Talk:Sami Al-Arian

February 2011

There is a large quantity of articles on liberal or alternative media (The Nation, CounterPunch, ZCommunications, TomDispatch, Democracy Now, antiwar.com, etc etc) which present a view which completely contradicts the government's position, yet they have all been removed from the article. This is despite the fact that the most popular article online about Sami Al Arian (after wikipedia) is the counterpunch article.

I recall reading this article over a year ago and it was FAR better than it is now. What happened?

207.188.69.26 (talk) 22:10, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't follow this article or its changes very closely, but the central fact remains that that there's a very significant likelihood that Al-Arian started off with the FBI by lying to them about Sheikh Abdullah Ramadan or Ramadan Abdullah Shallah (see above), and nothing that has come along subsequently has diminished this likelihood... AnonMoos (talk) 03:31, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Agree w/Anon. The article is far, far better referenced now, and reflects the RS references far more.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:53, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

It may be better now (I am not sure how bad it was before) but it is still grotesquely biased. There is a significant number of RS (possibly more than 50% of total) which have strongly denounced government actions regarding this case. This case was a central topic among writers who opposed the PATRIOT ACT. That is not how the article is balanced. The article is weighted towards the government's position. It is not NPOV to state that Al Arian accepted a plea bargain without stating that he was held in solitary confinement for years (which many human rights organizations consider a form of torture) before agreeing. That is a major theme in much of the RS. As I noted above (the IP address is mine) articles about Al Arian from the left (The Nation, Tom Dispatch, CounterPunch, Zmag, Salon, etc) all present a POV totally counter to this article and they are far more numerous than article written about him from the right. I am going to propose some changes in the future. But given the nature of beast it will take some time. This article does not present a balance of the RS at all. Poyani (talk) 17:44, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

I looked back at the history and this article is actually far worse than it used to be. It used to have less RS, but now it reeks of OR and POV. Editors have removed much of the controversy regarding Al Arian's internment in solitary confinement (without trial), trial, plea bargain, and further government abuse, and have inserted their own OR, such as the one above from Anon. It doesn't matter if editors feel that there is "a very significant likelihood that Al-Arian started off ..." That is irrelevant. The case of Al Arian is notable because of the mountain of RS written on the subject of him being subjected to the PATRIOT Act's worst excesses. What editors feel is likely about Al-Arian is simply irrelevant. Poyani (talk) 18:37, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

I still agree w/Anon. It is the reverse. It read much more like your above post, but was in fact less-RS-supported, and more POV-driven.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:38, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

What do you mean it was "in fact less-RS-supported, and more POV-driven"? I posted more than 50 RS just below your post (there were so many I thought they required their own section). And the RS I posted is still just a small minority of RS related to this case. The vast majority of RS is frames Al Arian's notability in relations to criticisms of the PATRIOT Act. Poyani (talk) 21:10, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Sources Counter to POV presented in this article

Here are some sources people can use for this article which present a completely different point of view on the subject.

Note that the magazine CounterPunch was probably the most prolific on the Subject of Sami Al Arian, writing a whole series of papers on his trial. I provided links to some (but not all) of their work on the Al Arian case. Aside from the fact that all are critical of the government's actions, the writers are diverse. They include investigative journalists and reporters dedicated to the case, the magazine's editors (Cockburn and St. Clair), a former Reagan admin official (Paul Craig Roberts), former CIA official (McGovern), and Al Arian himself. Alexander Cockburn's article "The prosecution of Sami Al Arian" is the most cited source on this topic on the internet (after wikipedia).

There is also a lot of material from Amnesty International. Couldn't locate them all. I put the ones I found here.

