Talk:Sami Al-Arian/Archive 1

Archive 1

Protection?

Sami Al-Arian was never a citizen of the United States. He was tried, convicted and deported as a criminal alien.

Can someone put a notice on the top of the page declaring it a protected page or can someone get rid of the protections? Thank you.

It would appear SITE Institute / Sami Al-Arian Fact Sheet is the major source of a large new edit, some of which or summary probably belongs in article and some of which should be source for other articles which this one should lk to. I have not attempted to judge whether its posting in the article is a copyvio, nor whether its being here on talk changes its status. --Jerzy(t) 07:04, 2005 Feb 7 (UTC)

<<Moved material begins>>
[Former heading intentionally disabled. --Jerzy(t) 07:04, 2005 Feb 7 (UTC)] "==SITE Institute Fact Sheet on Sami Al-Arian=="

Sami Al-Arian is a Computer Science professor at the University of South Florida (USF) in Tampa currently on leave due to his alleged support of terrorism. Al-Arian, of Palestinian heritage, came to the United States in 1975 to begin his university studies. In 1986, he began teaching at the University of South Florida in Tampa and became a tenured professor in 1992.

Al-Arian served as one of the original founders of the Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ), a designated terrorist organization. PIJ, according to the State Department, is “committed to…the destruction of Israel through holy war.” PIJ has been responsible for numerous terrorist attacks, including suicide bombings, resulting in the deaths of civilians.

In the late 1980s, Al-Arian establishing two think tanks, the Islamic Concern Project (also know as the Islamic Committee for Palestine) and the World and Islam Studies Enterprise (WISE). Several terrorism experts and government officials have alleged that ICP and WISE served as financial and strategic conduits for the Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ), a designated terrorist organization.

How did ICP and WISE Support Terrorism?

ICP, also known as the Islamic Committee for Palestine (ICP), sponsored several conferences in the late 1980s and early 1990s where known terrorists attended and lectured. At these conferences, posters of PIJ and its emblem were prominently displayed onstage. ICP’s most infamous featured speaker at a conference was Sheikh Omar Abdul Rahman, currently serving a life sentence in the U.S. for organizing a failed attempt to destroy several New York City landmarks. Other speakers included Sheikh Abdel Aziz Odeh, the spiritual leader of PIJ. ICP also invited several speakers who could not attend the conferences, including Fathi Shikaki, at the time the leader of PIJ, and Abdullah Azzam, Osama bin Laden’s ideological mentor and founder of al-Qaeda. Al-Arian stated of Azzam at a conference, “Azzam also sends his salutations to the conference, and he has not been able to be with us due to the political conditions in Afghanistan.”

WISE functioned as ICP’s sister organization, releasing a magazine that reproduced speeches at ICP conferences. Through both ICP and WISE’s pretense of legitimacy, Al-Arian was able to secure visas for several individuals seeking to gain entry into the United States. Among those whom Al-Arian obtained a visa for was Ramadan Abdullah Shallah, who served as WISE’s Director of Administration. Shockingly, Shallah left WISE in 1995 to head the terrorist group PIJ after its previous leader, Fathi Shikaki was assassinated. Additionally, Al-Arian’s brother-in-law, Mazen Al-Najjar, worked at WISE. Al-Najjar was deported from the United States for visa violations and ties to terrorism.

Shallah’s promotion in PIJ resulted in a federal investigation into ICP and WISE. William West of the INS wrote an affidavit in late 1995 to receive judicial approval to execute a search warrant against ICP, WISE, and the residence and office of Al-Arian. In the affidavit, West details the alleged offenses of Al-Arian, stating “I have probable cause to believe that ICP and WISE were utilized by Sami al-Arian and Ramadan Abdallah Shallah as ‘fronts’ in order to enable individuals to enter the United States, in an apparent lawful fashion, despite the fact that these individuals were international terrorists.”

WISE and ICP were funded by the “SAAR Network,” which was the target of U.S. federal raids in Herndon, Virginia, on March 20 and 21, 2002, for suspicion of funding terrorism. The network is a complex web of over one hundred organizations, both for-profit and non-profit, with overlapping officers and addresses. The SAAR Foundation, which was the hub of the network, is a non-profit organization founded by wealthy Saudi investors in the early 1980s.

What has Sami Al-Arian Said or Done to Support Terrorism?

Sami Al-Arian has actively fundraised for the Palestinian Islamic Jihad. In 1995 raid on Al-Arian’s residence, the FBI found a letter written by Al-Arian shortly after a PIJ suicide bombing that left 18 people dead in Israel. The letter solicits funding for “the jihad effort in Palestine.” Al-Arian, according to an FBI translation of the Arabic letter, praised the terrorist attack, writing, “The latest operation carried out by the two mujahidin (warriors), who were martyred for the sake of God, is the best evidence of what the believing few can do in the face of Arab and Islamic collapse before the Zionist enemy and of the still-burning firebrand of faith, steadfastness and challenge.”

On a videotape of a 1991 conference in Cleveland, Ohio, seized by FBI agents, al-Arian is introduced as “the president of the Islamic Committee for Palestine, and a short briefing about the Islamic Committee for Palestine, it is the active arm of the Islamic Jihad movement in Palestine, and we like to call it the Islamic Committee for Palestine here for security reasons.” After being introduced, Al-Arian stated, “Let us continue the protests. Let us damn America. Let us damn Israel. Let us damn their allies until death.”

In another seized videotape, Al-Arian delivered an impassioned speech before a rapt audience at a high school in Chicago in 1991. Al-Arian referred to Jews as “monkeys and pigs” and stated, “Mohammad is leader. The Qu’ran is our constitution. Jihad is our path. Victory to Islam. Death to Israel. Revolution! Revolution! Until Victory! Rolling, rolling to Jerusalem.”

