Nov. 11, 2005
St. Petersburg Times
The defendants’ attorneys present their “cycle of nonsense” to refute the prosecution’s “cycle of terror.”
By Meg Laughlin
Link: Click here
TAMPA – For the third day in a row, defense attorneys in the Sami Al-Arian trial hammered home the message at the core of their defense: There is no evidence in this case to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that their clients conspired to further the violent acts of Palestinian Islamic Jihad.

Thursday morning was Ghassan Ballut’s turn. His attorney Bruce Howie began his closing argument by telling jurors: “There is no evidence that Ghassan Ballut ever willfully joined in a conspiracy. None that he knew of an unlawful purpose or pursued an unlawful purpose. Guilt by association is the only way the government can prove its case.”

Howie’s co-counsel, Brooke Elvington, produced a “cycle of nonsense” graphic as a counterpart to the government’s “cycle of terror” graphic.

Elvington’s “cycle of nonsense” dealt with charges against Ballut: That he lied on an Immigration and Naturalization Service form by not writing that he was a member of a conspiracy. What makes him a member of the conspiracy, says the government, is a blank space on the form, which shows he was covering up being a member of a conspiracy, which makes him a co-conspirator.

The cycle of terror chart, which prosecutors showed jurors in their opening and closing statements, is a circular graphic which says that when the PIJ commits murder, the defendants help get the word out, then raise money so more murders can occur, which are followed by getting the word out, followed by fundraising and more murder.

The charges against Sami Al-Arian, Sameeh Hammoudeh, Ghassan Ballut and Hatem Fariz are based upon the allegations in this cycle: that they raised money for the violent acts of the PIJ, which has claimed responsibility for hundreds of deaths in Israel and the occupied territories. Then, after the acts occurred, the government alleges, the four men spread the word and raised money for more terrorist acts.

Howie and Elvington spent the morning going through what Elvington called the crucial issue: money and where it went. Prosecutors have admitted they can’t trace the money to PIJ violence for any of the defendants, but say jurors should “infer” that it went there, based on circumstantial evidence.

Ballut’s lawyers tracked more than $60,000 the government says probably went to the PIJ. Checks, however, showed it went to charity and to a Chicago mosque Ballut ran. Howie reminded jurors that their instructions say that “presence, association and knowledge do not add up to guilt.” Then he concluded his closing argument with these words: “It’s not right to convict a man this way.”

The afternoon belonged to defense attorney Kevin Beck on behalf of Hatem Fariz, and Terry Zitek, who began the prosecution’s rebuttal.

Beck told jurors his client had sent money to the occupied territories “for food packages, book bags . . . and an ambulance.” Echoing the other three defense teams, he said, “They cannot show any money went to further violence.”

Zitek began the prosecution’s rebuttal by telling jurors that the defense claim that there was no evidence was a ruse. “No matter how much evidence we present, the defense will want more,” he said. “If we have fingerprints, they want a witness. If we have a witness, they want a video.”

Raising the question: Exactly what evidence does the prosecution have to show the defendants were part of a PIJ cell?

Nothing that clearly connects, says the prosecution. Nothing at all, says the defense.

But Zitek told jurors they would see the links if they approached the evidence “from the vantage point that (the defendants) were part of a PIJ cell.”