http://www.counterpunch.org/cockburn03032007.html

http://www.counterpunch.org/colson04092007.html

http://www.counterpunch.org/cockburn08022008.html

http://www.counterpunch.org/sugg11162005.html

http://www.counterpunch.org/ccr03032007.html

http://www.counterpunch.org/sugg05042006.html

http://www.counterpunch.org/lynchnahla.html

http://www.counterpunch.org/mccarthy02262003.html

http://www.counterpunch.org/colson09092008.html

http://www.counterpunch.org/alarian0826.html

http://www.counterpunch.org/lendman03242008.html

http://www.counterpunch.org/mokhiber12042007.html

http://www.counterpunch.org/colson03242009.html

http://www.counterpunch.org/welch08052008.html

http://www.counterpunch.org/colson03282007.html

http://www.counterpunch.org/arian05042009.html

http://www.counterpunch.org/nimmo02052005.html

http://www.counterpunch.org/sugg03112004.html

http://www.counterpunch.org/garcia12142005.html

http://www.counterpunch.org/lynch2.html

http://www.counterpunch.org/sugg12142005.html

http://www.counterpunch.org/roberts08052008.html

http://www.counterpunch.org/nimmo03032003.html

http://www.counterpunch.org/weir04172007.html

http://www.zcommunications.org/usa-vs-al-arian-by-dalchows-verden

http://www.zcommunications.org/sami-al-arians-long-ordeal-by-stephen-lendman

http://www.zcommunications.org/criminalizing-solidarity-sami-al-arian-and-the-war-of-terror-by-charlotte-kates

http://www.thenation.com/article/persecution-sami-al-arian-0

http://www.thenation.com/article/persecution-sami-al-arian

http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/asset/AMR51/204/2005/en/f7cd89b5-d474-11dd-8743-d305bea2b2c7/amr512042005en.html

http://www.amnesty.org/ar/library/asset/AMR51/083/2007/ar/aa18d72f-d397-11dd-a329-2f46302a8cc6/amr510832007en.pdf

http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/asset/AMR51/110/2003/en/64d81573-d6aa-11dd-ab95-a13b602c0642/amr511102003en.pdf

http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/info/AMR51/110/2003/en

http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/info/AMR51/204/2005

http://www.democracynow.org/features/sami_al_arian

http://www.democracynow.org/2007/2/7/the_family_toll_sami_al_arians

http://www.democracynow.org/2004/7/9/the_case_of_sami_al_arian

http://www.democracynow.org/2008/9/3/sami_al_arian_released_after_five http://www.democracynow.org/2007/2/7/exclusive_hunger_striking_palestinian_professor_sami

http://www.democracynow.org/2007/3/16/as_health_deteriorates_jailed_palestinian_professor

http://www.democracynow.org/2006/5/3/daughter_of_sami_al_arian_says

http://www.usavsalarian.com/case/news.html

http://www.tampabay.com/news/courts/criminal/article981644.ece

http://dir.salon.com/tech/feature/2002/01/19/bubba/index.html

http://www.salon.com/technology/feature/2002/01/19/bubba

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2003/02/21/al_arian

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2002/01/08/professor

http://electronicintifada.net/content/crossing-line-interviews-dr-sami-al-arians-daughter/9725

http://electronicintifada.net/content/film-review-usa-vs-al-arian/3529

http://electronicintifada.net/content/audio-interview-sami-al-arians-wife-speaks-husbands-incarceration/9645

http://electronicintifada.net/content/criminalizing-solidarity-sami-al-arian-and-war-terror-part-1/6843

http://electronicintifada.net/content/critics-see-vendetta-al-arians-legal-limbo/7603

http://electronicintifada.net/content/save-sami-al-arians-life-demand-his-immediate-release/743

http://electronicintifada.net/content/criminalizing-solidarity-sami-al-arian-and-war-terror-part-2/6842

http://electronicintifada.net/content/despite-no-conviction-sami-al-arian-remains-us-prison/7655

http://www.antiwar.com/orig/browne.php?articleid=13086

http://www.antiwar.com/orig/boyle.php?articleid=12089

http://www.antiwar.com/orig/cdavis.php?articleid=13257

http://original.antiwar.com/roberts/2009/05/27/who-will-stand-up-to-america-and-israel/

http://antiwar.com/orig/giraldi.php?articleid=13430

http://www.antiwar.com/blog/2009/03/19/antiwarcom-enemy-of-the-state/

http://www.wrmea.com/archives/July_2006/0607032.html

http://antiwar.com/reese/?articleid=12744

http://english.aljazeera.net/news/americas/2008/09/20089304720987812.html

http://english.aljazeera.net/category/person/sami-al-arian

http://www.commondreams.org/views03/1116-07.htm

http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/03/11/7622

http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/12/03/5579

http://www.commondreams.org/views07/0202-25.htm

http://www.commondreams.org/views05/1207-37.htm

http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/08/05/10819

Poyani (talk) 18:25, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Good lord, every single one of those sources listed is a complete joke. Why not throw in The Daily Kos and Firedoglake as well? Sorry, but you don't counteract bias claims by citing sources that are insanely biased in the other direction. Counterpunch? Common Dreams? You have got to be kidding me. The Nation? You wanna list anymore sources that come from magazines for which HIS DAUGHTER has worked?— Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