In addition to his role with the Islamic Jihad, Al-Arian also co-founded the Islamic Association for Palestine in 1981. Since its founding, this organization has grown into the primary political propaganda wing for the Hamas terrorist organization in the United States. Its daughter organization, the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development, which shares several of its directors with IAP, is a designated terrorist entity. InfoCom Corporation, another organization affiliated with IAP, had its offices raided by the U.S. government and all its officers indicted for their terrorist activities.
<<Moved material ends>>

---

Ext Links

Al-Arian was born in Kuwait and grew up in Egypt yet he is labeled "Palestinian-American"? The Al-Queda terrorist Zarqawi has a Palestinian parent, was raised in Jordan, but is somehow not called a Palestinian by the mainstream. This is interesting that only when it serves a purpose, people are labeled "Palestinian".

Hopefully when Al-Arian is convicted on his terrorism charges, he will not drop the Palestinian part from his identity.

It's hard to believe all of the 10 ext lks are significant enough for inclusion; they should be weeded. --Jerzy(t) 07:04, 2005 Feb 7 (UTC)

Deported?

The Tampa papers are abuzz that Al-Arian may or may not be deported. This should be mentioned in the article. Mike H. That's hot 23:20, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Wrongly Accused?

Sami Al-Arian is not known to be wrongly accused. He was acquitted on some but not all counts. The prosecution and others still believe that he was involved with Palestinian Islamic Jihad.

Yeah, and the fact he pled guilty would seem to back up that view.— Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

The fact that he pled guilty should be considered in light of the fact that he was being held in legal limbo under "gratuitously punitive" conditions in "breach of international standards" (Amnesty International's words). Poyani (talk) 16:55, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Assume you are talking in reference to the Info box, here, whether criminal or just a person info box? I think given the circumstances that could be debated and perhaps it would be good to bring people here with an RfC. Or make a list of all the issues in the article where WP:RS may have been in past or may in future be deleted if you add it. There obviously is one editor who seems to have a heavy POV. List could include things like Infobox, not mentioning jury vote, not mentioning abuse, any obvious Copyright issues from sources, and any obviously POV/tenditious/edit warring behavior. CarolMooreDC 23:04, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

How do I initiate RFC? Any help would be appreciated. Poyani (talk) 01:42, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Where exactly is "Major Error. Simply NOT true"?

The anon 69.143.174.128 (talk · contribs) keeps removing [1] the following paragraph: In the plea, Al-Arian admitted he raised money for the Islamic Jihad and conspired to hide the identities of other members of the terrorist organization, including his brother-in-law, Mazen Al-Najjar. He also admitted knowing "that the PIJ achieved its objectives by, among other means, acts of violence." Al-Arian Admits His Role in Jihad, and maintains that "Actual document on bottom verifies this" (being not true). I've checked the doc and it looks very much true. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 18:17, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Correction made to mistakes

The problem with this false statement is that it does not exist in the plea agreement. Read the statement of facts. The official court document is included in the links. It states three actions: Helping brother-in-law with legal case; Filing immigration paperwork; Making false statements to a member of the media. Period. No mention of financing, funding, or materially supporting violence or the organization in any capacity. Any statement to the contrary is slanderous. The charge of financial support was actually dropped by the government. Check the court docket.

This statement will continue to be removed as it is not true. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.143.174.128 (talk • contribs)

You are wrong. Check out the document you yourself point out, section FACTS. It's all in there (and more). ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 04:42, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi! I found my way to this page after having watched the documentary the other day. The documentary is of course not npov but what Sami Al-Arian pleaded guilty to is one of the things that differs most between these two descriptions of the events. That's why I decided to look into it myself by reading the plea agreement that is linked to from this page. Now, in the "Factual basis" section there are some statements about financial transactions but I wonder which of these you interpret as "raising money for the Islamic Jihad" and why. Jkej 14:06, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

"Making false statements to the media" is a crime in America? Since when, I missed that one. How is my congressman still free, is he on bail - he lies all the time. The judge in this case - probably because it was in FL - couldn't stick to the facts and the charges, maybe running for office and has to soothe the voters.

Sentencing Judges Remarks

Here is another link that should be added to the article. It is protected right now from the repeated vandalism described above so I can't currently add this.

"U.S. District Judge James Moody sentenced al-Arian to the maximum 57 months in prison but gave him credit for 38 months he has already served. He will have to serve the balance, 19 months, before being deported, prosecutors said. ...

In his ruling, Moody harshly criticized al-Arian for doing nothing to stop bombings perpetrated by Islamic Jihad.

“You lifted not one finger. To the contrary, you laughed when you heard of the bombings,” he said.

“You are a master manipulator. The evidence is clear in this case. you were a leader of the PIJ.” [2] JMcNamera 15:34 UTC, May 2, 2006

A problem with the judge's statement seems to be that the jury did not convict al-Arian of any of the charges as a result of this "clear" evidence. It should be noted that while the government assembled a large amount of data, wiretaps, and testimony, nevertheless, the jury found al-Arian not guilty. The judge spoke in contradiction to the jury's decision by siding with, and even directly quoting, the prosecution in the sentencing statement.

The problem with the statement above is that al-Arian pled to the charges that he did assist Islamic Jihad and Al-Arian has adimitted he did lie to the courts and media. Sad that people lie and kill all in the name of their 'religion'.

Yeh, those darn Israelis kill all the time. Anyway, al-Arian pled to whatever would get him out of the good ole USA the fastest. He would have pled to being 8 feet tall. Otherwise the government would have kept him tied up in trial till he died of old age - his lawyers knew it and okayed him lying like hell, sometimes you swallow hard and do what you have to do. PS Do you think it is wise, or fair though I doubt that concept keeps you up at night, to use SITE(Rita Katz and Josh Devon - a wee bit radical no?) as your main source. Couldn't you find someone a little more right-wing and radical, you seem so softball on this article.

