Home      |      Weblog      |      Articles      |      Satire      |      Links      |      About      |      Contact

Militant Islam Monitor > Articles > The war against radical Islam cannot be fought in the courtroom - Jury of one's peers inconsistent with terrorism cases

The war against radical Islam cannot be fought in the courtroom - Jury of one's peers inconsistent with terrorism cases

Capitol punishment for convicted Jihadists - jailing terrorists provides martyr status and allows them to galvanise followers
December 8, 2005

MIM: Recent terrorism cases have shown that jailing terrorists not only provides them with martyr status but that they are able to communicate and galvanise followers into committing more attacks.

Two examples are that of Omar Abdul Rahman 'The Blind Sheik' who sent fatwas to his followers which resulting in the murder of tourists in Egypt. Another example is Mohammed Bouyeri, who was jailed for the killing of Theo Van Gogh.

Bouyeri was supposed to be put in solitary confinement due to his hero status among Muslims. It was revealed that he had notes smuggled out of prison calling on other members of his group to commit attacks.


Another Brick In Jamie Gorelick's Wall Saves Jihadi Al-Arian


undefinedDecember 8, 2005 - San Francisco, CA - PipeLineNews.org - There are two things that can be learned from the outcome of the Al-Arian fiasco.

First, that the war on terrorism should neither be fought, nor can it be won in the courtroom.

Second, the case against Al-Arian should have been brought against him a decade ago, by the Clinton administration, despite Jamie Gorelick's now infamous FBI wall and Janet Reno's apparent disinclination to even bring the Al-Arian case before a grand jury at the time.

The primary evidence of Al-Arian's plotting to aid and fund the Palestinian Islamic Jihad [PIJ] is now over 10 years old. For example the FBI's raid on Al-Arian's university office, his home and his World and Islam Enterprise headquarters took place almost exactly 10 years ago today - yet the Clinton Justice Department refused to prosecute - shades of Khobar Towers.

Gorelick's wall was intentionally designed to frustrate the sharing of information between various intelligence agencies because the bunglers and cowards in the Clinton administration felt that there was no cheap and quick political upside to a vigorous counterattack against terror. As a result they handled the increasing attacks on the United States and its citizens as if those who sought our destruction had merely violated speeding laws rather than having declared war against us.

A different strategy is needed before Americans fall victim to the manipulation of their justice system by Islamic terrorists and America's domestic enemies. Driving this point home in an odd way, Al Arian's lawyer William Moody claimed that:

"There is a document - it's called the U.S. Constitution. Unless the Constitution is repealed in this courtroom, it protects Dr. Al-Arian for his speech...the fact the Dr. Al-Arian is a Palestinian deprives him of no civil rights."

This is of course correct as long as people like Al-Arian are afforded rights to which they are undeserving.

The ACLU and a small but powerful, media savvy cadre of disloyal but enterprising attorneys have argued that not only are irregular enemy combatants - terrorists - deserving of the rights specifically not extended to them by the Geneva Accords but they are also strongly making the case to grant them the full litany of constitutional and civil rights guaranteed to American citizens and then handle these cases as criminal matters.

In this "Beyond the Looking Glass" worldview the hunt for terrorists will have to be authorized by Federal search warrants and the "defendants" then Mirandized immediately after their "arrest."

European terror expert Roman Kupchinsky writing for Radio Free Europe, asks the question "Are Trials A Deterrent To Terrorism?"

"...Terrorists, unlike other criminals, do not seem overly concerned with being placed on trial and punished for their acts. Incapacitation, deterrence, and rehabilitation -- three of the main goals of the criminal justice system - do not seem have a noticeable impact on terrorists..."

Al-Arian and his associates' acquittal highlights the dangers of prosecuting terrorism cases as criminal ones, where upholding the constitutional rights of terrorists is given precedence over the threat they pose.

If anything positive can be said of the trial it might help to galvanize counter-terrorism experts, law enforcement, and the legal establishment to fight the war on terrorism using military and not civilian procedures.

In our opinion Al-Arian bid adieu to whatever claim he might have had to the niceties of civilian justice and placed himself alongside fellow Islamists like bin-Laden during a 1991 Palestinian Islamic Jihad fundraising speech in which he was recorded as having said - a video tape of which was presented to the jury and played in open court:

"Thus is the way of jihad. Thus is the way of martyrdom. Thus is the way of blood, because this is the path to heaven."

The most effective method for dealing deal with enemy combatants who reside within the United States would be to swiftly try them before a military tribunal, and then publicly hang those found guilty - deportation must be rejected because it allows the Islamists to continue their activities unabated.

Of course the squeamish public and the Bush administration are by no means ready for such supposed barbarity at this point, but factor in another 911 or two...or three and people will be bidding on E-Bay for the right to wear the black hood.

Gentle readers, you can take that to the bank.


U.S. weighs tactics in terror case

By Eric Lichtblau The New York Times


WASHINGTON U.S. law enforcement officials, stunned by the jury's unwillingness to convict a former Florida professor on terrorism charges, said that they may seek to have him deported to the Middle East. Prosecutors said Wednesday that they may still decide to re-try the former professor, Sami al-Arian, on some or all of the nine criminal counts on which a jury in Tampa, Florida, became deadlocked Tuesday. But if the government opts not to retry him, officials said they would probably bring separate immigration charges that could result in his deportation - and which would require the government to meet a lower burden of proof against him. After a five-month trial, the jury did not return any guilty verdicts against Arian or his three co-defendants on 51 criminal counts regarding accusations that they ran a North American front for Palestinian terrorists. Arian, whose vocal support for militant Palestinian causes had led to him being put under government surveillance in the early 1990s, was acquitted on eight counts against him, and the jury was deadlocked on nine others. Muslims in Florida and around the United States celebrated the verdicts, and defense lawyers said the jury's decision reflected the weakness of a case that they said relied on guilt by association. Law enforcement officials said they remained confident that Arian represented a clear danger. Arian, a former computer engineering professor at the University of South Florida, is being held on what is known as an immigration detainer, which serves as a backstop to criminal charges. Born in Kuwait, he is a permanent resident of the United States, but has no formal citizenship. His lawyers consider him a "stateless Palestinian." One possible destination could be Egypt, where he has family, officials said. But his past could make it difficult to find a country willing to accept him and could set the stage for a repeat of the battle that lasted years of his wife's brother, Mazen al-Najjar, who was deported from Florida in 2002 because of his ties to Palestinian militants. William Moffitt, one of Arian's defense lawyers, said he was hopeful that the government would not seek to deport Arian or try him again on criminal charges. After nearly three years in jail under difficult confinement conditions, the defense lawyer said, "This man has suffered enough, and I would hope the government would say enough is enough." But he acknowledged that deportation "right now is certainly a concern that worries me." David Cole, a law professor at Georgetown University, in Washington, who represented Arian's brother-in-law in the earlier deportation case, said that the government could have a somewhat easier time deporting Arian because of changes made by Congress this year that make associating with a banned terrorist group a deportable offense. But he added that "if he decides he wants to stay in the country, it will be a contentious immigration case, because at the end of the day you're trying to deport a permanent resident who has not been convicted of any crime, based on his political affiliations alone, and that raises serious constitutional questions."

Printer-friendly version   Email this item to a friend