AAUP Errs on Al-Arian
Edward S. Boylan
To the Editor:
The Sami Al-Arian trial found him not guilty on many, but not all, charges. He later agreed to plead guilty to one charge, with the prosecution recommending he be given the minimum sentence and that all other charges be dismissed. Unfortunately, “Al-Arian, Plea Bargain Rejected, Remains in Jail,” on page 6 of the July–August issue of Academe minimizes the seriousness of Al-Arian’s actions and makes him appear to be a victim.
First, Academe avoids explaining what Al-Arian admitted he had done, stating only that “he pled guilty to one aspect of a lesser charge.” Al-Arian conspired to help people associated with the Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ), a terrorist group, and covered up his knowledge of those associated with the PIJ by lying.
Second, the headline “Plea Bargain Rejected” is false. A recommendation to the judge to impose the minimum sentence was made. The judge chose to impose the maximum sentence. It was understood by all that this was a possibility. Al-Arian’s own lawyer stated the process was fair.
Third, Academe suggests the minimum sentence was only a few weeks more than the time he had already served. In point of fact, the minimum sentence required an additional eight months in jail. The actual sentence, requiring eighteen months, was at most an additional eleven months.
Fourth, William Van Alstyne, who chaired the AAUP investigation into the Al-Arian case, is quoted as calling this “remarkably harsh.” Those who died at the hands of the PIJ had a far harsher sentence imposed on them.
Fifth, the story ends with Van Alstyne “concur[ing with] fellow law professor David Cole’s . . . characterization” that “the judge’s words—that Al-Arian supported violence—contradict the very basis of the jury’s acquittal and the plea agreement, and raise questions about fundamental fairness.” Cole was not some disinterested impartial academic, but the attorney of another PIJ member who was deported for his association with the terror group, a fact Academe conveniently omits.
Sixth, Cole’s comments are balderdash. A verdict of “not guilty” is not the same as “innocent.” It is clear from hours of wiretap testimony that Al-Arian supported and promoted the fortunes of the PIJ. The judge, an independent party in the proceedings, had his own opinion of Al-Arian’s behavior. As just noted, there is no lack of fundamental fairness in a judge’s handing out a maximum sentence if that seems called for.
It is shameful for Academe to portray Al-Arian as a victim when he was very much a victimizer.
Edward S. Boylan
(Mathematics and Computer Science)
Rutgers University
|