The israelis don't kill in the name of religion like the Islamists do. The guy lied, got caught, and pled to save himself. These guys want other people's kids to be matyrs but cut and run whenever possible. June 22, 2006

"The Israelis don't kill in the name of religion" - I thought Israel is all about religion - or is all about race, confusing issue. The guy's biggest lie was when he pled guilty - the judges wording confirms it ( a judge never asks if you are pleading because it is your best interests, he asks if you are guilty - unless he knows he is running a show trial for the media then he can lossen the rules a bit. ( Then the hypocrit gives his "impassioned" speech at the end - what a clown.)

Actually, the Israelis aren't confused. It's Americans who are confused. It's not really surprising; most Christians have a hard time understanding that being a Jew is both a religion and an ethnicity. Since racism has recently passed out of vogue in America, there is no possibility of dropping support for Israel - too many ignorant people in America believe that to abandon Israel would be an act of anti-semitism or hatred. This has given American hard-liners an effective blank check for Middle East policy decision-making. Kasreyn 01:16, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Sheikh Abdullah Ramadan (Ramadan Abdullah Shallah)

Why is there no mention of Sami Al-Arian sponsoring this individual's entry into the United States, giving him employment, and working with him closely on a regular basis, until when he suddenly disapeared one day, and popped up shortly afterwards in Damascus as the new external leader of the PIJ? That was one of the things which probably contributed majorly to sinking Al-Arian in the court case... AnonMoos 00:24, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

"University offered Al-Arian nearly $1 million to resign"

These stories were recently reported in USF's (Where Al-Arian was a professor) student Newspaper, The Oracle. Not sure if they are relevant to this article or not though.

Original article

Follow Up

Objectivity ?

this page should have a bobjectivity mark —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.167.134.176 (talk) 22:33, 25 February 2007 (UTC).

"Not Alleged, He Confessed"

To jmcnamera, while Al-Arian didn't actually confess to what he was charged with, but plead guilty to a single lesser charge, you may have a point that the word "alleged" should not be used. But why didn't you simply fix that word, instead of reverting all of the other edits? I am reverting back, and removing the word "alleged" per your suggestion. If you want other changes, why not make them or let's discuss them here. Lfp 20:02, 18 March 2007 (UTC)Lfp

Hunger strike?

Why are any mentions of his hunger strike missing from this article? He is on Day 58 and he has lost 53 pounds. I would think that is notable and newsworthy. Mike H. I did "That's hot" first! 08:36, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I see the last sentence in the lead. There should still be more, though. Mike H. I did "That's hot" first! 08:44, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Robert Fisk article

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/fisk/article2430125.ece

Artical is POV

The opening gives the impression al-Arian is undeniably guilty. It mentions he was aquitted of 8 of the 17 charges but doesn't mention he was found not guilty of the other 9 (although it does mention this in the trial section).

It says he was convicted of conspiracy to help Palestinian Islamic Jihad without mention that it was legal to do so when he did it. It should indicate it was a retrospective law.

It gives the impression he pled guilty to an existing charge rather than pleading guilty to a charge to prevent the laying of new charges.

It says al-Arian's lawyers didn't present a defense without mentioning that the judge refused to allow his defense to be presented on the grounds that it would endanger the impartiality of the jurors.

Finally the artical doesn't mention a particularly significant aspect of the trial in regards to hearsay evidence. The judge allowed testimony of a conversation a witness had with al-Arian in a dream. Wayne 14:10, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

The article now says that he was coerced into accepting a guilty plea. This is POV. Should it say this for everyone who pleads out but claims to be innoncent? I'm changing it to "plead guilty," which is a non POV fact. Michael.passman (talk) 18:51, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

There is a lot of reliable sources which state that he was coerced. NPOV means the article reflects the balance of the sources. If there are many articles which state he was coerced (as is the case here) then it is not a "non Pov fact" to just state that he "plead guilty" Poyani (talk) 17:27, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

The dude pled guilty. Perhaps that is why he is being called guilty in this article, don't you think. The notion that he was coerced is to be taken as seriously as the pleas of innocence uttered by seemingly every inmate incarcerated in the United States.

The guy pled guilty, that is an undisputed fact. Pleading guilty to a crime makes one, by definition, a criminal. Pointing this out is no more biased than pointing out the same thing concerning others that have pled guilty to crimes. What is not undisputed is all the asinine speculation as to why he pled guilty. Conspiracy theories and bullshit about how he pled guilty "because he didn't want to keep being persecuted" or some such other garbage does not belong in what is supposed to be an encyclopedia, particularly when you consider that retrying a case after a jury deadlocks is extremely commonplace; it is not indicative of abuse of power by the government, regardless of what is being claimed by those who are trying to turn this entry into a soapbox condemning the Bush administration and the Patriot Act. An encyclopedia deals in fact, not supposition and speculation put forth by the guy's supporters. And the fact is he pled guilty, period. The Washington Post editorial calling him a liar and a supporter of terrorists best sums up Al-Arian, and the attempts to smear the prosecutors and judges in the case is about as pathetic and biased as it gets.— Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

People who make the argument that "every guilty criminal claims they are innocent" should note that not every suspect who is found guilty has files with human rights organizations like Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch which argues that their trial was a farce. The people who do have the backing of human rights organizations in this regard have that fact CLEARLY mentioned in their article and the articles are presented in a way which does not bias them in favor of government prosecutors. This is just as true for Al-Arian as it is for Chinese, Iranian or Burmese dissidents who "plead guilty" to a variety of government charges. Poyani (talk) 15:48, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm sure lots of WP:RS cover fact he was ill-treated and fasted and some opine that is why he pled guilty and that belongs in the article. I haven't worked on it in a couple years, but can see it is rather POV. CarolMooreDC 23:07, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Very carelessly written article; large deletions made temporarily

