This diary will be short but not sweet.
A few days ago, a Judge James S. Moody in Tampa sentenced Sami Al-Arian to 18 more months in jail after he was acquitted in a court of law by a jury of his peers last year. This history of this man's persecution and prosecution by the federal government will not be repeated here; the information is out there.
Like many of you, my outrage meter pegged so long ago that it's been beat up beyond recognition.
Sami Al-Arian never killed any one or blew anyone up. He's said some controversial things. He's campaigned on behalf of the Palestinian people and had very harsh words for Israel. He's a Pelestinian and has run a foundation that has funded organizations that benefit the Palestinians. He is no doubt a controversial figure.
The Federal government prosecuted him in a court of law in front of a jury. The jury acquitted him. Prosecuters weren't satisfied, but to spare the cost of appeal, Al-Arian agreed to admitting support for Isalamic Jihad and let them deport him so he can get on with his life. He's been in jail for about 3 1/2 years.
So, a jury acquitted him, the Feds want to deport him under another law, but the judge sentenced him to 18 more months in jail anyway, 4 years and 9 months total to include time served. The judge attached a scathing political message to his sentence, calling Al-Arian a liar and a "master manipulator". I guess the judge didn't like the jury's decision, heh?
Lets' say some individual makes up a charge against me, has me arrested, and my case goes to trial. The jury acquits me, but the judge doesn't like me and sentences me to jail anyway. Is this America?
The question you should be asking yourself is this: Can a judge in this country, the USA, arbitrarily disagree with a jury's decision to acquit, essentially nullifying their decision, and sentence the defendent anyway? Is this legal?
What has happened to the Constitution, due process, and the Rule of Law? More than Just Askin'