The supposed trial of the century, the four-month snoozefest that is the United States of America v. Sami Amin Al-Arian, et al., Case No. 8:03-cr-77, closed out its 57th day of testimony a week ago Thursday and broke for the weekend.
The case, as expected, has been arduous, detailed and dull. It has been going on so long that the title of this column is now technically incorrect (how about "The Autumn of Al-Arian?").
The trial starts its 18th week this week and is in its fifth month. Sitting in the small, mostly media audience last week, I remarked to another reporter that any jurors who hoped to cash in with a tell-all book once the trial is done are probably out of luck. Truman Capote would have a hard time turning this glacial courtroom play into compelling narrative.
The central question in this drama remains: Is Al-Arian (and, by extension, three of his colleagues and associates) guilty of any or all of the 53 counts of criminal activity that John Ashcroft's Department of Justice has alleged? The prosecution has presented a case that is Everglades-like in its scope: 100 miles wide but three inches deep. It would take a bit of a leap of faith for jurors to accept its "Economic Jihad" theory — that the Al-Arian defendants operated a news dissemination/fundraising operation key to terrorist activities — but stranger things have happened in courtrooms across America.
Two things are pretty certain in light of the relentless stream of testimony: Al-Arian led what amounted to a double life, communicating with members of the Palestinian Islamic Jihad on administrative matters at a time when he was telling reporters he had no connection to the group at all. This does not make him a terrorist, especially since most of his activities were at the periphery of the decision-making center of the group and never showed him involved in plotting or directly discussing terrorist operations.
The second thing: it is unlikely under any scenario that Al-Arian will go scot-free, since some of the minor counts in the indictment — especially those dealing with violations of immigration fraud — appear to have been documented well enough by the government to obtain a conviction.
But the bar remains high to prove the most damning four counts, which allege conspiracy, racketeering and supporting a terrorist organization. Judge James S. Moody Jr. has at most times ruled for the prosecution on numerous legal points — like declining to move the trial because of publicity — causing Al-Arian's supporters to shake their heads. But on a central point, he has forced the prosecution to have to prove that the defendants intended to aid terrorist killings through their information-gathering, charity-fundraising and news dissemination. Prosecutors haven't made an explicit, overwhelming case for that.
This article appears in Oct 12-18, 2005.