The middle sections of the article, describing the years of government surveillance and media attacks that led up to Al-Arian's indictment, were a chaotic and redundant mess. The greatest offense is that a reader could not even discern the timeline. Also, there were many duplications: over time, various contributors obviously made no effort to coordinate their contributions with previous contributions. These portions are a disgrace to Wikipedia; therefore, I have deleted them. Let people put in the effort to get the facts right and write them coherently. For a start, there are a few timelines of this case on the Web. By the way, the general structure of the article is tedious and overlong -- both the deleted portion and the remainder. But I do not object to the *content* I have deleted, just to its *poor form*. Hurmata (talk) 20:22, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm cleaning up some more messes. There is a lot of unsourced negative material in there that can be deleted per WP:BLP. I'll look back and see if there's anything salvageable from what is mentioned directly above. CarolMooreDC (talk) 01:48, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Purpose of highly detailed infobox?

That sure is a lot of information stuffed in the "criminal" info box. Even Irv Rubin doesn't get that much detail. Considering the highly political nature of the prosecution and the contempt charges, and Al-Arian pleading guilty merely to knowing some group advocated violence, it seems that that all the detail in the box is a bit POV. CarolMooreDC (talk) 20:26, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Not at all. The infobox criteria are standard. There is nothing POV in them. The details filled in are factual. Feel free to provide any missing info from Rubin's infobox. Cheers.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:32, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I absolutely agree that the info box is HIGHLY prejudicial as it mentions charges that a jury acquitted Dr. Al-Arian of. It seems someone with a political agenda and a strong POV has hijacked this page to make a political statement. It's really unfortunate and is a huge disservice to Wiki readers.(disappointed reader)

Recent edits

OK, I thought I would open up a section on this to try and stop this article from descending into any more of an edit war.

The main problem seems to be that some people don't like a 'criminal' infobox being displayed on the page. I happen to think that a criminal infobox is absolutely fine. If you look at the first couple of paragraphs on this page it reads "He will remain under house arrest as he awaits a trial on contempt charges." If he's remaining under house arrest then how can he have been acquitted?

Unless someone has an update to suggest that he's been acquitted of whatever charges he was under house arrest for, then as far as I'm concerned the infobox should stay as it is.

Please post your thoughts and discuss this matter here --5 albert square (talk) 04:07, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. I might add that he pleaded guilty to conspiracy to help a "specially designated terrorist" organization, thePalestinian Islamic Jihad. (February 28, 2006) --Epeefleche (talk) 06:16, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Having a criminal infobox is absolutely prejudicial and unfair for a few reasons. Wikipedia does not employ the use of the criminal infobox across the board. For instance, why does Scooter Libby not have one? Is it because he is not Arab or Muslim? Is the use of the criminal infobox restricted to Arab and Muslim men? Secondly, I agree with the previous poster on this page who said this article is POV. The criminal infobox lists charges that were made by the Bush Department of Justice that were flatly rejected by a federal jury in Tampa (conspiracy to murder and maim, etc), without mentioning that Al-Arian was acquitted of these charges. Does wikipedia similarly list criminal charges against other individuals on their wiki pages without mentioning that the person was acquitted of the charges? Is it not plainly obvious that this is unfair and prejudicial? Further, the editors are continuously changing very legitimate edits to the criminal info box that say he is NOT awaiting sentencing on criminal contempt charges since he was NOT convicted (the trial hasn't even happened yet). It does readers a tremendous disservice to post inaccurate information like that. In addition, in "external links," Michael Fechter's reports should be removed as he is not a credible journalist. He was found to be having an affair with the prosecutor in the case, Cherie Krigsman: http://tampa.creativeloafing.com/gyrobase/Content?oid=oid%3A143861 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.205.49.165 (talk) 17:42, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

The way the criminal infobox is used is to reflect people who have been charged and/or convicted of crimes. In his cases, both are applicable. I've added more info to the infobox to give a fuller picture. If there are other articles that deserve such infoboxes, feel free to add them. I've also made edits to the infobox reflecting that he is under house arrest as he awaits trial on contempt charges. As to a journalist for an RS not being credible, that sounds like POV. I note you also added one juror's view -- the article you used had reflected views from both sides of the aisle; that is wikipedia's preferred non-POV way to add information to articles, and I've reflected both views accordingly.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:58, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

No it is NOT applicable. It is extremely prejudicial and misleading. The criminal infobox is absolutely NOT applied across the board on wikipedia. OJ Simpson doesn't even have one! Scooter Libby, who was CONVICTED in court, does not have one. Why doesn't Edward Mezvinsky have a criminal infobox? Is it because he is not an Arab or Muslim? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Mezvinsky

Why should Sami Al-Arian, who was not convicted of a SINGLE one of these charges by a federal jury in Florida, have a criminal infobox. The use of the box in this context shows a complete disregard for the U.S. criminal justice system where a person is innocent until proven guilty and a jury's decision should be respected. Charges are not FACT. They are accusations, and this situation they were rejected by a jury. Why would you write that he was charged with conspiracy to murder and maim when a jury REJECTED that and did convict him of it? Why are you so obsessed with keeping it up? Is it because you have your own POV about this person and you refuse to be objective and fair? (disappointed reader)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.205.49.165 (talk) 15:39, 28 February 2010 (UTC) 

No, I hadn't even heard of this person until I came across the edit war on his page accidentally via Huggle.

But if he's been acquitted of all charges then what does this sentence mean?

"He will remain under house arrest as he awaits a trial on contempt charges".

If he's been acquitted of all charges then why is he under house arrest? And why would he be awaiting trial if he's been acquitted? That doesn't make sense.

