Lakeland Ledger
August 9, 2004
Editorial

A federal judge’s ruling raising the standard of proof required to prosecute former University of South Florida Professor Sami AlArian is a simple affirmation that a person must have criminal intent to be convicted of a serious crime.

U.S. District Judge James S. Moody Jr. ruled in Tampa last week that the government cannot get a racketeering conviction against Al-Arian unless it proves that his financial support for “charitable” organizations actually was used for terrorist attacks by the Palestinian Islamic Jihad. Government prosecutors had argued that it was sufficient to prove AlArian’s involvement with the organizations that sent money to Islamic Jihad. The government hasn’t alleged that Al-Arian was directly involved in Islamic Jihad activities.

But the judge agreed with defense attorney’s arguments that the lower standard of proof sought by the prosecution amounted to guilt by association, which is unconstitutional. Moody said he had “grave concerns about the constitutionality” of the law under which Al-Arian is being prosecuted. Without proof of direct conduct with terrorist activities, Moody said he was “concerned that ordinary people could not understand that innocuous conduct . . . would be prohibited by the statute.”

Moody took pains to emphasize that his ruling shouldn’t harm the government’s case against Al-Arian, saying the court “is in no way creating a safe harbor for terrorists or their supporters to try to avoid prosecution through utilization of shell `charitable organizations’ or by directing money through the memo line of a check toward lawful activities.”

That makes sense. If Al-Arian were convicted on the lower standard of evidence, the conviction very likely would be overturned on appeal. It’s best for all concerned — and for justice itself -to do it right the first time.