Here’s an article by Joe Kaufman about the trial of accused Islamic Jihad terrorist Sami al-Arian, and the disturbing behavior of his supporters and family members as they view a film of al-Arian spewing violent anti-Jewish hate speech: What I Saw at al-Arian’s Trial.

The video in question was of a 1991 Cleveland fundraiser for Palestinian Islamic Jihad. It opened with cleric Fawaz Mohammed “Abu” Damra introducing al-Arian. Prior to becoming the Imam of the Islamic Center of Cleveland, Damra was the Imam of the Al-Farooq Mosque in Brooklyn, where he set up the flagship office of al-Qaeda co-founder Abdullah Azzam’s Alkifah Refugee Center. Damra stated that al-Arian was the head of the Islamic Committee for Palestine and described the ICP’s relationship to Islamic Jihad. He said, “A brief note about the Islamic Committee for Palestine, it is the active arm of the Islamic Jihad movement in Palestine. We prefer to call it the ‘Islamic Committee for Palestine’ for security reasons.”

Following Damra’s introduction, al-Arian took the microphone. When he started to speak, I looked over at his daughter, Leena, and observed a huge smile taking form from one side of her face to the other. Al-Arian exhorted his followers to “not befriend Jews or Christians” and proceeded to let out a cascade of violent rhetoric aimed at Jews. He predicted the future destruction of the entire state of Israel, repeating the oft-used Palestinian mantra about their supposed claim to the land “from the sea to the river.” He spoke of martyrs sacrificing themselves in the cause of Allah: “Thus is the way of jihad. Thus is the way of martyrdom. Thus is the way of blood, because this is the path to heaven.” It was a side of al-Arian hidden for years behind the guise of academia and “interfaith” religious outreach.

Damra again took the microphone, urging the congregants to donate funds for jihad activities and for the families of martyrs. “This is the Islamic Jihad movement!” he stated. “Anyone like to donate for the Intifada? A knife to stab the Jews.” The audience responded with thousands of dollars and shouts of “Allahu Akbar!” (“Allah is great!”) They also broke out in song: “Khyber, Khyber, ya Yahood, jesh Mohammed sofa ya’ud.” (“Khyber, Khyber, oh Jews, Mohammed’s Army will return.”) This is a reference to the Saudi city of Khyber, where Mohammed’s followers attacked and enslaved its Jewish inhabitants in the year 628. The Cleveland congregation repeated this chant about four or five times. I had viewed many similar proceedings like this before, though never in the same room as Sami al-Arian. Just as the singing started, I turned to Leena to discover her breaking out in laughter. She put her hands over her mouth to hold it in. Her sister next to her - sensing that they were in a courtroom and possibly sensing that I was attentive to what was going on around me - quickly motioned for al-Arian’s daughter to stop, which she did.

I observed something similar with al-Arian. Before the viewing of the video, whilst the prosecution was questioning the witness about materials specifically concerning the subjects of “jihad” and “martyrdom,” I watched al-Arian grinning gleefully: one would hardly suspect that he was facing life in prison for being an accomplice to the murders of over 100 innocent human beings, including two Americans. But he abruptly turned serious, as if he was caught up in the moment until he suddenly remembered where he was. …

I left the courtroom trailing behind al-Arian’s children. Everyone piled into one of the elevators. The three of them lined up on the left side, I was next to them, and the other reporters were on the right. I couldn’t have had a better opportunity to pose a final question. I asked Laila al-Arian, “Do you agree with the things that were said in the video?” Surprised by the question, she only stared at me, offering no answer. I next asked al-Arian’s other daughter, Leena, the same question. She gazed blankly at the floor of the elevator with her head down. I then turned to the son, Abdullah, “Do you agree with the things that were said in the video?” He looked at me, and unlike inside the courtroom, he finally spoke. “What do you mean?” he asked. Again I asked, “Do you agree with the things that the people said in the video?” Still looking at me, he replied with a well traveled Constitutional excuse, “I agree with the fact that the people in the video have Freedom of Speech. This is still America.”