No rest for the weary ... a patriot's continuing battle

April 12, 2007



The latest news on Dr. Al-Arian, a formerly-tenured Professor in Florida, is that he has been on a 60 day hunger strike to protest government action, and to some extent, inaction against him. The government touted his arrest as a victory for justice and demonstrative of the value of certain provisions of hte Patriot Act that would allow the prosecution to use certain "evidence" against him at trial. The prosecution put forth their case over several months, barraging the jury with testimony from 80 witnesses (many flown in from Israel) and several hundred hours of recordings from intercepted phone calls. Al-Arian's defense was no more than a few seconds long, a brilliant move - his team believed that the prosecution had failed to prove any of its allegations. (see Peace Train? , More absurdities, and There is some justice left )


And rightly so; the jury acquitted Dr. Al-Arian on 8 of 17 charges, and remained deadlocked on the rest. They ended with a plea bargain, and hoped for a shortened sentence, only to be faced with a biggoted Floridian judge and a furhter 11 months in jail. I'm not making this up - you should read hear his rant and rave during sentencing (see press release)

Since his aquittal, Dr. Al Arian has been shuttled from jail cell to jail cell, and is now being held (upto 18 months, but who knows!) in contempt of court for refusing to testify before a grand jury (part of his agreement was that he would NOT be compelled to testify in any other investigations). Yesterday was the day that he was scheduled to have been released, even after his extended sentence. Now he will be subject to continued abuse by prison guards until his contempt sentence ends, and for another 174 days on top of that.

His sentencing is being challenged as unconstitutional, and is rumored to be heading toward the Supreme Court.

Here are various articles from around the world, chronicling the injustice after injustice being dealt to this man and his family.
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/fisk/article2430125.ece
http://www.countercurrents.org/lendman060407.htm

Finally, take action - write in to AG Gonzales in support of Dr. Al-Arian
http://ga3.org/campaign/al_arian?rk=Wp3hI%2dM1i%5fgQE

"To be patriotic is to be able to question government policy in times of crisis. To be patriotic is to stand up for the bill of rights and the Constitution in times of uncertainty and insecurity. To be patriotic is to speak up against the powerful in defense of the weak and voiceless."

- Dr. Sami Al Arian

Picking lenses ...

I sat in on a short lecture on the Law of War and Rules of Occupation by WCL's inhouse expert, Prof. Bob Goldman. It was an interesting lecture, and while I didn't think I actually knew much about humanitarian law - I think I know a little more than I thought I did. I was prompted to post not because of the substance of his lecture, but to some extent his perspective. Of course, he was of the mainstream view amongst academics that US presence in Iraq and Afghanistan are problematic - going as far as to say that US occupation of post-war Japan and Germany will be studied by future generations as two successful occupations, and the Iraq/Afghanistan occupations will be considered the greatest failures. Again - not the reason that I'm posting.

Towards the end of the lecture, Prof. Goldman said something very interesting. He was talking about how the international community, particularly the Human Rights Commission (HRC) and other U.N. agencies have addressed long-term occupiers and said something to the effect of, "of course, the U.N. keeps beating up on Israel - and they will continue to do so." That statement caught my attention immediately - and my immediate thought was, hm, what's his point. He then went on to say that yes, Israel has done it's share of bad stuff - but it undermines the credibility of the HRC to ignore other atrocities by other occupiers around the world - and mentioned the situation in Africa.

I have to admit, he has a point - it does undermine the credibility of human rights bodies to focus on one nation, and it definitely needs to start challenging the practices of other nations; however, this does seem like a little bit of spin - and I could go into distinguishing Israel from other nations in the world. The point is that our views are so dependent on which lens we choose to look at the world through.

Just listen to the noises
Before you tell yourself
It's just a different scene
Remember it's just different from what you've seen
--- Stone Sour, Through Glass

I wonder - is our perspective wide enough, are we choosing our lenses well? I personally haven't taken enough classes with conservative Professors that have views that are not on par with mine, and I think that I should. I'm concerned that this limits my ability to relate to people on the other side, or even people on the same side - if there is a bright line that divides us. Maybe there is no clear line ... now this probably isn't the most profound realization but even if we're fighting for the same side - there are sometimes starkly differing views on the same subject. Sometimes it bothers me - because I can't nail down the view that I adhere to. On the other hand, I'm sometimes afraid to create my own view because I'm concerned that it won't fit - with what I'm not sure.

