I am (as previous posts will show), feeling a little cantankerous and ornery today. Apparently that is going around the blogosphere, as my friend Brian Linse, normally a mild-mannered and unreconstructed pinko commie who is known to associate with unrepentant libertarians, is about as hostile as I have seen him in a long time.
I haven’t followed the issue, and will read up about it this afternoon when I have some time.
Those exact same asshats he takes to task would trumpet any acquittal of Tom DeLay or Scooter Libby as evidence of God’s support of Republicans.
Hey John, maybe this will brighten your mood! I’ve discovered more amazing sites through your linking than from any other blog/site I read. You seem to really know about the gems out there. thanks.
Oh, stoptheaclu.com being the obvious exception, heh. Although you goofed a bit on the url, which made me happy. I will say this though, the site is as entertaining as its name suggests, so there’s that.
It is rather unusual for me to agree with left-wing bloggers on issues related to alleged Muslim terrorists, but I strongly do here. Mr. Linse’s vehemence is quite justified. I posted this comment elsewhere yesterday:
Every patriotic American should be proud of this verdict. Even after the horrors of 9/11, and the fact that we are engaged in a war against Islamo-fascist terrorists, twelve American citizens refused to convict 4 Muslims on a variety of charges, presumably because the government could not make its case beyond a reasonable doubt.
The DoD should include this verdict in its information offensive in the Middle East. This is how the Great Satan’s civilized rule of law works.
To understate, my view was not well-received by those with whom I otherwise usually agree.
MI- Brian Linse is a good guy. Doesn’t blog enough, though.
Phillip J. Birmingham
I love this line:
Gold Star for Robot Boy
Has the government sucessfully prosecuted ANY high-profile case? Every arrest is trumpeted as a smashing success – and a reason to further give away our rights. But when the gavel comes down, either the crime turns out to be penny-ante crap or the accused walks due to lack of evidence.
I seriously dislike the crew in charge of our nation.
Hundreds of people have been convicted under Patriot Act provisions. They just aren’t terrorists. The Act really has little to do with terrorism and alot about expanding federal powers and limiting judicial oversight for federal crimes.
Gold Star for Robot Boy
Absolutely. Which is why the failure to nail an acutal bad guy is all the more infuriating.
I thought his best point was where he said, sure the stuff al-Arian advocated in 1991 was horrible, but if he should be jailed for it, so should every Operation Rescue nutjob, etc. Indeed.
I’m with him on this, and the repeated failures to convict people after these hugely publicized witch-hunts really troubles me. Wen-ho Lee, Padilla, the chaplain at Guantanamo, now al Arian…lots of “secret evidence”, and no public evidence, and, eventually, acquittal.
Is this a problem that needs to be solved? If so, what’s the right way to solve it?
Gold Star for Robot Boy
This ties in with one of the larger – and largely overlooked – scandals of the Bush administration: bouncing the officers (including a general! with four stars and everything!) who dared cross Rummy. All of a sudden, there’s a rash of top officers who can’t keep it in their pants? When Bush says the military agrees with him 100 percent, he ain’t lying – because the brass knows what happens when you say otherwise.
Fascinating. So the wingnut brigade doesn’t believe in Ex Post Facto(another one of them inconvenient pro-criminal things from our Constitution) for terror suspects… but they rally to the high heaven as long as it protects Tom Delay.
Gotta love their view of reality.
He wasn’t on trial for advocating terror or the genocide of the Israelis. He was on trial for acting as the Chief Financial Officer and chief fundraiser of a terror network that, as part of its hearts and minds campaign, also provides social benefits.
Which is precisely the charge that the Government has failed to prove. However, since this was a multiple count indictment, it is self-evidently false to claim al Arian was on trial for a single charge. As for the question of al Arian’s record of advocacy, it was the Government that raised these issues by digging around in al Arian’s pre-1995 activities.
No — the government proved that he was the CFO for a terror network. It didn’t prove that he continued to be the CFO for a terror network after that became an illegal thing to do in the United States (for that particular terror network, yadda yadda yadda.)
Excuse me but no. al Arian has not been convicted of anything. Ergo, the Government has proved nothing. Except, perhaps, its own venality and incompetence.
Excuse me, but yes. The evidence the government exhibited was quite conclusive. It just ended in 1995, when Hamas was banned here.
Evidently not conclusive enough for the Jury to convict him of anything.
Of course not — it wasn’t a crime then. It didn’t become a crime until 1995.
So what could have been the Government’s purpose in introducing evidence of a non-crime? Could it possibly have been to prejudiced the jury in favor of conviction? One thing is certain, the jury was not so impressed.
All rather beside the point though. You are entitled to your opinion of the evidence. You’re not entitled to present your opinion as evidence.