On this much most people can probably agree - former University of South Florida Prof. Sami al-Arian is a pretty loathsome, vile individual, who deserves precious little sympathy for his role in providing support for Islamic terrorists.

But you could also make a case that the saga of al-Arian’s travels through the federal criminal justice system has probably reached the “Enough is enough!” stage.

At the moment the 50-year-old defrocked university professor is in the midst of a hunger strike in protest over being yet again subpoenaed to testify before a federal grand jury investigating the activities of various Muslim charities.

This is the second time he has been summoned to testify with a grant of immunity from prosecution and once again al-Arian has refused, thus leading to a contempt of court citation, which will leave him locked up through the term of the grand jury.

Al-Arian, who accepted a plea bargain to plead guilty to providing services for members of a terrorist group in 2006, was supposed to have been released from federal custody and deported in April, 2007.

But because of his refusal to testify before the grand jury, he has remained imprisoned, which has now begun to raise some thorny ethical questions for federal prosecutors.

To be sure, the government has every right to compel al-Arian to testify, especially since he has been given a grant of immunity.

Al-Arian’s mouthpieces have steadfastly insisted he plea agreement absolved him of having to provide additional testimony and/or cooperation. But that is so much hooey.

Nothing in al-Arian’s written plea agreement, or in any court transcript concerning his plea deal noted any free pass on testifying or cooperating.

The government is well within its legal power to continue to confine al-Arian.

But you could also make a fair case that since he has been, not only in jail, but in solitary confinement for the past several years, al-Arian has precious little current, valuable or legally useful information to reveal to a grand jury.

Has not the time come to simply release and depart, this admittedly disagreeable little man?

The continued incarceration of al-Arian serves no practical purpose and indeed has begun to border on a punitive sentence at the hands of federal prosecutor’s, whe failed to convict the professor on more serious terrorism charges during his 2006 Tampa trial.

At the same time, by failing to honor the terms of al-Arian’s plea bargain by not releasing and deporting him, future plea negotiations with defendants could be undermined.

Like it or not, the plea bargain is a vital prosecutorial tool. The criminal justice would implode under the weight of a backlog of cases, were not defendants offered the opportunity to negotiate guilty pleas and sentencing ranges.

For better or worse, al-Arian entered into his plea deal in good faith. The failure to include language concerning testimony and cooperation was the fault of his legal counsel. But their errors should not translate into a virtual life sentence.

As one who has been very critical of Sami al-Arian (I was even picketed by him once), I never thought I would write these words, but enough is enough.

It is time to let to let him go. Not the sake of Sami al-Arian, but for the credibility of the system of justice he wanted to destroy.