Also you don't need to shout when posting --5 albert square (talk) 15:49, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I suggest you research this case before rejecting changes. The charges that are listed are different than the criminal contempt charge. They are in fact very different. The charges that were listed were rejected by a jury. He eventually signed a plea agreement to avoid another trial. The criminal contempt charge came later. That does not mean it warrants a criminal info box especially when that box is not used evenly in wikipedia. It's prejudicial and does not reflect a NPOV. #### —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiuser1948 (talk • contribs) 15:59, 28 February 2010 (UTC) — Wikiuser1948 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. .--Epeefleche (talk) 16:30, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

• He was charged with a number of counts. He was acquitted on some charges, the jury deadlocked on others (mistrial), and he plea-bargained by pleading guilty to one charge (the same effect as if the jury convicted him), and he is subject to new contempt charges subsequent to the initial trial/plea bargain. I may have left out a contempt charge, etc., somewhere, but that covers most of it. Infobox and cats are proper under these circumstances, despite the protestations of one editor and this now-just-created editor above.--Epeefleche (talk) 16:36, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I vehemently disagree. It seems editor Epeefleche is obsessed with Sami Al-Arian and with making him appear as if he has been convicted of these charges, with complete disregard to the U.S. justice system. It is unfair to list serious charges if a person has been cleared of those charges. Further, a criminal info box is not used against other wiki entries like OJ Simpson and Edward Mezvinsky. I wonder why Epeefleche is obsessed with painting Sami Al-Arians as a criminal. Unless this standard is used across the board, this is clearly a very strong and negative POV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiuser1948 (talk • contribs) 16:39, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

It is not edit warring to revert vandalism. I was just accused of edit warring based on my vandalism reverts by User:wikiuser1948 Hamtechperson 17:08, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. Just because he made a plea-bargain for some of his charges to be removed does not mean that he was not accused of those charges in the first place. In addition, removing an infobox constitutes vandalism and nothing else. If you'd like, you could change the text in the infobox (with a clear reference) but removing the entire infobox is vandalism, through and through. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 18:03, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Agree w/5Albert, Ham, and MC10. I would point out that Wikiuser1948 has just been blocked indefinitely. And that the blocking sysop indicated it might well be a sock.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:39, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Well the page has now been blocked and we have a week to sort this out on the talk page. I did try and ask for semi-protection of the page but unfortunately "dispute" only comes under full protection so nobody other than sysops can now edit the page.

As a note of interest I have just looked at Scooter Libby's page and when I clicked to edit it to see what type of infobox they have, the words "infobox criminal" popped up so why IP 65.205.49.165 thinks he doesn't have a criminal infobox I don't know.

I would also like to add that unless Sami Al-Arian's local police force is extremely different to every other police force worldwide, even if he is acquitted of charges, he will still have a criminal record. So, in the eyes of the law, he would still be classed as a criminal. Therefore the criminal infobox is accurate and should stay --5 albert square (talk) 22:33, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Good point. That also comports w/the form of the infobox -- which lists charges separately from the result of the criminal action. Now that the IP has been blocked for a week as well (as a sock), and the coffee-infused SPA is out of action, I think we should have a quiet week. Everyone else in this thread is in agreement.--Epeefleche (talk) 02:06, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Yup, IP 65.205.49.165 has been blocked for one month for "block evasion" *sighs*. All being well the article will be unblocked at the weekend with no further trouble :) --5 albert square (talk) 02:20, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Ahah -- thanks for that. Misread it. Now, as long as I remember to get back to it, I may be able to verify what's in there, and fix it up a bit. There is a site that has some of the source litigation/press release docs -- at NEFA Foundation -- and I thought I might peruse them and see if there is anything in them that could lead to a better article.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:51, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

FYI, due to some concerns I have, I have asked a question at the WP:RSN about the appropriateness of using legal indictments hosted at the NEFA foundation website as a source in this article.--Slp1 (talk) 00:29, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

It is unclear precisely what the specifics of your concern are. Also, do they apply to RSs reporting what is in the indictments as well, if we were to reflect that RS information here?--Epeefleche (talk) 01:31, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Criminal Info-boxes should not be and usually are not used for controversial cases. As someone mentioned before, Scooter Libby is a convicted criminal. As is Oliver North. Having a criminal record is not enough for someone to have a Criminal Info-box on their lead. George W Bush has a criminal record yet his article does not start with one. Criminal Info-boxes should be only used in cases where a person is notable for the crimes they have committed. Sami Al Arian is notable because of the details of his case, where many civil rights activists allege includes gross misuse of government powers particularly in regards to the Patriot Act. The us of the criminal infobox is totally POV! Poyani (talk) 17:33, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Palestinian/Kuwaiti/Egyptian?

I see editors are reverting each other on the issue of whether SA is Palestinian/Kuwaiti/Egyptian. The facts as I see them are that he is of Palestinian heritage (his parents were born there), he was born in Kuwait (though it is not clear which city), he came to the U.S. on an Egyptian passport (suggesting Egyptian citizenship at the time), and he was never granted U.S. citizenship. Would appreciate anyone's views as to whether they differ on the above. Then, would appreciate views as to whether he should be considered Palestinian, Kuwaiti, and/or Egyptian for purposes of textual references, infobox references, and cat references (in cats, btw, if he was ever in the cat, it is generally deemed appropriate from what I've seen to include him in the cat). I think discussion on this point here may prove more useful that the reverts I've been seeing. Thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:01, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Article has become Bias against Arian

I'm convinced that due largely to the edits of Epeefleche that this article has become unfairly slanted against Arian. Even though Arian was cleared of the majority of charges against him the impression you would get from this article is that Arian was a terrorist mastermind. Arian was never convicted of helping or being involved with anything violent. The only thing he admitted to was that he continued to associate with people from the Palestine islamic Jihad group after it was designated a terrorist group. He certainly was never proven to be the North American head of Islamic Jihad like Steve Emerson claimed. Epeefleche seems to have a personal crusade against Arian as he has gone out of his way to make Arian look guilty, not just on this article, but on any article where Arian is mentioned on wikipedia.

