when it wasn't a crime, and that he believed he was helping the families of terrorists, not the terrorists themselves. That is, he was buying groceries for the families of dead terrorists. That seems like a pretty small-minded reason to send someone to jail.
Not that it's true, but a ten-year investigation failed to prove anything more damning. And the case remains the government's to prove. I like the line about "assuming" there's a terrorist cell operating in Tampa. The prosecutor would have lost my vote at that point. It's not for the jury to assume but the government to prove.
As for the PATRIOT act, I rolled my eyes when people talked about "sunset provisions." Betrayed again, naturally.
|12.9.05 @ 1:08PM|#
It's not for the jury to assume but the government to prove.
Yeah, actually I thought the only thing the jury was supposed to assume was that the accused was innocent until the prosecution proved its case.
|12.9.05 @ 2:50PM|#
Lowdog, I think where the "not guilty on most charges" comes from is that two of Al-Arian's co-defendants were completely acquitted, and the jury either acquitted or deadlocked on all the same charges against the third co-defendant as against Al-Arian. So, of 68 total charges there were 50 "not guilties" and 18 deadlocks.
|12.9.05 @ 6:04PM|#
Yes, SR, that is the idea. Thanks.