Of the hundreds of boxes of materials seized from the home of Dr. Sami Al-Arian, the World and Islam Studies Enterprise (WISE) offices and the Islamic Academy of Florida, the government introduced very little evidence as part of its case.

Furthermore, Moffitt questioned the legitimacy of the searches and authenticity of the evidence, some of which appeared in different form than it was during the initial seizure. He successfully objected to the introduction of some evidence that was deemed prejudicial, irrelevant to the case and potentially unlawfully obtained.

On the other hand, what was largely introduced to jurors were items such as books, videotapes, magazines and brochures. Of Dr. Al-Arian's personal library containing over 5,000 books, three were introduced as evidence. Defense attorneys maintain that the government has brought nothing more than evidence of activities protected under the First Amendment, such as the rights to free speech, association, and assembly.

Observers in the courtroom found the government's emphasis on publications and speeches as evidence to be a chilling example of the silencing of free speech activities that have become commonplace under the Bush Administration. Many
were puzzled since none of this evidence demonstrated proof of any of the government's accusations. Daily media reports
consistently expressed a disjunction between the government's accusations and the evidence being presented to jurors.

Agents from the Immigration and Naturalization Service, as well as the Internal Revenue Service also testified. Though the charges do not contain a single accusation of tax violations, prosecutors argued that IRS testimony was necessary to building their case. Defense attorneys did not cross-examine these witnesses, deeming them irrelevant to the case overall.

Other federal agents in charge of surveillance testified in court.
One FBI photographer testified to following Dr. Al-Arian for at
least four years, though government lawyers introduced only ONE photograph captured as a result of those years of following him: a picture of him leaving a local restaurant with some colleagues.

Moffitt questioned the agent sarcastically, "So you caught them in the dangerous pursuit of lunch?" before proceeding to question the agent on whether he had ever witnessed Dr. Al-Arian committing any illegal acts in that time. The answer was a resounding "No."

Another agent testified to obtaining wiretaps on a number of
telephones belonging to Dr. Al-Arian and others, also stating that some locations were fitted with bugging devices hidden in certain rooms.

WISE AS AN ACADEMIC CENTER

Aside from government agents, prosecution witnesses also included nearly a dozen individuals from Dr. Al-Arian's life and career.

Prosecutors attempted to present WISE, the University of South Florida-affiliated think tank, as a front organization with ulterior motives by bringing respected USF professors to discuss their experiences. Instead, professors such as Dr. Mark Orr and Dr. Mohsen Milani spoke glowingly of their experiences with WISE, recalling the numerous academic events, roundtable discussions, and publications that resulted from their years of activity.

Former WISE secretary Sahar Ramahi testified to her years of work at the think tank, including maintaining a subscription list to WISE publications that included all of the nation's top universities as well as many government agencies and even the Embassy of Israel.

Former American Bar Association President William Reece Smith, who was commissioned by USF to investigate WISE's activities in 1996, testified to his findings, concluding that the center engaged in scholarly activities that were beneficial to the university and the community at large. The prosecution's attempts to taint the achievements of WISE fell flatly, as their own witnesses consistently supported the defense's contention that WISE was a scholarly institution that was highly regarded.

PAID AND AFRAID

Among the hostile witnesses, the government brought an alleged former Imam at a Sarasota mosque, Muneer Arafat, who testified to meeting Dr. Al-Arian on three occasions since 1988. He claimed that on the first occasion, he was recruited to join the Palestinian Islamic Jihad and refused, but that on the second occasion, he helped solicit funds for the organization.

Arafat quickly lost face with jurors and outside observers, however, when it was revealed that he had been paid $35,000 by the government for his testimony, and that he had previously lied on government forms, job applications, and in interviews, frequently presenting himself as a US citizen to obtain employment. Arafat, who claimed to have received Islamic training, also testified that lying was permissible in Islam.

An official with the largest U.S. Muslim organization, the Islamic Society of North America, Ahmed El-Hattab testified about ISNA's affiliation with the Islamic Committee for Palestine, an organization founded by Dr. Al-Arian in the late 1980s. Though government documents demonstrated that ICP was authorized as an ISNA affiliate and granted the use of its tax identification number as late as 1992, El-Hattab testified that his organization should not have approved the application because it did not affiliate with political groups or charitable organizations. ISNA's links with numerous international charitable and political causes are well-documented, however.

UNBIASED EXPERT?

The government also presented its expert witness, Matthew Levitt, a researcher with the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, a notoriously pro-Israel think tank. Levitt has testified in a number of previous cases against Arab and Muslim activists. In this case, however, his testimony about the history of militant groups in Palestine appeared disjointed from the individuals involved in this case—and distorted the Palestinian-Israeli conflict.

Upon cross examination, Levitt revealed that in his previous employment with the FBI, he worked actively in the investigation of Dr. Al-Arian, and Moffitt questioned him regarding comments he made in the media in the days following Dr. Al-Arian's arrest in February 2003. His credibility as a neutral expert was strongly called into question.

AN ISRAELI-AMERICAN CO-PRODUCTION

Giving credence to a claim in the Israeli daily Ha'aretz that
this case is an "Israeli-American co-production," the third major feature of the first four weeks of testimony revolved around what have come to be known as the "Israeli witnesses." Of the government's list of roughly 200 witnesses, nearly 80 were expected to be flown from Israel to testify. One newspaper remarked that it was the largest number of international witnesses to testify in a U.S. court in history.

The bulk of these witnesses were brought to testify about their
personal experiences with attacks and bombings, as victims, police and military officials, medical examiners, or families of dead victims. Though prosecutors maintained that neither Dr. Al-Arian nor any of his co-defendants had any personal or direct involvement in the attacks, they argued that the emotional weight of these acts of violence were necessary to their case. Three such witnesses were brought in to testify during the first month of trial. In addition, graphic video footage of an attack's aftermath was shown to jurors.

Within days of this testimony, however, defense attorneys and
prosecutors announced that they had reached an agreement regarding the testimony of the remaining Israeli witnesses. The stipulation was read to jurors as a documented account of 14 attacks whose facts were agreed upon by the parties. In exchange to agreeing to the basic accounts, defense attorneys were assured that no witnesses or video footage would be brought to detail these attacks any further.

The stipulation was a major development which has cut much of the government's case from its original six months to substantially less than that. It has also ensured that the prejudicial testimony of the Israeli witnesses would no longer overwhelm jurors. Defense attorneys argued the testimony was irrelevant to the charges in the case, which include NO accusations of any foreknowledge, or involvement in the planning or carrying out of any violent acts.

Judge James Moody is expected to rule next week on whether the government can continue to call Israeli witnesses to discuss at least two remaining attacks that the government has reserved for testimony.

"IT'S ALL ABOUT POLITICS"

Ultimately, many observers, including members of the media, have said that the government has yet to provide a single piece of evidence in support of its case. A month into the trial,
prosecutors could only show activities protected under the First Amendment, the establishment of legal organizations that engaged in scholarly functions and activism—consistent with the American tenets of the free expression of ideas and the right to associate and assemble.

As Dr. Al-Arian remains in prison and his family continues to suffer in his absence, it's become evident that this trial is
wholly politically-motivated and a waste of tax-payer money. Above all, this case is a testament to how a government's unjust policies wrecked havoc on the lives of four men, their wives and 18 children.