Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Rights and Liberties

Jailed for Protesting Gitmo: 34 Convicted for Demonstrations Outside Supreme Court

By Frida Berrigan, AlterNet. Posted May 30, 2008.


Protesters were convicted of "unlawful free speech" for peaceful demonstrations on behalf of prisoners at Guantanamo Bay.
Advertisement

Thirty-four Americans arrested at the Supreme Court on January 11, 2008 were found guilty after a three-day trial which began on Tuesday, May 27th in D.C. Superior Court. The defendants represented themselves, mounting a spirited defense of their First Amendment rights to protest the gross injustice of abuse and indefinite detention of men at the U.S. Naval Base at Guantanamo Bay.

Charged with "unlawful free speech," the defendants were part of a larger group that appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court on January 11 -- the day marking six years of indefinite detention and torture at Guantanamo. "I knelt and prayed on the steps of the Supreme Court wearing an orange jumpsuit and black hood to be present for Fnu

Fazaldad," said Tim Nolan, a nurse practitioner from Asheville, NC who provides health care for people with HIV.

Defendants and witnesses argued that they did not expect to be arrested at the Supreme Court, "an internationally known temple to free speech." Ashley Casale, a student at Wellesley College in Massachusetts, told the court, "I am 19 -- the youngest person in this courtroom--and I come on behalf of all the prisoners at Guantanamo who were younger than I am now when they were detained. According to the U.S. Constitution we have a right to petition the government for a redress of grievances and Guantanamo Bay prison is beyond grievous."

Historian Michael S. Foley, a professor at the City University of New York, teaches the U.S. Constitution to undergraduates. He testified that if "you told me that the defendants would be arrested for 'unlawful free speech' just twenty feet from where the Justices decide First Amendment cases, I'd say you were 'crazy.'"

Arthur Laffin gave the following closing statement at the January Guantanamo Trial:

"My name is Arthur Laffin and I am representing Mane'I al Otaybi, a Saudi national who was 25 years old when he was taken into U.S. custody in Afghanistan. He died at the Guantanamo military prison on June 10, 2006 of a reported suicide. To date, there has been no independent investigation of his death or the others who have died at

Guantanamo. We remember these dead prisoners in a special way here in this court today.

"The government has asserted that this case is not about Guantanamo. We respectfully and vehemently disagree. In our defense, we have to put forth to this court overwhelming evidence that the U.S. government has engaged in criminal conduct. What is at issue here is: what do citizens do when all three branches of government are in violation of divine law, international law, and its own Constitution? When habeas corpus rights are denied to persons, when persons are held indefinitely without being charged, when persons are tortured by U.S. personnel in violation of the Geneva Conventions and the Eighth Amendment to the Bill of Rights, we citizens have a right and a duty to petition the government and to seek redress. This is what we defendants did on January 11.

"You have heard evidence that we wrote a letter to the Supreme Court Justices well in advance of January 11, appealing to them to grant due process for the Guantanamo prisoners -- to restore habeas corpus rights, to outlaw the crime and sin of torture, and to order the closing of Guantanamo. To date we have received no response. We went

to the Supreme Court on January 11 to appeal in person to the justices, imploring them to do their job to uphold the law and administer justice.

"As government and defense witnesses have testified, our actions were nonviolent and prayerful. We did not go there to call attention to ourselves, an organization or movement. We carried the names of the Guantanamo prisoners in our hearts, and once arrested, gave the names of the prisoners instead of our own names. Throughout our 30 hours of incarceration, and throughout this entire court case, we have continued to state that we are here on behalf of these prisoners.

"Judge Gardner, we contend our actions were morally and legally justified and that we had no other recourse than to take the action we did. We should never have been arrested in the first place. Our intention on January 11 was not to commit a crime. Our action was clearly in accordance with God's law which calls us to uphold the sacredness of all life, and International law and the U.S. Constitution. On January 11, as now, we sought to bring public notice to prisoners whose lives are endangered at the Guantanamo U.S. Military Prison. There is an imminent harm here, an emergency. The


Digg!