I've avoided making any edits because I sense that any alterations to the article will result in a long drawn out edit war and I frankly don't have the strength for one of those right know. I can only hope that by adding the neutrality tag and posting on the talk page that others who do have strength to make this article more neutral will come. annoynmous 08:04, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Please do not tag the article without stating what you think is inappropriate for a BLP. Aside from stating that Epeefleche has a "personal crusade against Arian," you need to provide a reason for adding a neutrality tag, aside from the ad hominem attacks against other editors. As there is no dispute aside from the ad hominem attacks, I will remove the tag until specific parts of the article are addressed. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 08:14, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree with IS, as to the tagging. Ann -- I've read all the sources, and believe that while it was quite POV before, it fairly reflects the RSs now, in proportion to what they say. He pleaded guilty to terrorism (one count), after being cleared at the trial level of many counts against him (not the majority of counts, as you say -- another sort of error that had been in the article earlier, reflecting either POV or failure to carefully reflect RSs). I believe that the count that he pleaded guilty to, for which he was sentenced to a number of years in jail, was more than what you characterize as "associating" with people from the PIJ -- it is just those sorts of mischaracterizations that formerly plagued this article. What specifics do you believe are not NPOV? I'm happy to explore them with you.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:18, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

First off he was cleared of the all the charges except one. 8 were dismissed in the trial 8 and were dropped after the plea agreement. The fact of the matter is that he was never convicted of doing anything violent or of planning anything violent. The article includes things like an unecessary washington post editorial which serves no purpose other than to bias the article. All I have done is add a NPOV tag. I haven't removed anything from the article. I believe the article is baised and until that matter is resolved the tag should stay. annoynmous 09:11, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

That's the problem. If you see something in the article that is not kosher for a BLP - then please remove it, and then post it on the talk page. It's that simple. If you see bias, POV, etc - remove it - don't just say its there somewhere. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 09:16, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I did give a reason, the washington post editorial. If you want another one, I feel the infobox violates the NPOV because it lists charges that he was acquitted of. All I've done so far is add tags which I hope will attract others who like me feel the article is bias. As I said above I really am not in the mood right now for a long drawn out wikifight, which is why I only added tags and didn't make any edits. annoynmous 09:33, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Potential POV removed from article to discuss here

1. I can not find any Washington Post editorial in the article. If I did I would take it out of the article and post it here. But where is it? Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 14:09, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

2. In addition, here is the charges laid against him - to be discussed here on the talk page; "1) Conspiracy to commit racketeering;* 2) conspiracy to murder or maim persons outside the U.S.;** 3) conspiracy to provide material support to a foreign terrorist organization (the PIJ);* 4) conspiracy to make and receive contributions of funds, goods, and services for the benefit of Specially Designated Terrorists (the PIJ)—pleaded guilty on February 28, 2006; 5) use of the mail or any facility in interstate or foreign commerce to promote unlawful activity;** 6) providing material support to a foreign terrorist organization;** 7) money laundering;** 8) attempt to procure naturalization unlawfully [Dismissed on 5/1/2006]; and 9) obstruction of justice (September 2004);**
and
Criminal contempt, for unlawfully and willfully refusing court orders that he testify as a grand jury witness on October 16, 2007, and March 20, 2008 (June 26, 2008)—awaiting trial.
*Dismissed at sentencing by agreement of prosecutors pursuant to Section 5 of February 28, 2006, plea agreement, accepted by judge
**Found not guilty on December 6, 2005." Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 14:09, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

• Note The subject of dispute has been removed from the article to be discussed here. As such the tag has been removed. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 14:09, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

As to #2, this has been discussed ad nauseum. The Charges section is there to reflect charges. That, it does. They have been footnoted, in fact, to give the reader an early sense as to which he was not found guilty of (less than half), etc. The convictions sections reflects what he pled guilty to, as part of his plea bargain. All is in accord w/how the infobox is used.--Epeefleche (talk) 16:56, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you assessment of point #2, but felt it required some discussion. As far as point #1... well, that's a moot point since it doesn't exist. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 17:50, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

What you mean you don't know about any Washington Post editorial. It's right here:

The Washington Post, in an editorial, said:

To hear Mr. al-Arian's family and supporters describe the plea agreement, you might think the defendant been exonerated.... By contrast, the Justice Department described the deal as if it were a big win in the war on terrorism.... In fact, both claims are bunk. [I]t ill becomes the government to claim victory. Concerning Mr. al-Arian, a sometime rallying point for advocates of free speech and academic freedom, the verdict is in: He is not only a terrorist supporter, but a liar, too.[51]

Look All I've done so far is add tags. The point of a neutrality tag is that it's supposed to stay up until the dispute is resolved. In order for the dispute to be resolved moth parties have to agree which hasn't happened so please stop removing the tag. annoynmous 18:34, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

• Update The Washington Post editorial has been removed. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 18:45, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

• Why remove it? We routinely reflect editorials -- as long as they are from an RS or a notabe person (and the WP is clearly an RS), and are reflected as being an opinion not fact (which this was).--Epeefleche (talk) 19:41, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

• Dispute has been resolved Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 18:45, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

There are still lots of problems with the article. I appreciate you listening to my edits, but the article is still fundamentally flawed. I have problems with the way it's structured particualry with the way that all the charges that Al-Arian was charged with are in the life section when they should be in the trial and arrest section. I don't understand why every supposed quote from Al Arian needs 3 links for it. I also don't understand why his explanation for those quotes isn't included. I don't understand why quotes from John Aschcroft and Bill Oreilly are overemphasized. Bassically I have a lot of problems with the article and there not going to be solved by one or two edits. I don't understand why a simple NPOV tag is so harmful to the article. annoynmous 19:00, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

• Note The dispute has been resolved - Please see Sami Al-Arian indictments and trial. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 19:54, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

