Tampa Bay Coalition for Justice and Peace

Nov. 13, 2005
A Political Prosecution: Closing Arguments

TAMPA– Closing arguments in the case of Dr. Sami Al-Arian and his co-defendants began on Monday, November 7 with prosecutors admitting the evidence in the case was circumstantial. The government has alleged that Dr. Al-Arian’s legitimate organizations—the Islamic Committee for Palestine, World and Islam Studies Enterprise and Islamic Academy of Florida– were fronts for the Palestinian Islamic Jihad. While they attempted to prove that Dr. Al-Arian and his three co-defendants had “criminal intent” to further the unlawful goals of the PIJ, all they have shown was mere association and involvement in nonviolent, charitable activities.

To cover the fact that there is no evidence pointing to criminal activity, prosecutor Cherie Krisgman asked jurors to “use their common sense” to “connect the dots.” On Tuesday, Dr. Al-Arian’s lawyers, William Moffitt and Linda Moreno, argued that the government failed to prove its case against Dr. Al-Arian and present any evidence to back up its claims. Moreno said “when Ms. Krigsman asks you to use your common sense, she’s asking you to take a leap of faith, to suspend your disbelief.”

More importantly, Moffitt and Moreno argued that the case is about nothing more than First Amendment-protected speech. They made impassioned pleas to stand up for the principles upon which the United States was founded and to defend Dr. Al-Arian’s right to speak out against the brutality of the Israeli occupation of Palestinians.

Moreno began her closing argument by saying, “Ladies and gentlemen, the prosecution against Sami Al-Arian is built entirely on his words, built on his beliefs, and that is un-American.” For example, during the five-month trial, the prosecution repeatedly referred to the Occupied Territories simply as “the territories” to de-contextualize the plight of Palestinians. Furthermore, Moreno explained basic concepts related to Palestinians such as “Diaspora,” or the forced migration of a people. Moreno said that to completely dismiss or deny the occupation is “the very reason Dr. Sami Al-Arian is sitting at that table.” Words are very important, “they can rewrite history. Words can inspire people.” In this prosecution, “words have been redacted, censored, edited, manipulated and exploited.”

Moreno emphasized that many of the conversations introduced as evidence by the government were edited and redacted (large portions were removed). “Context is important. Censorship is dangerous,” she told the jury. Pointing to several books introduced as evidence, Moreno said prosecutors merely translated the title or author, disregarding the table of contents, let alone the books themselves.

Throughout the trial, and during its closing argument, the prosecution repeatedly pointed to publication or possession of magazines such as Inquiry, a periodical edited by Dr. Al-Arian, as evidence of criminality, Moreno said such arguments are dangerous. “The government wants you to believe there’s something terribly wrong with what’s in those magazines,” she said. “It’s un-American to bar books.” Later, Moreno pointed out that Noam Chomsky and former Congressman Paul Findley were both contributing writers for Inquiry.

Citing the testimony of the government’s own witness, Palestinian Authority legislator and scholar Dr. Ziad Abu Amr, Moreno described the daily hardships and suffering Palestinians face under military occupation and their dire economic situation. For example, she said unemployment is at over 50 percent in Gaza, whose GNP per capita is less than $1,000. “Not a Palestinian home was unaffected by the occupation,” Moreno quoted Abu Amr as saying. He also testified that Gaza was a “big jail.” Moreno’s main point to the jury was summed up in the following statement, “This is not a criminal case. This is a political case.”

Dr. Al-Arian’s attorneys also said that according to an affidavit by Abu Amr, the Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ) has a “small military wing autonomous from the political wing” of the group.

Moreno also spoke about the first Intifada, explaining that it took the form of nonviolent protests, mass demonstrations and strikes, but was confronted by a lethal response by the Israeli military. It was in the context of the first Intifada that the Islamic Committee for Palestine (ICP) conferences took place, Moreno explained. In terms of the five ICP conferences, Moreno said they were open, videotaped and held in hotels. They were not underground. Dr. Al-Arian invited the FBI to come to them. They were focused on Palestine, and the first conference, held in 1988, was 40 years after the original Israeli occupation. She said, “We need to look at them in context, and reject the government’s cruel and cynical interpretation of these speeches.” Moreno then pointed out that after wire-tapping Dr. Al-Arian for nine years, all the government could come up with were 300 to 400 phone calls between the four defendants out of nearly half a million to introduce as evidence.

