TBO.com News

Al-Arian Case Seen As A Win For Justice

By ELAINE SILVESTRINI and MICHAEL FECHTER The Tampa Tribune

Published: Dec 8, 2005

TAMPA - Before Tuesday's verdicts, advocates for Sami Al-Arian said they didn't think the former University of South Florida professor could get a fair trial in Tampa.

They argued that the "media harangue" and the political atmosphere would influence jurors to convict Al-Arian and his three co-defendants.

"Well, they were wrong, weren't they?" said Donna Hannigan, an alternate juror from New Port Richey. "I think [defense attorneys] were probably doing their jobs putting that out there. You've got 12 different people of all walks of life. I guess we all view things differently."

On Tuesday, Hannigan's fellow jurors acquitted Al-Arian of eight charges, including conspiracy to murder or maim people abroad. The panel deadlocked on other charges, including conspiracy to commit racketeering and conspiracy to provide material support to a foreign terrorist organization. Two other defendants, Sameeh Hammoudeh and Ghassan Ballut, were acquitted of all charges. A fourth, Hatim Fariz, was acquitted of 25 charges but no verdict was issued on other counts.

Hammoudeh will be deported as part of a sentence in an unrelated case. On Wednesday, he was transferred from Hillsborough County to an immigration facility in Bradenton.

Evidence Wasn't Enough, Jury Said

Although evidence showed Al-Arian was deeply involved in the business of the Palestinian Islamic Jihad, jurors concluded that was not enough to convict him of any crimes. Prosecutors have not yet said whether they will retry Al-Arian and Fariz on the charges the jury deadlocked on. The Islamic Jihad has claimed responsibility for suicide bombings that resulted in more than 100 deaths in Israel, including some U.S. citizens.

Hannigan said she would have voted to convict Al-Arian and Fariz on some charges, but she does not take issue with the jury's verdict. "I respect the jurors because I know they had very hard decisions to make. I'm not angry or upset with any of them."

Some legal experts saw the verdicts as a vindication of civil liberties, even as the government tries to limit rights in the name of fighting terrorism.

"I think the long-term benefit for the United States, for every citizen, is we have re-established that we will apply the rule of law regardless of circumstances," said Charles Rose, a law professor at Stetson University College of Law and a retired army intelligence officer.

"It's a time when fear did not win out over rational analysis. That's a wonderful thing. It says we're going to give the benefit of the rule of law to those who may be considered to be the most demonized or the most evil amongst us."

In a sense, some observers said, the government's defeat in a case billed as a strike in the war on terrorism may prove to be a win for the United States in the international arena.

"For those people who have been critical of the U.S. system, Al-Arian's trial demonstrates that this remains a nation of laws," said Jonathan Turley, a professor at George Washington University Law School.

"The jury overcame strong sentiments to reach a decision that they considered based on the evidence. If anything, the Al-Arian case can be seen as some assurance that this remains a country that subjects government claims to the test of jury verdicts."

Howard Simon, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Florida, said, "I think it was a reaffirmation of how much the independent jury system of ordinary citizens is the backbone of American democracy.

"Most other places in the world, the government makes a charge and they pick up somebody and they throw them in jail. ... [Here] ordinary citizens from Tampa can stand up to the government under the most extraordinary post-9/11 pressure, and say, 'I'm sorry federal government, you didn't make your case.' "

The jury, Simon said, withstood "all of the pressure and all the resources of the government and all the media hype and all the exploitation" of the case by politicians and made "a courageous, independent judgment."

Bruce Howie, who represented Ballut, said, "The independent branch of government is a check to tamper the hysteria of the other branches. It is important that we temper our zeal and act with due regard to individual liberties."

Government The Big Loser

Former U.S. Rep. Bob Barr, R-Georgia, said the Al-Arian verdict is a serious defeat for the methods used by the government to fight terrorism. "This certainly helps to emphasize that at least this one jury down in Tampa believes that simply because the government says it's fighting terrorism does not mean they can get away with whatever they" try to do, he said.

Barr, a lawyer who works as a consultant to the ACLU and the American Conservative Union, added, "When you have the government prosecuting someone for making disagreeable statements ... you certainly are changing the way we live."

But Frank Gaffney, founder and president of the Center for Security Policy in Washington, called the verdict a miscarriage of justice.

Al-Arian, he said, "has associations and has created an extraordinary track record" of involvement in terrorism. The fact that Al-Arian was not convicted, Gaffney said, shows that the system was "too skewed in protecting the rights of a guy who was guilty as charged. Now, that's one man's view."