(ec) I restored the tag. The NPOV tag points to the essay Wikipedia:NPOVD#What_is_an_NPOV_dispute.3F which contains the advice "Sometimes people have edit wars over the NPOV dispute tag, or have an extended debate about whether there is a NPOV dispute or not. In general, if you find yourself having an ongoing dispute about whether a dispute exists, there's a good chance one does, and you should therefore leave the NPOV tag up until there is a consensus that it should be removed." Under a day is very little time to have it on. I agree with annoynmous that this article is slanted against al-Arian, though I disagree with him that any changes will necessarily create an edit war. There is a significant body of reputable opinion whose existence is hardly noted that contends he is the victim of legal persecution, that the government essentially reneged on the plea agreement and that the later contempt charges are frivolous. What is in the plea agreement has been quite differently characterized; both secondary sources' sides should be respected and understood. The discussion about the criminal infobox above contains bizarre, untrue but agreed-on statements like "even if he is acquitted of charges, he will still have a criminal record. So, in the eyes of the law, he would still be classed as a criminal." (!)John Z (talk) 20:06, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Okay, but that is a moot point as this has moved beyond a BLP - thus the new article (not a Bio!). Thank you. Ism schism (talk) 20:09, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

No it isn't. Yes Ism Schism removed the editorial I mentioned above and I appreciate that, but as I said above I have fundemental problems with the structure of the article that can't be resolved with one or two edits. annoynmous 20:15, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

If anyone has specific issues, they should mention them w/particularity. If there is RS-supported material that should be added to the article, add it. If it is not RS, do not add it. The WP editorial is proper, reflected as an editorial (of a clear RS) He is not considered a criminal because he was charged; he is however a criminal because he pleaded guilty to a criminal terrorism-related offense..--Epeefleche (talk) 20:20, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

(ec) Ism just created a new article Sami Al-Arian indictments and trial and moved (I think cut and paste, which is deprecated) a substantial part of this one there. This has problems: It is unilateral and undiscussed here, and the new article may have licensing problems. So I restored the material here.John Z (talk) 20:25, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Okay, but it is UNDUE for a BLP. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 20:27, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Personally, I'm fine either way. It's not undue for this BLP, as it fairly reflects the proportion of RS material written about the subject. At the same time, if it were to make people feel better, my initial reaction is I could live with it even though it is not necessary.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:30, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes he plead guilty as part of a plea agreement to associating with and trying to help certain people with visas who were part of a terrorist group. That may have been bad judgement, but it isn't terrorism. The fact of matter is that of the 19 charges against him all but 1 were dropped. However, the impression you get from this article is that he was some sorta Al Capone like terrorist mstermind. I don't undertand why Steve Emersons statement about him being the leader of Islamic Jihad in America is in the article when no evidence was ever presented that he was. annoynmous 20:36, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

It isn't terrorism? How do you reach that conclusion? That's just the sort of unsupported statement that the article was previously plagued with. If that's the basis of your tag, along with your prior misstatements that I've pointed it, then the tag has no place, as it must be for a legitimate reasons. He pleaded guilty to a terrorism-related charge, and that is what the article says. This "it wasn't terrorism, it was bad judgment" is unsupported POV synth. It doesn't say he was Al Capone. It reports the facts. It presents statements by RSs and notable people, properly attirbuted where they are opinion. That's what articles on WP are supposed to do. Your suggestions -- that we state incorrectly that he was cleared of most charges, that we state that all he was guilty of was bad judgment and not a terrorism-related offense ... those are classic improper POV suggestions.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:43, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

(reply to Ism Schism) It is hard to see how WP:UNDUE comes into it, as the legal proceedings are a major factor in his notability. 40% of the article should not be cut out before there is consensus for it, which is unlikely to come before others have the time to clearly see what you removed and why. The small version seems even less neutral toward al Arian than the big version. So I restored the big version again. Wikipedia:Splitting has the technical procedures for doing such a major split.John Z (talk) 20:56, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

As previously stated (and in agreement with JohnZ), I don't think wp:undue is a problem here/reason to move the text. Agree w/John that the legal proceedings account for at least the proportion of his notability in the real world that discussion of them accounts for in the article. Disagree as to the suggestion that cutting makes it "less neutral". But at the end of the day, my current thought is that I could accept either approach, if one leads to "peace" here. Everything else being equal, I would keep it in.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:01, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I agree with you that the Washington Post editorial is OK as an opinion. The Nation has had several op-eds, examples of the sort of pro-al Arian opinion, reportage and analysis that I alluded to above which I think should be in the article. Glancing at the cuts, I see they remove things like a pro-acquittal juror's statement that "They have so little on [Al-Arian] that I'm disappointed." which caused me to say they made the article less neutral.John Z (talk) 21:27, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm happy for relevant RS material to be reflected, and added if it isn't in the article as it stands.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:31, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I simply stated the facts that he was never convicted of engaging in any terrorist acts or even of funding terrorism. Theres no evidence that any of the people he associated with who were involved in Islamic Jihad physically engaged in any terrorist acts. You say this article was plagued with POV. I say if reflected accurately that government failed to prove it's case that Al Arian was a terrorist or of funding terrorism. You apparently couldn't stand that and decided to go on a crusade to make this article as slanted against him. That's not an ad hominem attack, it's based on the fact that you have been the primary editor of this article for the last several months.

I ask again how you justify the Steve Emerson quote about him being the leader of Islamic Jihad in America when that was never Proven.