That is your argument? "I don't like your sources"? Really? I don't think it is as relevant as you think. Whether you like Amnesty International or not doesn't really make a difference. As it stands this article is a grotesque violation of WP:BLP, which is taken very seriously. I am going to overhaul the article in the next few days. The most amusing part of your post was your reference to his daughter though. So you think the fact that she wrote a few articles for the Nation biases the nation beyond redemption for this article? This article is about a man being subjected to the PATRIOT Act, yet half the sources are official US government sources. Do you really want to raise the "conflict of interest" argument? Poyani (talk) 14:07, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Sami Al-Arian used to write for counterpunch under pseudonym Issam Al-Amin. Counterpunch should not be cited in this article. Videotron (talk) 13:03, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

A few more sources:

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2008817424_apattacksprofessor.html

http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/tampabay/access/1656511861.html?FMT=ABS&FMTS=ABS:FT&type=current&date=Mar+06%252C+2009&author=MEG+LAUGHLIN&pub=St.+Petersburg+Times&desc=JUDGE%253A+AL-ARIAN+PLEA+DEAL+MATTERS&pqatl=google

http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=xfQeAAAAIBAJ&sjid=yIYEAAAAIBAJ&pg=2767,538515&dq=sami+al+arian&hl=en

Poyani (talk) 16:50, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

CounterPunch is a reliable source, especially when the author is an academic or other profile person. This hostile denigration by unsigned persons really is problematic here. Feel free to make constructive edits. The article is on a long list of articles I haven't had a chance edit directly, but do have time to support NPOV positions! CarolMooreDC 23:12, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree. In addition I am certain that at the very least Amnesty International is a valid RS. Poyani (talk) 01:39, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

No, it's not. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_10#CounterPunch Jeff Song (talk) 01:47, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Where people agree it depends on who is writing what: It depends on who writes there. In itself it cannot be called a reliable or unreliable source (the same goes for mainstream papers though). So we have to wait to see which refs someone wants to use for what purpose. CarolMooreDC 20:47, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Recent revert by Epeefleche

Epeefleche. I did not understand the explanation for your revert. Were you objecting to the change in info box or content or both? Please advise! Poyani (talk) 01:36, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Criminal Infobox

I do not think the use of the criminal infobox is appropriate. The template for the infobox states the following:

Choose this template judiciously. Unwarranted or improper use of this template may violate the Biographies of living persons, Neutral point of view and Privacy policies. This template is generally reserved for convicted serial killers, gangsters, mass murderers, old west outlaws, murderers, mafia members, fugitives, FBI 10 most wanted, serial rapist, mobsters, and other notorious criminals.

Al-Arian does not fit in this category. He pled guilty (under controversial circumstances) to conspiracy to make or receive contributions of funds, goods or services to or for the benefit of Palestinian Islamic Jihad. I propose the use of the more generic Person Infobox. Poyani (talk) 16:55, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi --responding to this and prior post, which I just noticed. I think the infobox is appropriate. That list wasn't an exclusive list -- he is notable (just check the ghits), and he is notorious because of the criminal activity for which he was convicted. Also -- please read the sentence in the template that follows the one you quoted ... if it may be used as a secondary Infobox in the middle of those articles having a section dealing with a crime of an individual whose notability is not due mainly to their being convicted criminals, such as in Winona Ryder, Martha Stewart, James Traficant, Duke Cunningham, and Tom DeLay, certainly it is appropriate to use it here, where it is the primary reason he is notable.--Epeefleche (talk) 17:04, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