See more stories tagged with: protest, torture, supreme court, war on terror, geneva conventions, guantanamo, human rights, nonviolence, criminal justice system, witness against torture, michael s. foley, arthur laffin

Frida Berrigan serves on the National Committee of the War Resisters League.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Rights and Liberties! Sign up now »

Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
What was the actual Charge?
Posted by: robbie.seal on May 30, 2008 11:30 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"Illegal Free Speech"? Can I get the locality and code? That is a new one... Most folks get it for unlawful gathering... Protesting/demonstrating without a permit... Trespassing (when they get too close)... Tell us what the chrge is, not what your interpretation of the intent of the government was...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: What was the actual Charge? Posted by: LaurelAnn
» Possible charges?!? Posted by: aouie01
» RE: Possible charges?!? Posted by: aouie01
» RE: Possible charges?!? Posted by: Doubtom
» Thank you all Posted by: robbie.seal
» RE: What was the actual Charge? Posted by: jimmiekeyes
GOP: Greedy Oxymoronic Party
Posted by: HughScott on May 30, 2008 12:21 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Add "unlawful free speech" to the list of unconstitutional Republican oxymorons -- such as "coercive democracy" (from Scott McClellan's new book) and Bush 43's "unitary president."

The greedy White House bastards won't be happy until there is no free speech at all in America.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

This is sick.
Posted by: radiomorning on May 30, 2008 12:43 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
These judges really don't give a shit what happens to the USA, do they?

But neither do the people... can you imagine what a response this would have illicited in the 60s? Can't expect people to get riled up when they won't hear about it though. It probably won't even be covered in the MSM, unless Bill-O and friends cheer on the ruling.

There's not much to say about this story really. This is truly the end of America.

Maybe only revolution can bring it back now.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: This is sick. Posted by: Doubtom
Read Thoreau on "Non-violence"
Posted by: Sojourner on May 30, 2008 1:21 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As a participant in non-violent resistance, I recognized that when I sought to be arrested (clearly the case in this instance) then in return for the platform of my courtroom testimony I accept the likelihood of courtroom punishment. If we could get a jury of our peers, the chances were little or no punishment.

So I commend our courageous fellow citizens whose act resists the descent into barbarism pursued by our government.

Our American system has allowed the packing of the Supreme Court (as was made clear to us before the 2000 and 2004 elections) and lower courts with judicial reactionaries. Hence we now need the kind of civil disobedience that we saw in the Civil Rights movement, where we sang in Alabama, "Wallace. You know you can't jail us all. One day, segregation bound to fall."

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Read Thoreau on "Non-violence" Posted by: nochicagoboys
It's The Federalist Society Court and there is no redress of grievance
Posted by: TJ-stars4peace on May 30, 2008 1:31 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It's The Federalist Society Court not the Supreme Court anymore..

An there is no right to petition the Unitary Swine Tory Pigs for a redress of grievances..in their tyranny dictatorship..!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Courage
Posted by: Mahjee on May 30, 2008 5:28 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Thank goodness there's still a few truly courageous Americans. Sadly, there's only a very few.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Fish from Oz
Posted by: Fish on May 31, 2008 4:03 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"unlawful free speech", you jest surely!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Fish from Oz Posted by: Doubtom
"Unlawful Free Speech"
Posted by: bobtr900 on May 31, 2008 4:56 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Whaaa. Isn't that some kind of contradiction in terms. It's either free speech or it is unlawful speech, it seems to me. The SCOTUS is full of wack jobs, and Scalia is the head of the wacky kingdom.

Regarding the sin aspect of the situation. It is only a sin for we who espouse norml religious values. The right wing religions being the 'Moral Relativists' that they are interpret sin to fit their politics. The only things that are sinful are those things they say are sinful. They will say what reality is, they make reality. Thats about as religious as they are.

