one thing interests me about the people who are so enamored of “academic freedom” that they assume the professor is innocent (without even reading the indictment)
–how many of you would support this guy if he were accused of raising money for a fanatic group of right-wing Christian abortion clinic bombers? Or Timothy McVeigh’s militia group?
Is there a hidden motive here?The US government has 118 pages of facts. of course he deserves a fair trial–but why assume that the US Government is the bad guy? Isn’t it more logical to assume that a guy who publicly praises terror is bad?
One of the accused lives in the tiny little street in the tiny little Oxfordshire village, 20 yards from where I grew up. He’s Egyptian, holds an Irish passport, has lived in England for 20 years, is married to an English woman, and his children attend the local (Episcopalean) school. The first he knew about the “charges” were when he was contacted by the BBC yesterday morning. The charges against him contain no evidence - the connection seems to be that he has had academic contact with Al-Arian. Furthermore, he hasn’t been contacted by British security forces, despite being named in the document, and this knowledge being with the Brits for the past 48 hours.
My friend’s mother knows him, and says that he’s “lovely”. It seems quite bizarre (knowing the area) that the alleged “head of Islamic Jihad” in England would set up in an area that is almost totally monoethnic, 20 miles from the nearest mosque.
What I don’t find bizarre is that milroyj is quick to leap into “defending the administration in the light of no evidence whatsoever”.
Finally, Ashcroft saying “We make no distinction between those who carry out terrorist attacks and those who knowingly finance, manage or supervise terrorist organizations” is a bit of a laugh, isn’t it? Guess Ollie North and Reagan are getting a bit worried now.
“Academic freedom” has nothing to do with his guilt or innocence. And, last time i looked, the contents of an indictment did not make a person guilty in the absence of a trial.
I don’t “assume” he’s innocent, i “presume” he’s innocent, in line with the dictates of the American justice system.
jjimm: << My friend’s mother knows him, and says that he’s “lovely”. >>
I don’t know anything about this guy, and I’m not making any statements about him in particular, just about your comment that he seems like a nice guy. There was another thread somewhere here about a similar “nice guy” who was arrested on al-Quada connections. My point is that these are terrorist organizations, dedicating themselves to deceipt and duplicity to wreak the most havoc. The most successful operatives have learned to pose as “nice guys” to avert suspicion.
Now, don’t get all in a lather: I’m not suggesting that any Muslim who appears to be a “nice guy” is a terrorist. I’m suggesting that any successful terrorist will appear to be a “nice guy.” If the 9/11 hijackers had appeared to be nasty, mean, killers, who shouted “Death to all Americans!” as they were trying to board the plane, don’t you suppose that airport security (even back then) would have been suspicious?
Real life isn’t like the movies. Infiltrators and evil-doers can appear to be nice, friendly next-door neighbors. We’ve seen this time and again with serial killers, as well.
Again, I’m not trying to drum up a anti-neighbor campaign, I’m just saying we shouldn’t be surprised when the villains turn out to be “just like us” on the surface. Being a superficial “nice guy” is not a defense.
We have had a number of these threads about people arrested and indicted and many people here call for their heads to roll. In some cases, shortly later it is found out the government really did not have a case and the people were quite innocent. At that point all the people who were calling for the harshest punishment are very silent and nobody wants to admit they were calling for the punishment of innocent people. The latest incident of this kind was that couple arrested in Germany. I remember the vitriolic thread when they were arrested but some weeks later, when they were set free and it was revealed most of the evidence was just untrue, nobody here had anything to say. It seems the idea here is better punish a hundred inocents than let a single guilty person go free.
I do concur that a personal character reference isn’t a guarantee of “goodness”. That was merely gloss on my story, and because I’m so freaked that this guy is known to people I know. However he is innocent until proven otherwise, and he hasn’t been charged with anything by the UK, which is extremely odd, given the severity of the US allegations.
I will be keeping my eye on this, and I hope that sailor’s hunch is correct - because I don’t like the thought of a terrorist living in my village.
'USF administrators fired the Kuwaiti-born professor after he appeared on national television for five minutes of punditry last fall. His crime? Not telling viewers that his views did not necessarily reflect those of the school. It was a tortured rationale that all but guaranteed future litigation.
As Salon recently reported, the Al-Arian episode raises disturbing questions about free speech, academic freedom and the future of tenured status. But what’s also important to understand is the crucial role the press played in the unfolding saga.
The University of South Florida is ultimately responsible for firing Al-Arian. But equally culpable are Fox News Channel, NBC, Media General (specifically its Tampa newspaper) and the giant radio conglomerate Clear Channel Communications. "