I think once the article is made a bit more NPOV by including some excluded info, it might be brought to the community. I did some research on "conviction" and even discussed this at WikiProject Law since relevant Wiki articles not clear. A search of WP:RS shows that while prosecutors do consider a guilty plea a "conviction" it's hard to find any real legal definition that confirms that. So while Wikipedia usage does seem to be in that direction, the actual legal definition is more ambivalent. Perhaps there's even a WP:RS about this case that mentions that fact. So I think that it still is an issue that could be brought to the larger community at BLPN at some point. CarolMooreDC 03:03, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't think it is a gray area at all. He pleaded guilty, and was convicted based on his guilty plea. That's Criminal Law 101. Could have something to do with why the prosecutor referred to it as a "conviction".--Epeefleche (talk) 03:35, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Per this wikipedia project law discussion no one could find any statement in law saying a plea bargain is a conviction, only prosecutor assertions that it does. If you have one from some law book or law professors book or legal statute, do tell. I'll put it in the Plea bargain article. Definitely an issue needing clarifying across wikipedia and not just this article. CarolMooreDC 15:13, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

See the first para under History in 48 Notre Dame L. 835 (1972-1973), Finality of a Plea of Guilty, The; Erickson, William H., here. --Epeefleche (talk) 17:25, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Now several Wikipedia articles can be clarified. CarolMooreDC 04:29, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

User:Reformation32 should comment on this and we can at least settle this issue, per discussion above. But per the quote from the policy on this in the quoted second paragraph at top of the thread, I don't think someone who copped a plea to an offense regarding knowledge of potential crimes in a foreign country to get out of solitary confinement is exactly a "notorious criminal." But I could be wrong. Perhaps we should take it to WP:BLP after the rest of the article is scruitinized. CarolMooreDC 02:52, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Recent changes/reverts

I just read through them all in order, including revert of User:Epeefleche's revert and a few comments:

• Please read Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle on properly dealing with reverts. Obviously we don't want a revert war here. (The fact that so many reference links are broken and in red doesn't help. On the other hand, there are existing multiple uses of same refs in one paragraph that also need cleanup.)
• In general it's good when you intend to rewrite an article to start in a text file, do format clean up in a sand box and then put in the info ASAP section by section, allowing people to more easily understand and discuss the changes. In a controversial article it's better to do that first with the least controversial changes and then move on to more controversial changes.
• The article DID need better organization, fact checking of sources, new sources and more info and a less POV presentation and that was done with some edits, though detailing which could be a bit difficult since there were so many, so I really can't comment on current status or specific issues.
• Most important is that it looks like a couple of the govt. documents you deleted as sources because of broken links could be found through a search of the name. Perhaps that also is true of some news articles. It's always good to search the title because the publication may have changed the link or some reputable source may have reprinted it.
• However, IF the source - esp. for some negative allegation - cannot be found, then it is acceptable under WP:BLP to remove the specific material and only use material found in WP:RS referring more generally to the material in question. (Unless someone wants to just quote everything from the document in a footnote.) And there certainly is a problem with detailing everything in a govt indictment where the person was found innocent of almost all the charges, whether or not you have the document link.
• Note criminal infobox issue was discussed above so feel free to weigh in there. And you could always bring it to the WP:BLPN noticeboard, but I have a feeling that should wait til other issues are either settled or also need community input.
• Probably best to detail the least controversial changes you have made/want to make (depending on revert status) so we can quickly get them out of the way, and then go into the more controversial ones.

CarolMooreDC 05:52, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Okay. I definitely agree. Sorry it took me a while to respond. I have read through the Wikipedia policies.I certainly agree with you on virtually everything! This page needs considerable time and effort, and I have been delving through research for the page for many many days now. So I hope we can definitely address each of the concerns here. Reformation32 (talk) 16:55, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Great. I'm involved in a couple things today, maybe tomorrow, but hopefully over the weekend I'll just go through and see if my concerns addressed and if have any more info/refs to add. CarolMooreDC 18:15, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Exactly, what I was thinking. If we discuss any concerns, we can certainly speed up this process. Look forward to working with you. Reformation32 (talk) 05:35, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

But a reminder, in this case the editors who reverted have not come to explain their reverts or complain about yours. (And it helps to come and defend your changes when they do revert or it definitely gets into edit warring territory for which you can be sanctioned.) See WP:BRD for policy. CarolMooreDC 13:58, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Too busy getting ready for hurricane sandy and dealing with other issues to look, but after the power that surely will go out comes back on hopefully will have time to compare whatever the latest version is with original one. CarolMooreDC 12:40, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

I know about hurricanes. Wish you well. Stay safe. Reformation32 (talk) 14:26, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Merge help please

Sami Al-Arian amd Sami Al-Arian indictments and trial should definitely be merged. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Reformation32 (talk • contribs)