Moreno said the clearest example of Dr. Al-Arian’s intent was the Islamic Academy of Florida, a full-time school he built from nothing. The school went from three or four classrooms when it first opened in 1992 to 10 buildings on 14.5 acres of land seven years later. She said Dr. Al-Arian was so dedicated and committed to education that he “bought books out of his own money.” She pointed to the testimony of IAF graduate Alia Radwan, who said the school prepared her for everything. “It prepared me to be a constructive citizen and a well-rounded individual,” she quoted Radwan as saying. “The school was about teaching children to be citizens of this great country. This is what Sami Al-Arian was about. This is the choice that he made,” Moreno concluded.

Next, Bill Moffitt began his part of the closing argument. “Ladies and gentleman, today I listened to my client called a thug and a crime boss, in fact, Tony Soprano.” Moffitt said the best evidence needed for the First Amendment is prosecutor Krigsman’s closing argument. “If you listened to Ms. Krigsman, you would not know there was a war going on for 50 years, or a harsh military occupation in the occupied territories. You would have thought that Palestinians and Israelis lived in peace for the last 50 years, except for these four gentlemen. And you’d think that Sami Al-Arian sprung up from nowhere simply to do evil. No mass arrests, intimidation, torture, etc. You might even believe that universities are open, travel throughout the Middle East is unlimited. You might even believe that Palestinian children and Israeli children are treated the same by the occupier.”

Continued Moffitt: “If only they would not trouble us by writing, reading and thinking about the occupation. If only (the Palestinians) could see the reality in Ms. Krigsman’s terms. If only they would share the view of their oppressors.” Pointing to Dr. Al- Arian and raising his voice, Moffitt said: “This man has the temerity to be angry about how his people are treated, and then he has the audacity to write and publish and think about it – all crimes. And he has the audacity to speak about it. How horrible. Where did he get the idea he could do that? Certainly it wasn’t in the occupied territories.”

He continued, “One way to persuade people not to listen to him is to call him a thug.” He asked, “Why should we care about the Palestinians? They have no army, they have no oil, let’s ignore them. Let’s ignore the context.” He said that one of the problems we have, as a society, is the judgment we give to one’s country of origin, or skin color. “So we can remorse over the deaths of the children of one side, and the other side are collateral casualties. How does that feel if you’re on the side that’s a collateral casualty?”

Moffitt said that there are numerous responses to those on the side of the collateral casualties. There are angry responses, there are violent responses. He said Dr. Al-Arian chose to respond by opening a dialogue and debate and discussing it in an academic context. He said Americans “should be proud he would come here to express himself.” He asked the jury if there was something odd or peculiar about Palestinians, that they shouldn’t have what Americans have. “Is it reasonable that they should want to come to the richest country in the world?” “Is it offensive to you that they should want to feed their children?” Moffitt said.

Referring to the prosecution’s frequent references to Dr. Al-Arian’s advanced degrees in a pejorative manner, Moffitt said, “My client’s education is being used against him. If he allowed his people to be exploited, to be killed, and failed to speak up, we wouldn’t be here today. And if he were a farmer in the field, rather than an intellectual, that would be the case.” Moffitt said, “I’m told that there’s nothing in this case that has to do with the First Amendment, but I’m confronted over and over with evidence of speeches and publications.” Reading from the Declaration of Independence, Moffitt said, “We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal – even Palestinians.” He concluded: “Al-Arian’s dreams for his people are not that different from yours or mine.”

The next day, Moffitt continued his closing argument by bringing up World and Islam Studies Enterprise (WISE) publications and events. WISE published peer-review journals and held academic conferences and round-table discussions that were well-attended forums where ideas about the Middle East were debated. “Do you think this kind of academic production would have been possible in Palestine in the early 90s?” he asked. He described WISE as “the only place in the world where Palestinians were given that level of humanity.” Referring once again to the government, Moffitt said that to call WISE’s accomplishments “propaganda,” was to “cheapen the academic efforts of all who participated.”

Turning his attention to violence, Moffitt said none of the evidence shows any discussion about planning any violent activity. Finally, he asked the jury to have the courage to maintain the “great values of our society that we are defending. Without the First Amendment, there is no United States,” he concluded.

