Nov. 9, 2005
St. Petersburg Times
A defense attorney says the government has edited and spun the defendants’ words to create a false impression of ties to terrorism.
By Meg Laughlin
Link: Click here
TAMPA – Federal prosecutor Cherie Krigsman ended the government’s case against Sami Al-Arian Tuesday with these words: “It ain’t about the First Amendment. It’s about plain old crime.”

But Al-Arian’s attorney, Bill Moffitt, told the jury that it was, indeed, about the First Amendment and Al-Arian’s right to its protection. “The fact that he is educated and has said what he wanted for his people is being used against him,” said Moffitt. “If he failed to speak up, we wouldn’t be here.”

Moffitt’s co-counsel, Linda Moreno, said the prosecution had “edited, redacted, spun, parsed and manipulated” the words of the defendants to create the false impression of a criminal conspiracy.

“Context is important. Censorship is dangerous. A lot of censorship is going on in this case,” said Moreno, who read from the jury instructions which say that our law does not criminalize beliefs, speech or mere membership in an organization.

The former University of South Florida professor, Al-Arian, and three co-defendants – Sameeh Hammoudeh, Hatem Fariz and Ghassan Ballut – are charged with much more than beliefs, speech and joining an unpopular group. They are accused of running fronts in Tampa and Chicago to raise money for the violent acts of Palestinian Islamic Jihad, which has killed hundreds of people in Israel and the Occupied Territories.

Krigsman, who brought the prosecution to a close Tuesday after nine hours of closing argument, spent the morning trying to link Al-Arian and the other defendants to these violent PIJ acts. With Al-Arian, she focused on a letter he wrote in February 1995, which FBI agents took from his house months later. In the letter, Al-Arian asked a Kuwaiti legislator for money for the needy families of dead killers so suicide “operations such as these could continue.”

Prosecutors have said the letter proves Al-Arian actively supported violence. Defense attorneys have referred to an FBI report which says the person it was addressed to said he never got it, so it was never sent and shows nothing.

“But Sami Al-Arian tried mighty hard to send that letter,” Krigsman told jurors, referring to a phone conversation Al-Arian had two days after the letter was written. In that conversation, he asked a friend “to carry a message overseas.”

“The power of that letter exists whether he actually mailed it or not,” said Krigsman, reminding jurors that American student Alisa Flatow was killed by a PIJ suicide bomber two months later. Krigsman did not, however, make a link between Al-Arian – or other defendants – and any PIJ killings, except to say the letter showed his knowledge of the killings and wish that they continue.

Krigsman said that Al-Arian and the other defendants made a “concerted effort” to conceal such activity and to “hide the trail” that linked them to raising money for PIJ-related activity.

“Deny, deny, deny, lie, lie, lie, all to protect the cell,” said Krigsman.

She referred to FBI wiretaps that showed Al-Arian’s work with the PIJ leadership in 1994, and his denial of any connection when asked about it by the media. She also said the government believed the Tampa organizations that raised money for charity – Islamic Committee for Palestine, Muslim Woman Society and Islamic Academy of Florida – were covers for money sent to the PIJ. And, she said, all of the defendants were guilty of collecting charitable contributions and sending the money to the PIJ – though “the trail to the PIJ was lost.”

The clearest link to the PIJ was money raised by the defendants and sent by defendant Hatem Fariz to the Elehssan Society in Gaza, said Krigsman, because it was run by two men linked to the PIJ.

“It ain’t the Red Cross,” Krigsman said. “Giving the money was a way to win the hearts and minds of the people … and get them close to the movement.”

She then made the point that, despite any charitable activity, the PIJ was one organization with a violent goal, and it didn’t matter if the only traceable money from defendants went to its charitable side.

“If you run with a pack as lethal as the PIJ, you’re in,” she told the jury. “Tell the defendants you understand these things.”

In response, Moffitt asked: “Is there something offensive about feeding children? Ms. Krigsman says that gives them a foothold with that child. So, the answer is to let them starve – is that what I’m hearing?” Today, Moffitt will continue his closing argument in defense of Al-Arian.