Those who have been hounding Al-Arian and slinging mud at him for years are more than happy that he is suffering. Anti-CAIR though, a web site dedicated to throwing the good name of CAIR under the bus, blatantly lies on its front page about Al-Arian stating "Sami refuses to uphold his plea deal and testify." Uhm, no. Like I said above, Al-Arian is not refusing to do anything associated with his plea deal instead it is the government that is failing to uphold its end of the agreement. It's one thing to vilify him, even continuously call him a terrorist supporter (even after a jury of his peers did not find him guilty of a single count), but let's not lie. That's never good. It's bad enough that the folks at anti-CAIR are bigots, but let's not tell lies.
Even the article that anti-CAIR links to does not support their claim that Al-Arian refused "to uphold his plea deal."
Where's the evidence that he was supposed to testify anywhere else? Do you think Al-Arian's legal team would have allowed him to enter a plea deal where he could be potentially stuck in legal limbo for years on end? I highly doubt that and so should anyone with common sense.Al-Arian, a former professor at the University of South Florida, was tried in 2005 on terrorism-related charges when federal prosecutors alleged he was a fundraiser for the Palestinian Islamic Jihad. Jurors acquitted him of eight counts and deadlocked on nine others.
Al-Arian later pleaded guilty to a charge he conspired to provide assistance to the Palestinian Islamic Jihad. Under a plea deal, he was to have been deported after he served his sentence. His family has since moved to Egypt, and Al-Arian's supporters want prosecutors to abide by the plea agreement and deport him.
Al-Arian's sentence was to have been completed in April 2007, but federal prosecutors in Virginia subpoenaed him to testify before a grand jury there, and he was held in contempt when he refused. That contempt has run out, but prosecutors have subpoenaed Al-Arian again.
17 comments:
You are so wrong.
Sami just didn't want to drop a dime on his bro's, but the truth is, his plea agreement was NOT violated by prosecutors making him testify against other terror-related suspects ... thank you for playing!
Sami Al-Arian, 50, had argued the terms of the plea agreement exempted him from testifying before a grand jury in an investigation of Islamic charities in Virginia.
A federal judge disagreed and found Al-Arian guilty of contempt when he refused to testify.
The 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals denied Al-Arian's appeal Friday, ruling that federal prosecutors did not violate the plea agreement by forcing him to testify in the Virginia case.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2008-01-26-4037252520_x.htm
Actually I am so right.
How about you post the entire article you quote from, which states:
A judge lifted the contempt charge in December, and he is expected to be released as early as April.
An attorney for Al-Arian in the contempt case said a clause requiring him to testify in other cases was specifically removed when the plea agreement was written because Al-Arian made it clear to prosecutors that he wouldn't do it.
"This is politics, this is not law," his attorney, C. Peter Erlinder, said of the ruling.
Wow. Wrong ... again
You can read the plea agreement for yourself, but we'll make it quick for you.
From IPT:
"His attorneys say an earlier plea agreement freed him from further cooperation with the government."
Sure, Al-Arian's attorneys say that. But much more importantly, there is no sign of such a provision anywhere in the plea agreement itself or in the hearing in which the plea was entered. That's why not one, but two federal appeals courts (the 4th and the 11th circuit), have ruled otherwise. As avid followers and active participants of Al-Arian's case, CAIR is very well aware of this, and just hoping that organizations and individuals in receipt of its press releases are not.
Here's the PDF of Sami's plea agreement:
http://www.investigativeproject.org/documents/case_docs/70.pdf
Again. thank you for playing
Omer, the facts just don't hold up your points:
The federal appeals court said Friday that it found no merit in al-Arian's claim that he does not have to testify because "a cooperation clause was discussed during the plea negotiations, but was not agreed to and not included in the written plea agreement."
