Witness Against Torture trial update!

Witness Against Torture – “HUNGERING FOR JUSTICE”

 

DAY 1 – JANUARY 3, 2012

 

Dear Friends,

 

      In its opening statement of our court trial, the government repeatedly insisted that “this was not the time and place” – not the time to present our grievances against the continuation (or, as is recently evident, perpetuation) of Guantánamo, not the forum for debating these issues.   And yet we maintain that now is always the time and place to speak out against Guantánamo. 

 

      This January 11th will be the tenth anniversary of the Guantánamo Bay detention center as the site of the torture and indefinite detention of men caught up in the United States “War on Terror.”  Of the 171 men remaining there at this moment, eighty-nine are cleared for release but without any host country, most of the rest held without due process.

 

None of these facts, however clear and basic, are permissible in the courtroom. The prosecutors fear that it runs the “risk of enflaming the passions of the jury.”  Justly so!  But why this fear?  There are many groups of people working to counter that fear and the bureaucracy that upholds it, many people working to create viable means of closing such detention centers as Guantánamo and Bagram.  And so both within and beyond those restrictive courtroom walls, it is our hope that over the next ten days our fast and vigils, our presence and witness, all of this community building that connects each of us across this country and world… it is our hope to enflame to passions of humanity to trust in itself again.

 

                        In Peace,

 

                              Witness Against Torture

 

Day One – Courtroom Analysis,  by Molly Kafka 

 

At the beginning of the trial, all of the original fourteen defendants were called to the defense table where nine of them were formally dismissed by the judge. The defendants representing themselves pro se are Brian Hynes, Judith Kelly, Mike Levinson, Josie Setzler, and Carmen Trotta. Two advising attorneys are assisting the five WAT activists all throughout the court proceedings. However, the individual defendants are taking on the various important roles of opening statement, direct and cross-examining witnesses, and closing statement.

 

The first major order of business was the jury selection. The judge presented a set list of questions, but both the defense and government possess the opportunity to suggest additional questions and the government did just that. Delightful to the defense, the government’s questions admitted to the jurors that the case is about political protest and the detention of men at Guantánamo Bay, and proceeded to ask whether any jurors felt strongly about either. This admission by the government set the tone for the trial; the defendants’ acts were absolutely about their First Amendment right to petition the House representatives concerning the closure of Guantánamo Bay.

 

Once the jury was selected they left the courtroom to allow the court to handle some preliminary matters. At this moment, the government expressed its intent to object to any aspect of the defense’s opening statement mentioning the name Guantánamo Bay, legislation and policies linked to it, any reference to the lack of due process of Guantánamo Bay prisoners, and any reference to the Bush or Obama administrations. Unfortunately, Judge Fisher agreed with most of the prosecution’s objections. He went so far as to require Carmen Trotta to present his opening statement before the court, including the government, yet excluding the jury, in order to determine whether Carmen’s statement would be admissible. Once he heard Carmen’s summary of his opening statement, the judge informed Carmen that he could not inform the jurors of why he and the other defendants read from a prepared statement calling on the House of Representatives to reject a congressional bill that would give continued financial support to Guantánamo Bay. Carmen responded that it was vital for him to mention Guantánamo Bay because “due process everywhere is being threatened and we have the privilege of due process here, right now.” The judge rejected Carmen’s pleas because he “does not want an improper politicization of the defendants’ charge.” Carmen was forced to scrap the majority of his carefully prepared opening statement in order to avoid being held in contempt for mentioning prohibited topics.

 

Once the preliminary business finished, the jurors returned to the courtroom and the government gave its opening statement. This statement claimed the House Gallery was not the time or place for the defendants to air their grievances. Even though the prosecution’s jury questions stated the case was about political protest and Guantánamo Bay, it changed its tune and said the exact opposite in its opening statement. The government claimed, “There is a time and place for everything, this was not it,” this case, the government contended, is not about Guantánamo Bay, protests, or even about the actual statement read by the defendants in the gallery. Instead, the government focused on the theory that Carmen stood up in the House Gallery at 4:35 p.m. on June 23rd, 2011 and unleashed “chaos” leading to distractions that caused “inefficiencies” in the House’s operations that afternoon.

 

Less than twenty minutes after the back-and-forth with Judge Fisher, Carmen Trotta rose to the occasion and presented the defense’s opening statement to the jury. Carmen began by first thanking the jury for participating in the due process of the defendants so they could be judged by a group of their peers. Carmen proceeded with grace and was able to convey to the jury the context of the defendants’ action without actually uttering the words Guantánamo Bay, saying, “You know why we’re here. I don’t need to tell you.” Carmen went on to clarify that the defendants did not yell, but “communicated volubly” in order for Congress to hear the defendants from the galleries. Carmen explained the defendants were simply exercising their First Amendment right of free speech and exercising their right to petition Congress for grievances conducted by Congress. The defendants did not disrupt Congress because the representatives continued to socialize on the House floor and cast their votes. Finally, Carmen eloquently appealed to the jury to take the evidence presented to them as they would a child, and nurture it. Carmen closed by stating, “What we did was simply an attempt of American citizens to express their grievances.”

 

The first day of court ended with the prosecution’s first witness, an officer for the Capitol Police. The police officer explained the general lay-out of the House Chambers and Gallery, the procedure in gaining admittance into the Gallery, and what he remembers occurring on June 23, 2011. He remembers the House was voting for a bill at approximately 4:35 p.m. when Carmen Trotta stood up in the Gallery and started speaking loudly. After about 15 seconds, the Speaker Pro Temporare hit the gavel and ordered the Sergeant at Arms to restore order in the gallery. Soon there after, the witness claims four to five more people stood up and also began speaking in the gallery. All of the defendants complied with the Capitol Police and did not resist arrest. While identifying the defendants the witness spotted Judith Kelly and with a bright smile said, “Oh yes, I remember her. She was very very nice.”

 

###