[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]

If he was a terrorist supporter with terrorists goals he would have been convicted.

[/ QUOTE ]

Uh, no, not necessarily. From his words it is clear that he is in support of terrorism--but that in itself does not necessarily mean that he has contributed material support to terrorism, or has incited it. Support can be either ideological, material, or both. I'm not sure what the statutes are, but look:

"Al-Arian also admitted that he wrote a letter—which he allegedly attempted to send, but could not do so successfully—to a Kuwaiti legislator urging him to support the families of suicide bombers in order to provide “support of the jihad effort in Palestine so that [suicide] operations such as these can continue.” He wrote the letter just weeks after President Clinton had signed an executive order banning financial and material support of PIJ. Again, this is only known because the government introduced it as evidence during trial."

Also:

"At the 1990 ICP conference, Al-Arian addressed the crowd of 200 people in St. Louis called for “true armed jihad against the enemy in Israel.”"

So he obviously supports terrorism in belief, as his own words clearly show. Whether that also means he is guilty of a crime, perhaps material support or incitement, may be another matter. But as I've said, on the basis of his words, the legitimate American Muslim community should shun and condemn, rather than applaud.

[ QUOTE ]
THe govt has vast resources and a strong political motivation to obtain a conviction.Perhaps in this case the system worked as intended to control out of control government machinations. A far more plausible scenario, IMO.

[/ QUOTE ]

The more plausible scenario actually is that you really don't know anything about this case, and are just talking out of your butt. But that is not the issue here: the issue is that al-Arian has clearly made statements in support of terrorism, and the American Muslim community should be condemning that, rather than sympathizing with or applauding him.