The plea agreement "contains no language which would bar the government from compelling appellant's testimony before a grand jury," the appeals court said.
http://www.theledger.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070325/NEWS/703250408/1004
It is understood that you want to be right about poor Sami, but you are just being fooled by an attorney for a Terrorist spewing distractions and fabrications.
Actually, the attorney is correct. The plea agreement doesn't say either way if he must testify in Virginia or not. But it is recorded in court transcripts that both the prosecution and the defense verbally agreed that Al-Arian would not have to testify in Virginia.
"While no explicit language was written into the plea agreement about Al-Arian's exemption from testimony before a grand jury in Virginia, federal prosecutors in Tampa agreed with defense attorneys that Al-Arian would not have to testify in Virginia. That verbal agreement was recorded in court transcripts. Seven months later, he was transferred to a Virginia jail and ordered to testify."
It seems our government just wants the man to whither away into oblivion and blatantly lied to him and his defense. I don't know what the legal ramifications are of having or not having such a clause in the agreement, but it seems that if they want Al-Arian to testify in Virginia then they could also have him perform in the circus since there's no explicit clause stating otherwise. That doesn't seem like a very fair deal to me.
In any case, our argument seems to be outdated since it looks like he will be deported soon:
"Sami Al-Arian has been transferred to the custody of immigration authorities, which could be a sign he is about to be deported."
http://www2.tbo.com/content/2008/apr/16/me-al-arian-move-may-signal-deportation/
By the way, one post should suffice for any comments you have unless you're bringing up another, different point. Thanks.
Al-Arian's plea agreement in no way absolves him from meeting the obligations imposed by being ordered to testify with a supeona...
Ipso facto Anti-CAIR is correct in saying Al-Arian is not upholding his end of his plea agreement, which is to continue to obey the law.
Can you show me where in the plea agreement that it states that he must "continue to obey the law?" Your statement is half of the truth because no where in the plea agreement does it say that he must testify anywhere else.
I wrote, and the SP Times also said, that the prosecution and Al-Arian agreed verbally he would not have to testify anywhere else after the agreement was made. Otherwise, why else would he have entered into the agreement? That's obvious.
Omer Subhani, CAIR South-Florida Communications Director, has apparentley forgotten that the courts have found that Al-Arian has not lived up to his plea-bargain agreement. No amount of wishful thinking on the part of Subhani will change this fact.
As to the accusation that Anti-CAIR is bigoted, where is the proof?
Unlike Anti-CAIR's carefully researched, documented proofs against CAIR, all Subhani can do is throw mud and hope it sticks.
Subhani should remember that it was CAIR that ran from their lawsuit against me; I was perfectly willing to meet them in court.
Would Subhani care to comment on why CAIR refused to defend their "good name" in court? He won't...because he can't. How do you defend CAIR, a group with proven ties to Islamic terrorists and Islamic terrorist groups?
Of course, Subhani will delete this before anyone see's it because he knows it is the truth...and the truth is the last thing a lap dog for CAIR can tolerate.
"he prosecution and Al-Arian agreed verbally he would not have to testify anywhere else after the agreement was made."
unfortunately for Al-Arian and CAIR the written agreement trumps the verbal agreement.
I've read your post Andrew! Thanks for the email this morning drawing my attention to this blog...Omer, it must be so nice for you and your CAIR buddies to hide behind the free speech laws of a country that you so transparantly dislike. I mean, you could badmouth the US from Pakistan or Saudi Arabia like your other Muslim bretheren, but who the heck wants to live there?!?
RE: "Can you show me where in the plea agreement that it states that he must "continue to obey the law?"
Does that need to be explicitly stated in any plea agreement? Isn't that implicit upon all who choose to live in our society built on the rule of law?
Andy, I responded to your comments in a recent post.
To Josh, why does criticism of the United States mean I dislike it? And what if I did dislike America, so? What's it to you. As an American we all have the right to like our country or even to hate it, but still have the right to live here freely.
