College Professor Arrested by Feds/Linked to Jihad

I've been reading about Professor al-Arian for years now in the St. Pete Times (my sister lives in Tarpon Springs; my mom has a condo in Clearwater, so I'm in Florida a few times a year).

He's been surveilled, followed, wiretapped and generally under suspicion for a long time.

My question, Phoe, is:

Do you think they finally found something on him....

or is the government using their broader powers under the Patriot Act to make his life miserable?

(or is it something in between?)

PDiddie- What it looks like to me is that they had good reason to suspect al Arian, but could not make it stick. Under the Patriot Act, the Feds were able to use the information gleaned from bugs, wiretaps etc, that they were unable to use before the act.

If you go to the Tampa Tribune, there are a number of other articles about this. I can't see why the Feds would want to do this simply to make his life "miserable". Why spend the money and the manpower to track a person, and indict him, if there isn't enough evidence to convict?

Here's another article, from the St. Pete Times:

Link to al Arian story

Since the Trib is considered right wing, and the Times left wing, you can get a more balanced idea of the reporting of the story!

When you read the story, take a look at the links to the right of the story. The one, "Breach in the Wall", is particularly interesting!

I didn't know that there is a site called CAMPUS WATCH.
Just found it when I tried to find some background information.

http://www.campus-watch.org/search/

That is a good lesson to all those that opposed the Patriot Act. Mr. al-Arian managed to indulge in terror support for years, he was under close surveillance, and he could not be brought to justice, since Feds could not present all the information being in their disposal. And absence of valid anti-terror legislation provided to the devout terrorist impunity for more than a decade. Here is a Timeline of the Al-Arian Case. Noteworthy, that when this article appeared online, the dangerous terrorist was still at large.

.
I hope, now the USA will not be a safe haven for the ideologists of murder. And they will share the destiny of their colleagues in Israel.
One more quote from the al-Arian's speeches:
.
It is a pity that such a man was given an opportunity to teach in the U.S. university.
Source:Palestinian Professor Tests Limits of Liberty in U.S. During a Decade of Islamic Activism
by Jonathan Kaufman
Wall Street Journal
October 1, 2001

Whatever happened to the Asian scientist in the West, who was charged with spying?

New Haven- Have not heard anything.

Here's the latest on al Arian. If you look on the right of the stories, you can access the 121 page indictment!

Link to al Arian

steissd- It looks to me that alArian et al were using America, because of its freedom, to commit acts that they could not get away with elsewhere. Now their asses are snagged!

They were abusing[/b] American freedoms. And people should blame gangsters like al-Arian and his ilk for providing the government with reasons to restrict individual rights. I do not think that any of restrictions would be possible and acceptable if there were no abusers posing sufficient national and international security risks. IMHO, human rights activists should see in terror sponsors their worst enemies: until the security threats posed by these scums are real, no serious progress in field of the individual and civil rights development is possible.

And I just can imagine how did one of al-Arian's accomplices, Dr. Ramadan Abdullah Shallah, that used to teach Middle East Studies in the USF, indoctrinate the American students that attended his class... This may be considered a security threat not less than his involvement in direct sponsoring of terror.

Steissd, you are missing the point. No one is complaining about the efficiency of the government. The issue is the loss of our rights -- both for Americans and for others who live here.

The Constitution, and specifically the fourth amendment protects us against searches without clear proof.

Without doubt these rights make it more difficult for police or any other government agency to protect us. It has always made it more difficult to stop or jail criminals. This has not changed since 9/11.

The question is this: What rights are you willing to give up in the name of National Security? Most of these rights make it easier for terrorists to operate whether it is the right to bear arms, free speech or the right to privacy.

There are countries that choose security over rights. I would submit that theere is very little terrorism in Cuba, or China (not to mention Iraq).

I strongly feel that holding to the rights that make America the home of liberty is worth the increase risk of terrorism or crime. I resent the present government and the number of citizens who are so willing to give up the very things taht make America great.

