CLICK HERE to read and sign the petition to free Sami Al-Arian in accordance with the plea bargain agreed upon by both Dr. Al-Arian and the US government, which scheduled his release date as 7 April 2008.
Thursday, April 10, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
I'd sign the petition, if it wasn't for the pesky fact that I think Sami Al Arian deserves to spend the rest of his life in prison...
Is there a petition for that? If not, how about a petition for deporting him to Israel? The terms of the plea agreement don't specify what country he is to be deported to, do they? I'm pretty sure the Israelis might want to prosecute him too, since most of his victims were Israelis...
I'm pretty sure the Israelis might want to prosecute him too
Sorry! That obviously should have said "persecute him"! Poor guy. All he wanted to do was sponsor some suicide bombings here and there. He can't catch a break. You guys are right. There is no justice in this world we live in.
"I'd sign the petition, if it wasn't for the pesky fact that I think Sami Al Arian deserves to spend the rest of his life in prison... Is there a petition for that?"
That would flie in the face of the U.S. Justice system, and would be so unconstitutional. Craig, why do you hate America so much?
That would flie in the face of the U.S. Justice system
What would? Attempting to subvert the justice system by use of "petitions" rather than legal rulings? Wasn't my idea.
Or do you mean keeping al Arian in prison the rest of his life? Because, I can think of a few dozen ways to get that done that would be legal and constitutional. There is no "double jeopardy" if he faces new charges. Nor is there double jeopardy if he is tried in other jursidictions on charges that were dropped. Ask Fadi. When the government really wants to screw people, they get screwed.
The ONLY reason Al Arian got off as easily as he did (so far) is that the crimes he committed predate all the counter-terrorism legislation that was enacted after 9/11. If the current laws could be retroactively applied to him for what he did in the 1990s, he'd be well and truly fucked. So don't act like he's an innocent.
No charges were dropped. He was acquitted of all but two (10-2 on those two). Struck a plea bargain on those two. Had an agreement whereby he would not be compelled to testify against others. Government has completely ignored this agreement in what appears to be nothing more than an attempt to keep him in prison. There's pretty much nothing else any jurisdiction can charge him with that he hasn't been acquitted of.
He was acquitted of all but two (10-2 on those two).
That's not true. (He was acquitted on 8 of 17 charges - 9 resulted in a mistrial, not 2).
Struck a plea bargain on those two.
Neither is that. (He pled guilty to one of the remaining 9 charges, and the government dropped the remaining 8 charges - although maybe that's what you meant by saying "struck a deal" - in which case you are generally right, but wrong on the math. No big deal).
Had an agreement whereby he would not be compelled to testify against others.
And neither is that, and he's lost in both the 4th and 11th circuits arguing that. There is no agreement. Read his plea agreement and you will see. Those who say there was an agreement to that affect are either misinformed or lying.
If Al-Arian actually thought he had that clause in his plea bargain, but signed it anyway, then he possibly has a case against his attorneys for ineffective assistance of counsel.
But there is no agreement saying he did not have to testify in other cases, or he would not have lost in two separate appellate courts on what is seemingly a simple argument. And it is simple. There is either language to that affect in his plea agreement, or there isn't. Turns out there isn't.
Here's what the 11th circuit wrote about whether Al-Arian had an agreement not to testify:
The exclusion of a standard plea agreement provision requiring a defendant to cooperate with the government, whether voluntarily or under subpoena, does not establish that the government immunized Al-Arian from future grand jury subpoenas. This contention is especially dubious where, as here, the plea agreement contains an integration clause stating that there are no other promises, agreements, or representations except those set forth in the agreement, and Al-Arian denied at his plea hearing that he pled guilty in reliance on any promises or inducements except for those found in the agreement.
An especially dubious contention. Ouch. Not what a client or his lawyers want to hear.
And here's an article about the 4th Circuit ruling:
http://www.theledger.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070325/NEWS/703250408/1004
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.
Al-Arian's lawyers should have not let his client sign an agreement that failed to include such language, and Al-Arian should not have signed it, if that was what they were after.
But he's 0-2 making this argument at the appellate level. And he won't make any headway there.
His best chance now is that the Eastern District of Virginia is bored with his shenanigans. I think going after the prosecutor there with charges of racism and bullying, though, was a really poor tactic. It has come back to bite him in the ass, and it wouldn't be surprising if those affects continued.
I guess we'll find out one way or another next week.
you're right. i remembered it incorrectly.
Post a Comment