I also don't understand why it's necessary to have passage that say's he plead guilty because he was in fact guilty. While the Plea agreement does say that, what about that is different from standard language in plea agreement documents. What plea agreement say's "Well this agreement is complete bullshit, but I'm signing it anyway so I can get out of jail". annoynmous 21:13, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it is a good idea to refer to other editors being on a crusade (or jihad :-) ) Focusing on the article and not other editors is more productive and leads to less problems for all concerned.John Z (talk) 21:27, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

The article simply states the facts. He pleaded guilty to the indicated terrorism-related offense. Period. All of your "he himself didn't strap on suicide vests" type of synth is irrelevant. We're sticking to the facts, and that is what the article does. Your "disagreements" so far have been full of POV, synth, and incorrect statements. As I've indicated.

The article as it stands reflects accurately what he was charged with, what he was acquitted of, what he pleaded guilty to, and what the government dropped as part of the plea agreement.

I'll take a look at the Emerson quote when I have a moment. Usually, if properly attributed, notable people (whose comments are quoted by RSs) are proper for inclusion -- though they must be properly attributed. As to your argument about plea agreements, 1) I don't know how typical that is, and 2) your assertions as to what is typical sound like OR--if you even in fact have that knowledge.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:23, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Okay I apologize for using the word crusade. Epeefleche I'm sorry. I still feel that you have unfairly biased this article against Al Arian. I however won't subscribe any sinister motives to you and will assume your acting in good faith.

There's a reason that all I've done so far is add tags. There are a lot of edits I could make right now, but I know from experience that they would all be reverted after I made them. The reason I added the tags is because I didn't want to be the lone editor fighting to change the article. I was hoping to attract more like minded editors like John Z. In my opinion this article is so fundementally flawed that it needs the work of many editors in order to fix it. I frankly don't have the will power to fully engage in this article right now because previous edit disputes I've been involved in have left me so dispirited that I try to avoid them all together. That's why all I've done so far is add tags to sound the alarm.

If you want a specific thing I find wrong with the article theres this:

The link with the brothers in Hamas is very good and making steady progress, and their [sic] are serious attempts at unification and permanent coordination. I call upon you to try to extend true support to the jihad effort so that operations such as these can continue.... so operations like the one by the two mujahideen [warriors] who were martyred for the sake of God [can continue].[24][31]

The problem is that the second half of that quote appears to be bogus. This is the quote according to the St. Petersburg Times:

"The link with the brothers in Hamas is very good and making steady progress, and their (sic) are serious attempts at unification and permanent coordination. I call upon you to try to extend true support to the jihad effort so that operations such as these can continue."

Theres nothing in that quote about two mujahideen [warriors] being martyred for god. That emphasis was added by the lakeland ledger and appears to be incorrect. Both versions of the quote can't be correct and for my money the St. Petersberg Times quote seems more credible. annoynmous 21:51, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

• Perhaps I'm missing something. We have two quotes. They do not conflict with each other. One simply quotes more of what the person said than does the other quote. And you see that as evidence that the newspaper that contains more information is "bogus"? Why would that be? Why would you not simply conclude that one RS quoted more of a statement than did the other RS? Neither suggests that they quoted the entire statement. Please help me here.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:34, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I called it bogus because the source that says "so that operations such as these can continue" conflicts with the other source that says "so operations like the one by the two mujahideen [warriors] who were martyred for the sake of God [can continue]". This isn't more of the quote, it's the same quote only one version has words in it that aren't in the other version. As I said before they can't both be right and the one from the lakeland ledger seems be an emphasis added by the reporter. annoynmous 06:46, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I believe that a more accurate version of the letter should read:

``The latest operation carried out by the two mujahedin, who were martyred for the sake of God, is the best evidence of what the believing few can do in the face of Arab and Islamic collapse before the Zionist enemy and of the still- burning firebrand of faith, steadfastness and challenge....The link with the brothers in Hamas is very good and making steady progress, and their [sic] are serious attempts at unification and permanent coordination. I call upon you to try to extend true support to the jihad effort so that operations such as these can continue

It appears he did praise the bombing somewhat , but that doesn't prove he was asking for funding of violent acts. Let's remeber that a full version of this letter has never been released, so we don't know what's between those ellipses. The Tampa Tribune article where this part of the quote comes from is called Indictment Details Paper Trail. I had trouble adding the link to the article. Sense I'm really not interested in getting into an inevitable edit war with Epeefleche I hope some dilligent soul will come along this article and make the changes I suggested.

Also it should be noted that Al-Arian apparently never sent the letter. Ismail Al-Shatti denied recieving the letter in an FBI interview. Apparently it was just an expression of Al-Arians private thoughts. You can condemn those private thoughts all you want, but it doesn't prove he funded terrorism. You can find these facts in numerous St. Petersburg Times articles. The names of the reports are Report jolts Al-Arian's attorneys and Lawyers present Al-Arian letter. I hope someone will add these as well in order to balance the article. annoynmous 13:26, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

This article is grotesquely biased. It would take months to clean up all the POV issues. Essentially every claim of government and controversial media sources are accepted as fact without attribution while claims of Al Arian are openly claimed to be lies (example: "In October 1995, he lied to a journalist for the St. Petersburg Times ...") The claims within the plea bargain are also accepted as fact despite the fact that even within the media there is significant controversy about the fact that the plea bargain was signed by Al Arian under great duress (he had already spent years in solitary confinement prior to his trial).

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Sami Al-Arian/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

This article is very one sided. It only give the views of the prosecutors and the accusors. It simply states, that his institutions helped terrorism and that he donated to another institution that funneled money to terrorists. Which in actuality, thousands of Americans also donated to that institution, because this institution did not state that it was giving money to terrorists, but rather that it was giving clothing, food and the like to the poor. This is where the controversy truly lies. In addition, his own organizations are not believed to be schools of terrorism as this article implies, or every mosque and school that these terrorists went to would be on trial. To be fair and complete this article should and needs to discuss both sides of the issue. 67.183.24.194 15:37, 20 March 2007 (UTC) Judy McNaught

Last edited at 15:37, 20 March 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 15:44, 1 May 2016 (UTC)