My focus has slowly narrowed - it started out with me examining Islam, and the beliefs that I realized were a part of me from the outside; next I began to look at the relationship between Muslims and non-Muslims, followed by the most recent somewhat introspective intra-Islamic assessment (SuShi relations). In a sense its coming full circle - it's back to me, and how I form my views ... how I pick my lens, whether I'm capable of doing so ... and whether that lens'll fit.

Whether that lens will allow me to form opinions of my own, that are not either regenerated from other people's thoughts or neccessarily on par with a group - unless, of course I really do agree with that view - who knows. Regardless, its time to challenge the status quo.

Say what?!

Apparently Joe Lieberman is proposing a "war on terrorism tax."

To that I can only say HECK NO - I refuse to pay such a tax. Its bad enough that this is a war I didn't vote for, in fact I voted AGAINST when I voted for Kerry in the '04 election, and protested against in 2003. Furthermore, I was NOT the one that told Dubya to CUT TAXES for his millionaire-club-tax-base, and I was surely not one of the people that benefit ted from it.

We are facing a huge deficit - one that the Republican party contributed to when it voted to cut taxes, and the domestic agenda that Joe is worried about being able to fund has been underfunded since Dubya came into office and I know thats not gonna change until we get a new DEMOCRATIC president into office.

If you REALLY cared about the domestic issues, like healthcare and public education, not to mention social security, welfare and local crime issues instead of focusing on the "war on terror" [insert dramatic-fox-music here] and how you could get at the oil in the middle east, while appeasing the NRA and Corporate America [read the VP's many lucrative-businesses]- MAYBE we wouldn't be in the position we're in ...

No sir, a war tax is not going to end this. Maybe Dubya and his administration should start collecting loose change from their pockets, better yet - start passing around a collection plate in Congress coz you sure as HECK are not gettin' a dime from me.

Hilary or Barack, is that the question?

The race is on ... and yes I am going to contribute my worthless two cents to this outrageous debate. Its absurd that I have to think about who I'm picking as the Democratic candidate this early in the game. And its even more absurd that I am thinking about it. I've been engaging in an ongoing debate about who would be a better Presidential candidate - Hilary or Barack - with the vagrant. I find it interesting that an Indian citizen (vagrant) and an American citizen born-and-raised in India, and might as well be Indian (yours truly) are engaging in this debate. But thats a different story.

The two questions are (1) who are the democrats going to trust to carry the ticket, and (2) who is America going to vote into office? These questions are inter-connected because the Democrats have to put a candidate on the ticket that will win the National vote - so I guess they're the same question. The answer becomes complicated. On paper - Barack and Hilary are obviously qualified, and Hilary may outweigh Barack in this department. They are both tremendously charismatic, but Hilary is carrying alot of baggage - Barack wins on this front.

The tough question that it all boils down to is this - which is American more likely to choose - an African-American, or a woman? Its a tough question. Alot of people, vagrant included, say that America isn't ready for a "Madam President." I weigh in on the other side - I wonder if America is ready for an African-American President. And no, I don't think we've come that far; although, I wonder if they both could pull it off together. Wonder wonder.

Anyhoo, I attended a lecture last weekend by Dr. Sherman Jackson at G-Dubs. I had never heard Dr. Jackson speak before (*shame*) and was eager to hear what he had to say. I could not do justice to his lecture by trying to rephrase his words - but I can say this: there is indeed a prevalent race issue in this country, and Muslims are not immune to it. Dr. Jackson has initiated a critical discussion about race relations that is incredibly relevant to the Muslim community. While I find its value in its relevance to the Muslim community, I also think its a discussion that everyone - regardless of race or religion - needs to be a part of. His lecture reminded me, again, that race is still an issue - and will remain so unless we engage in dialogue. Once again, the burden is on our generation - with the guidance of great minds such as Dr. Jackson - to engage and try to mend the gaping holes that exist. We've learned how to jump over the gaps, and attempt to fill them with cotton - but we need to do better than that -- and we could start by building bridges.

So, is race a bigger issue than gender? Maybe thats the question we should be worrying about ...

*Disclaimer: I have not given in to the idea that there is no other candidate in this race - it is far too early; remember Bobby Kennedy joined the race incredibly late - and was in prime position to sweep it had fate not interceded. Also, I don't pretend to know what I'm talking about - merely my view of the big issue (right now) - its my (diluted) interpretation of a multi-faceted campaign. Finally, it is incredibly shallow to reduce these two highly intelligent people to such things as race and gender - but I fear that that is what its going to come down to. I, have yet to decide who I support - and I promise - it'll be a well thought out decision. [hint: it has something to do with Al Gore and Thomas Friedman ;)]