DAY 2 – JANUARY 4, 2012
Dear Friends,
Every time our court proceedings reconvene (and this happens several
times a day because of the various breaks), these words are announced: "Now
hearing the United States VS. Shakir Ami…." This statement never fails to
surprise us. Mr. Aamer (as his name is correctly spelled) has been detained
at Guantánamo since Febuary of 2002 and has spent much of his time there in
solitary confinement.
But Shaker Aamer's name is spoken in the Superior Court of the District of
Columbia today because two years ago on January 11th, Brian Hynes was
arrested on the steps of the Capital Building and gave Mr. Aamer's name as
his own. Since then, within the District of Columbia, this name is legally
(and bureaucratically) tied to Brian's fingerprints. And beginning with an
"A", it has become the official title of our court case.
As you will find, much of today's events took place in the courtroom. While
the testimony about Guantánamo has been limited by the Government and the
Judge, we filled the court gallery seats proudly wearing our orange SHUT
DOWN GUANTANAMO tee-shirts. And although we are beginning to show the
exhaustion of the second day of fasting, we certainly created a dignified
spirit in that room. We hope this update finds you all well and strong, and
we witness with you in solidarity.
In Peace,
Witness Against Torture
P.S. Even though we are not eating, we have many other expenses to cover:
this beautiful space of First Trinity Lutheran, juices for over fifty
people, many many leaflets and flyers, etc. If you are able, please
consider donating to our work here in Washington D.C. We also welcome
messages of support & solidarity and news of events happening in your own
town. Thank you! http://witnesstorture.org/donate
==============================
DAY 2 – Update and Reflections (compiled by Amy Nee)
The morning started with people feeling "tired," "sick," "hopeful,"
"content," "rockin'!" Tom Casey led an opening reflection with the poem,
"Is It True?" written by former Guantanamo detainee, Osama Abu Kabir. Our
first outing involved suiting up in the orange jumpsuits and black hoods and
processing to a park across from the court house where a press conference
was being held. Frida Berrigan addressed the press and introduced the
defendants who would be on trial later in the morning. Josie Setzler shared
about her motivations for participating in the action that led to arrest in
June as did Tom Casey who had been acquitted earlier in the week and Jeremy
Varon, history professor at New School, presented the historical
implications of Guantánamo. From there we processed to a brief vigil in
front of the courthouse. Two officers passed by our single file line and
quietly, quickly spoke, "We appreciate what you're doing." "Thank you for
your work."
During today's trial, the government meandered through their case, resting
by the noon recess. When court reconvened, the defense introduced their
first and final witness, Brian Hynes. Please see Molly's write-up below for
a detailed court update. Afterward, fasters and defendants gathered back at
the church to debrief the trial, creating a space for questions and
comments. Chris Spicer commented on Brian H's efforts at creating space in
the midst of his testimony. While the prosecuting attorney heatedly rattled
off questions, Brian paused, considered and responded in measured tones in a
way that Chris called, "magical." This ability to create space in your
answers, he added, is "emblematic of the way of nonviolence."
While many admired Brian's entertaining and informative volleying with the
prosecution, Bill Frankl-Streit introduced a word of caution that we be
mindful, those of us who dabble in the court system, to not lose track of
what we're there for. It is so easy to fall into playing the game of
technicalities and jargon and outwitting one another. The temptation to try
to win, rather than simply speak the truth, can be a trap that risks
betraying what you are there for. Bill's admonition brought to mind a
question Carmen had posed the night before, "What does it mean for January
11, for the detainees and the Guantánamo narrative if this trial wins?"
What does "winning" gain? What are we here for? These are important
questions that can lead to some sense of desolation during times when a
creative response eludes us. "There is no question," Carmen added tonight,
"that we need each other;" as reminders, as support, as motivation, as
challenge, as the beloved community. A community working together, sharing
insights that, like those of Dan Berrigan who was read in the circle
tonight, "are meant to propel us forward, not to bring us to despair."
==============================
DAY 2 – Courtroom Analysis (by Molly Kafka)
Day two of the "WAT Five" trial proved to be an extremely eventful day: full
of Capitol Police testimony, the defense's witness testimony, a defendant's
acquittal, and debates. The first half of the day consisted of relatively
vague and conflicting testimony given by five Capitol Police. Three out of
the five officers testified to observing Carmen Trotta standing and
"shouting." Only one officer testified to seeing Mike standing and shouting,
while others simply saw him being led out of the gallery. Half of the
officers noticed some type of warning issued to the activists and others did
not. Overall, the government's witnesses could only identify Carmen Trotta,
Shakir Ami (Brian Hynes), Mike Levinson, and Judith Kelly as standing up and
speaking in the House Gallery. Because the officers did not identify Josie
Setzler, the defense made a Motion for Judgment of Acquittal. Upon returning
from a recess, Judge Fisher formally dismissed Josie's charges and she
joined the WAT supporters in the audience.
The now "WAT Four" called its first witness after Josie was dismissed.
Carmen Trotta took the position of direct questioning by calling Shakir Ami
(Brian Hynes) to the stand. When Carmen asked Brian what happened on June
23rd, he explained that he was seated in Gallery 9 when the ushers (who were
actually plain clothes police officers unbeknownst to the defendants) asked
those seated to stand and move into the adjacent gallery in an effort to
accommodate overflow. It was at this moment when Brian stood and started to
begin speaking. An officer cut him off by asking him if he had something to
say. He responded yes, he did in fact have something to say. The officer
allowed him to finish what he was attempting to say, and in a voluble voice
announced, "Indefinite detention is a violation of the Fifth Amendment. Shut
down Guantánamo!" Brian consistently testified his intention was not to
disrupt Congress, but to petition his government, to bring witness to
Congress regarding the injustice of detaining men at Guantánamo Bay
Detention Center without charges or trial.
The government cross-examined Brian by trying to lead the defendant into
admitting he was yelling in order to disrupt Congress. Brian patiently
resisted, and instead elaborated on what he and his fellow WAT activists
were trying to do on June 23rd in the House of Representatives: "our intent
was to deliver a dignified, audible message as earnest, concerned citizens
trying to show the wrongfulness of our government." The government also
attempted to steer Brian into stating he lied about his identity when he was
arrested on June 23rd. Although he admitted his name was not actually Shakir
Ami, the defense re-directed and Shakir Ami was able to clarify that he did
not lie when he stated his name to the Capitol police. When he began to
explain the significance of his name, Judge Fisher sustained an objection by
the prosecution because the defendant began to speak about Guantánamo. It
was then that the defense rested their case.
The jury was asked to go home for the day while the court proceeded to
discuss potential jury instruction, which will be read to the jury after
both the government and defense give their closing statements tomorrow.
During this jury selection, the judge first gives a draft list of jury
instructions to both the defense and prosecution that he or she will recite
to the jury, explaining to jurors their legal duties and responsibilities in
issuing a verdict. Then the defense and prosecution have the opportunity to
object to the judge's list of instructions and suggest additional ones.
During this exchange, the defense proposed a few instructions, but the judge
resisted. At that moment, defendant Carmen Trotta stood up and appealed to
the judge by asking him to "put precedent down and speak to justice" by
allowing the truth to be determined only by the jury, and not by the judge's
restrictions through his instructions. After a lively back-and-forth, the
judge refused to allow some of the defense's suggestions, particularly the
one concerning the jury's power to nullify.
Tomorrow both sides will deliver their closing statements and the jury will,
hopefully, issue their verdict.
==============================
No comments:
Post a Comment