For the rest of the week, defense attorneys for the three co-defendants also gave their impassioned pleas to jurors, arguing that there was no evidence in the politically-motivated case. Sameeh Hammoudeh’s attorney Steven Bernstein pointed to numerous mistakes in the government’s investigation, including the mistaken identification of various documents. “At best, they were mistakes,” he said, “but at worst, they are lies.”

Bernstein then utilized the testimony of Hammoudeh’s father, 78-year old Taha Hammoudeh who came from the West Bank to testify in his son’s trial. Prosecutors had colored several telephone conversations between father and son about donations to Palestinian charities in a sinister light. Providing detailed receipts and documentation, Taha Hammoudeh shattered the government’s insinuation that Sameeh’s donations from the Tampa Muslim community had gone to anything other than charitable causes.

During their presentation, attorneys for Ghassan Ballut continued their argument that the case against their client was completely devoid of any evidence. In fact, the government had not monitored Ballut’s telephone or come away with a single incriminating document from searches of his home and bank records. Mocking the government’s claims of a “mountain of evidence,” attorney Bruce Howie displayed to the jury the dearth of documents related to Ballut, in the form of a small stack of telephone transcripts.

In reference to the government’s notorious graphic titled “the cycle of terror,” Howie produced a “cycle of nonsense” that demonstrated the absurdity of the government’s theory, in which Ballut’s non-disclosing of alleged terrorist ties on immigration forms was proof of his involvement in a conspiracy. Prosecutors frequently employed such circular reasoning throughout their arguments.

Howie’s co-counsel, Brooke Elvington, referred to the government’s “Google search” method of investigation, in which the mere mention of someone’s name in a conversation was submitted as evidence of a crime. In one instance, a 57-page telephone transcript between two people made brief, casual mention of Ballut in one line, but when asked, FBI Case Agent Kerry Myers stated that the sole purpose of the phone call was to inform about Ballut’s activities.

Elvington also blasted the government’s absurd inferences and insinuations, none of which were accurate or based on any facts. The selective use of speech was used to draw a portrait that simply did not reflect the reality of the situation. Very often, prosecutors attempted to imply the involvement of other individuals outside the case in supporting Palestinian Islamic Jihad, without offering a shred of evidence. In the case of El-Ehssan, a Gaza charity supported by Ballut and Hatim Fariz, Elvington assured jurors that not a shred of proof existed that it was run by the PIJ. “Just because they say it, doesn’t make it so,” she said, referring to the government. In fact, all documentation in the case supports the contention that it was a legitimate charity that provided support to needy Palestinian families. However, even if the charity were connected to the PIJ, it is only a crime to donate to it if it furthered illegal activity by the PIJ.

The final defense presentation was given by Federal Public Defender Kevin Beck on Thursday afternoon. Beck argued passionately on behalf of Fariz, pointing out that the government had made numerous glaring errors in its investigation. Arabic translators demonstrated a clear agenda when they frequently mistranslated innocent words to give them a malicious meaning, such as when a word that means “pancakes” was offered to jurors as “brigades.” Similarly they avoided translating words that shed light on the benign nature of certain documents, as when they ignored the word “charitable” that described one organization supported by Fariz.

The government had even gone as far as to misidentify key individuals in the case, and would simply alter their theory to fit the new individual’s identity when the truth was discovered. Overall, Beck painted a picture to jurors of a prosecution intent on criminalizing innocent activities at any cost, even manipulating the truth to fit its malevolent theory.

Following the final defense closing argument, the prosecution was given a two-hour rebuttal. Prosecutor Terry Zitek took to the opportunity to continue the government’s racist tirade. After hearing Krigsman refer to Dr. Al-Arian and his co-defendants as “thugs,” “criminals,” “liars,” and other insults, Zitek went further during rebuttal, calling them “dogs.” It appeared to most observers that in their zeal to defend the brutal military occupation by Israel, prosecutors had even adopted the racist terminology of the occupiers.

This case has major implications. If the prosecution succeeds, there is a danger that the government will continue criminalizing political speech and organizations by accusing members of criminal conspiracies and imprisoning them.

On Monday, November 14, 2005, prosecutors will conclude their rebuttal. Judge James Moody is then expected to read jury
instructions and jurors will begin deliberations.