I was born and raised here by immigrant parents. I have zero allegiance to any other country besides America. I don't need to prove to you or any other person the amount of patriotism I have in order either to make you happy or to prove to you that I'm some sort of anti-American hater.
If you think everyone at CAIR hates America then that's your problem.
As far as the plea agreement, the comment made by someone was:
"Al-Arian's plea agreement in no way absolves him from meeting the obligations imposed by being ordered to testify with a supeona. Ipso facto Anti-CAIR is correct in saying Al-Arian is not upholding his end of his plea agreement, which is to continue to obey the law."
I could state the opposite of the above, namely that Al-Arian's plea agreement in no way requires him to testify at another trial. What you guys seem to be ignoring is the fact that they explicitly agreed to this verbally. But the government decided to screw him over any way. There is no explicit language in the plea deal stating anything about testifying at another trial, so we can go back and forth either way.
You don't need to prove anything to me...but your actions, (perhaps unwittingly), leave little doubt about your "patriotism."
You can get hung up all you want on whether he got "screwed" when the written plea didn't mirror the verbal plea...blah blah blah, but the fact is, he copped the plea because he was guilty, now it looks like he's going to be deported, and here you stand voicing pity for this terrorist-enabler.
your blog would appear to be the usual smearing of a one that does not follow
Islam and the use of Taqiyya and Kitmanhttp://www.wikiislam.com/wiki/Lying
it would be nice for a change to see a Muslim that could actually tell the truth instead of swearing and smearing those who expose the lies that groups like the one you work for try to pass off as Islam phobia like the flying immans incident I would not be surprised to see the Council on American Islamic relations use the incident happened between a down syndrome boy with a mental age of five and down syndrome girl that had a playground spat as Islam phobia and racial incident like someone already tried by the way what race is Islam again
muslims use the same DECEIT and two face lies they have for centuries. IT IS THE MOST RACIST AND HATEFUL ideology and cult devised by a demented false prophet name muhammed.
we face the same crap for hundreds of years in the philippines, and among russians in chechyna, and jews, palestenians and the rest of the middle east. In africa, it's everywhere. who genocides and DISCRIMINATES AGAINST, WHO? it's the MUSLIMS. if there is any racism more SEVERE, it's from the MUSLIM WORLD. the koran is full of that crap! many of us in the world who do not voiceout is FED UP WITH YOU MUSLIMS. KEEP PUSHING US and it will be a WORLDWIDE WAR against YOU by the REST OF THE WORLD who are majority, NON MUSLIMS!
AMERICA was not built on ANY muslim or islamic stupidity. The constitution was put together by christians. For those who are ignorant of muslims, just ask angry filipinos from the north who have been fighting them for ages. By the wasy the RACIST muslims discriminate and lock up catholic filipinos in SAUDI ARABIA, bunch of racist scum them muslims! they need to be fought tooth and nail!
typical muslim deceit and propoganda. there is no ideology MORE RACISTS then islam.
While I agree with Angry Asian, (for the most part) about Muhammad being a false profit, etc...I don't think he was any more so than Jesus. This is why I am a staunch Athiest and Humanist. I believe that there is a set of Morals that humanity needs to operate within, and the Christian tradition tends to manifest those morals more consistently, (love they neighbor, honor thy father and mother, etc...).
But when you justify your moral stance because "god" said so like the religious right in America does, then you lend creedence to the Islamofascists stoning women to death and practicing polygamy "because god said so".
These profits, (moses included) all lived at a time when man still thought the sun revolved around the earth for crying out loud, and you expect me to believe that god took the time to reach out to then and tell them all about which clan/subclan was righteous and which infidels needed to be slain or which tree not to eat an apple from, but didn't bother to mention that the earth was actually round and that those stars in the sky weren't pinholes in a curtain of the heavans but other galaxies billions of light years away?!?
If you all want to help mankind "just get along" start by spreading the gospel of Hitchens and Dawkins and help people kick the habit of religion...(The opiate of the masses).
Post a Comment