Probably half the material in this article should be merged into Sami Al-Arian indictments and trial now that his next battle doubtless will be fighting deportation - or whatever notable things he does/happen to him that will make the news. But we can give it a week and see if feds find some new rationale for a continuation of current situation. 15:45, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Sheikh Abdullah Ramadan (Ramadan Abdullah Shallah) excised from article again

As I pointed out in the archives in 2007, Sami Al-Arian sponsored this individual's entry into the United States, gave him employment, and worked closely with him on an almost-daily basis, until one day in 1995 when he suddenly disappeared and popped up shortly afterwards in Damascus as the new external leader of the Palestinian Islamic Jihad. This was what led to Al-Arian's first extended contact with the FBI, and seems to have laid the foundation for most of his subsequent legal troubles. (If Sami Al-Arian took the same line with the FBI in October/November 1995 that he did publicly -- i.e. that he had no knowledge whatsoever of Ramadan Abdullah Shallah's affiliations, and that Shallah's departure and re-emergence atop the PIJ came as complete and total utter surprise -- then it's safe to say that the FBI considered Sami Al-Arian's replies less than fully truthful.) This article doesn't mention Ramadan Abdullah Shallah at all, while article Sami Al-Arian indictments and trial merely mentions his name, but doesn't provide any context, or explain his significant role in focusing FBI attention on Sami Al-Arian. I find these omissions rather baffling (just as I did over 7 years ago)... AnonMoos (talk) 04:00, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

What Reliable Sources show this is notable and relevant and not a guilt by association inference? Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 15:40, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree with AnonMoos. Carol -- just try a google search.[1][2] Epeefleche (talk) 17:46, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

"Guilt by association" is totally irrelevant here, because either way -- whether Sami Al-Arian was as pure as the driven snow, or whether he was guilty as sin -- it remains a simple fact that Ramadan Abdullah Shallah's exodus was the catalyst for his legal problems. Before October 1995, Sami Al-Arian had no federal legal problems (he had some public relations problems and university relations problems), but after October 1995 he was now on the FBI's radar in a big way, initially due to Ramadan Abdullah Shallah... AnonMoos (talk) 05:02, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

• I agree with AnonMoos and Epeefleche. This is show by sources to be notable. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 19:59, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

From what I saw in one ref, this seems to be relevant to why they indicted Al-Arian, an indictment that came pretty much to naught [added later: with no convictions]. It would help if somone provided a diff of the last version or best version where this info was included to see if it was taken out because it lacked decent refs, lacked proper context or was WP:Undue. Find a high quality neutral source that describes what happens and its import is what matters. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 01:51, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

The indictment came "pretty much to naught"? He admitted to one of the charges in exchange for being released and deported, claimed that testifying in another case would violate his plea deal on the charge in the indictment that he pleaded guilty to, and when he therefore refused to testify he was held under house arrest for six years. A guilty plea on one charge is more than naught. Deportation is more than naught. And six years of house arrest because of disagreement over the plea arrangement stemming from the indictment is more than naught. Epeefleche (talk) 05:00, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

I added "with no convictions" to clarify. Now if the government wants to mess with people and keep them in prison or under house arrest for years and years, obviously it can do so and does. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 13:23, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

He was guilty -- he admitted as much -- to a crime listed in the indictment. That's more than "naught". He was, as a result of being guilty of a crime listed in the indictment, to be deported. That's more than "naught." We don't even have to go any further ... though in his case the impact of the indictment and subsequent event to it does ... The characterization of "pretty much to naught" was inaccurate. Epeefleche (talk) 15:08, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Let me be clear: I was making the point that there is no reason that anyone partisan out there should be against including RS/NPOV info about this factoid since it didn't affect the jury verdict. So if you want to put such info in, go for it. There is no disagreement, just waiting for someone to do some work. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 01:00, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Sami Al-Arian. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120926000651/http://www.miamiherald.com/news/florida/AP/story/940573.html to http://www.miamiherald.com/news/florida/AP/story/940573.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:27, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Sheikh Abdullah Ramadan (Ramadan Abdullah Shallah) yet again for a third time in ten years