What do you mean by "abusing American Freedoms"? In America Freedom is one of our most sacred *Guarantees*. In a free society you can not take away someone sacred rights just because you disagree with them.

It is impossible to "provide the government with reasons" to restrict rights. The government's first responsibility (under oath) is to defend these rights. There is simply no excuse!

I do not know if you are American. But, you should understand that our nation is built on the idea that we all are "Endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights...".

The Bill of Rights is there to protect the unpopular (or as you say 'scum'). Those of us who are the wrong religeon, race or color are the people who need these protection. Right now people with Muslem ethnicity are certainly protected -- even if they have political views that are offensive to you are anyone else.

In short, after you show that this professor has commited a crime, you can prosecute appropriately. Allowing the government to violate people rights *before* this point is dangerous, unconstitutional and undemocratic.

Your posts go against the very spirit of America.

Freedom of speech, rights to privacy and freedom to bear arms should not be curbed. But the security agencies should be given rights to perform secret surveillance in case of suspicion in serious crime (terror, homicide, drugs trafficking, tax evasion, corporate fraud), and use their findings in court. Such a possibility is extermely important for curbing terror.

Please define "suspicion". I think this word is the crux of this debate.

The fourth amendment provides protection against unreasonable searches...

"...but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

Any breach of this Constitutional right is in conflict with the right to privacy which you correctly say "should not be curbed".

I am waiting to hear more about the specifics in this case. It doesn't seem from what I heard that the government had "probable cause" that this professor *commited a crime*.

Note that it is *not* a crime to be Muslim or opposed to the State of Israel. These are both clearly protected under the first Amendment. In fact any political view, no matter how controversial or offensive is protected. You can not violate someone rights on these grounds.

The government should react to the threat of terrorism. There are many things it can and should do.

Taking away the rights of Americans is not an option. We must be true to the very things that make us a great nation and a beacon of liberty.

You do not protect liberty by diminishing it.

It is not a crime to be opposed to the State of Israel, even when you are an Israeli citizen and live in Israel. There are even Israeli MPs that do not recognize legitimacy of Israel (these belonging to the Jewish ultra-Orthodox and Arab nationalist parties). But planning, supporting and financing terror anywhere in the world is a crime. But if the Feds did not intercept letters and phone calls of al-Arian, they would be unable to bring him to justice. More, they would be unable even to prevent him from continuing financing the Palestinian Islamic Jihad. So, this would permit him to abuse American freedoms in order to murder civilians overseas.
If al-Arian's activities were restricted to criticising Israel, surveillance and wiretapping would do no harm to him. This is perfectly legal, and all the records would just remain in the FBI archives.
I guess, Israeli General Security Service ("Shin-Beth") could have provided the FBI officials with information linking al-Arian to terror. But before the Patriot Act was approved, Feds would be unable to get a warrant to wiretap al-Arian. Wiretapping confirmed the information provided by Israelis, and al-Arian was arrested. If Israelis provided untruthful information, then he would remain free, and would not even realize anything about inetrest of the law enforcers to his person. Therefore, in case he was not a terrorist, his privacy would not suffer.
I agree that serious measures should be undertaken to avoid abuse of the information acquired by means of surveillance or wiretapping. In case it does not prove any illegal activities, it should not be made public under any circumstances; it should not be provided to potential employers, neighbors, family members, etc. But if such a surveillance proves some person being extremely dangerous, it must be used to stop his/her criminal activities.

This is not quite correct, ebrown. Reasonable or probable cause is the criterion, not clear proof. If clear proof were the standard, there would be no need for searches or wiretaps, now, would there?

Roger, you are of course correct. The standard is "probable cause".

My point is that the Constitution insists there is probable cause *before* you search or sieze property. If the government does a wiretap or a search in order to *obtain* probable cause, they are in violation of the Constitution. The Patriot Act is designed to remove all accountability the government has to the fourth Amendment of the Constitution.

"Suspicion" is clearly below the required Constitutional standard.