I have no desire to get into an edit war on this article (or even to really edit it at all, for that matter), but it's highly undesirable that the article omits any mention of Ramadan Abdullah Shallah, since that's how Sami Al-Arian first came to the attention of federal government law enforcement, and seems to have been the catalyst for his federal legal troubles after that point. (He had no federal legal troubles before Ramadan Abdullah Shallah absconded.) There's a good probability that if the FBI had been fully satisfied with the truthfulness and comprehensiveness of Sami Al-Arian's answers to their questions about Abdullah Shallah, then they wouldn't have bothered to go after Sami Al-Arian at that point. The omission of any mention of Ramadan Abdullah Shallah from this article is unjustified and tendentious (hopefully not malicious, but after 10 years I'm beginning to wonder...) AnonMoos (talk) 10:24, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Sami Al-Arian. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/query?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.sptimes.com%2F2006%2F04%2F23%2FHillsborough%2FIn_his_plea_deal__wha.shtml&date=2012-10-21 to http://www.sptimes.com/2006/04/23/Hillsborough/In_his_plea_deal__wha.shtml
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120301162657/http://nefafoundation.org/miscellaneous/FeaturedDocs/U.S._v_Al-Arian_pleaagr.pdf to http://nefafoundation.org/miscellaneous/FeaturedDocs/U.S._v_Al-Arian_pleaagr.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:54, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

I don't want to be tiresomely repetitive, but it's highly essential that Sheikh Abdullah Ramadan (Ramadan Abdullah Shallah) should be given his proper place on this article

Sami Al-Arian first came onto the radar of the FBI when Ramadan Shalah (whose entry to the United States had been sponsored by Sami Al-Arian, and who worked with Sami Al-Arian on regular basis) absconded from the United States in 1995 and popped up as the new leader of Palestinian Islamic Jihad. Sami Al-Arian's legal troubles at the federal level began soon after. If it hadn't been for Ramadan Shalah, Sami Al-Arian might not have had any legal problems at the federal level. It's quite likely that if federal investigators investigating the Ramadan Shalah case had been fully satisfied with the truthfulness and completeness of Sami Al-Arian's to questions with respect to Ramadan Shalah, then Sami Al-Arian would not have had legal problems at the federal level. Since the Ramadan Shalah case was a highly-important catalyst to Sami Al-Arian's career taking its downward turn, I really don't understand why he's omitted from this article... AnonMoos (talk) 16:59, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

“It's quite likely that if federal investigators investigating the Ramadan Shalah case had been fully satisfied with the truthfulness and completeness of Sami Al-Arian's to questions with respect to Ramadan Shalah, then Sami Al-Arian would not have had legal problems at the federal level.”

Exactly what evidence do you that suggests this could have been the case? 38.42.46.6 (talk) 20:52, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Why is the subject of the article described as an Islamicist?

I don't see any citations or later evidence in the article that actually suggests this is the case, his activism seems to be focused on Palestine and the treatment of Muslim Americans. Calling him an Islamicist based on that alone, especially someone who was targeted and tortured under dubious circumstances by the us government, seems at best insensitive to the context. 38.42.46.6 (talk) 21:00, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

I think Islamicist is an appropriate label for someone like him. He is at least a supporter of Islamist parties: Islamic Jihad, campaigned for Egyptian presidential candidate in 2014: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdel_Moneim_Aboul_Fotouh, a supporter of the Erdogan party in Turkey, a supporter of the Iranian regime. etc. 193.134.162.64 (talk) 14:00, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Is Sami Al-Arian actually Palestinian?

Al-Arian family is a known Egyptian family. Sami Al-Arian's cousin Tarek Al-Arian https://www.instagram.com/tarekalarianofficial/ is a famous Egyptian director. Mohammed El-Erian is a famous Egyptian American economist https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohamed_A._El-Erian. Sami Al-Arian's entire family lives in Egypt and are Egyptian citizens. Palestinians who emigrated to Egypt were never able to obtain Egyptian citizenship if they cannot prove their Egyptian origin. Sami Al-Arian himself grew up in Egypt after being born in Kuwait. Sami Al-Arian was also a campaign manager for one of the Egyptian presidential candidates: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdel_Moneim_Aboul_Fotouh There is virtually no presence in Gaza or the West Bank for the Al-Arian family. As a Palestinian, I am tired of the self-proclaimed Palestinian community leaders and activists. We don't need more cooks in the kitchen. For sure not someone who helped George W. Bush win the elections in 2000. Videotron (talk) 13:41, 20 July 2023 (UTC)