Their hypocrisy is extreme. They hold other people to values which they themselves flaunt. They are scared little peole of little moral fiber. Their fears speak to everything they do.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: "Unlawful Free Speech" Posted by: JSquercia
» RE: "Unlawful Free Speech" Posted by: Amolibri
correspondent
Posted by: jeaninemolloff on Jun 1, 2008 10:43 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The fact that the Supreme Court had the AUDACITY to declare agreement with the Bush DOJ'c fallatious charge of ...'unlawful free speech,' only demonstrates the TREASONOUS NATURE OF THESE SUPREME PRIESTS COMMITTED TO NEONCONSERVATIVE DICTATES. THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS 'UNLAWFUL FREE SPEECH.' THOSE INVOLVED IN THIS UNJUST CHARGE AND CONSEQUENT RULING ARE GUILTY OF TREASON AGAINST THE RIGHTS OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: correspondent Posted by: Doubtom
ok.....
Posted by: jstepp590 on Jun 2, 2008 8:40 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Ok, next time how about we all join them in their protest. This is something I would be happy to do and would wear the arrest with pride. They arrested 25 people for this. How about next time we make it a hundred, then 500, then thousands? Will they arrest us all? Torture is wrong and illegal and if our legal system won't stand up to our federal officials then it is our moral and civic responsibility to do so ourselves.

This brings up an interesting point I have thought of as well. What do we as citizens do when it's the government breaking the laws? They cannot and won't arrest themselves. How long will it be before people decide that it's too much and that they are no longer our laws, but theirs? Especially when they set aside the law we all have to live under to suit their own convenience? These actions by our government are a direct threat to the peace and security of our entire country. Are our officials so stupid and short sighted that they cannot see the threat they are creating to our country?

How long before these kinds of issues Humpty Dumpty our society and end the American dream that our families and ancestors fought so hard to bring to life? How would our ancestors look at us for letting it happen without even attempting to salvage it?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I saw some of the footage and saw NO violence
Posted by: Libsrule on Jun 4, 2008 4:08 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The thing that just amazes me is this charge of "unlawful free speech". There can be NO such thing.

The court in this case may have been following the strict letter of the law but were blind to the intent of free speech.

I can only wonder where this judge comes from. Were strict rules applied AND has anyone seen the demonstrations that go on at the SCOTUS, especially when abortion laws are being debated?

Just further restrictions on our 1st Amendment rights. Some laws piss on that right and judges go along instead of being more interested in WHAT free speech actually means.

Dorkheaded judge.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Lee
Posted by: FernLee on Jun 4, 2008 4:46 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"Unlawful free speech." Isn't that a contradiction in terms? How is this defined?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Oh, come on, you "tin foil" hat conspiracy nuts. This isn't happening?
Posted by: Prophit on Jun 4, 2008 4:49 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Oh, come on, just because its in the press doesn't mean it happened? Just because the evidence is there right before your eyes doesn't mean that is real.

Give me a break. Remember that is what Alternet people said about those of us that warned this day was coming many years ago. Its nice to be validate.

Oh, and just to mention it, what event occured that lead to these oppressive changes, if you don't mind me asking???? Oh, thats right, an event with patent evidence that it was an inside job and was touted by New Americna Century think tank as being needed to impliment such empire changes.

You remember? That think tank started by Cheney and Jeb Bush OH, thats right, the same Cheney who was conducting war games the day of that pearl Harbor type event they said they needed. Oh, thats right Minetti testified UNDER OATH and got fired 2 weeks later, that Cheney would not reverse his order to the fighter planes to stand down while 2 hijacked planes were heading for the pentagon were still on their way in to crash into buildings.

I remember all that now. WHAT A STUPID CONSPIRACY THEORY...... ALL THOSE TIN HATS OUT THERE. LOL You guys cracked me up.

So if 9-11 didn't happen as the "conspiracy nuts" say it did, then this isn't happening either as a result of 9-11, because after all, wouldn't a police state be the reason for it happening? ...You couldn't get a police state without some fictious enemy now can you????

You will get what you deserve for not stopping this when we should have. If you won't believe the truth and what is before your eyes then why should we believe what you say is the truth. Maybe that supreme court incident didn't really happen. Did you see it with your own eyes????

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Apologies are Long over Due!! Posted by: Purple Girl
Jeffrey Miles
Posted by: jeffreyamiles on Jun 4, 2008 5:13 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What was the charge? What was the sentence? This is an incomplete report.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Here's the AP version of the story...
Posted by: tomkara on Jun 4, 2008 7:36 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I sympathize with the author's point of view, but being accurate and factual would probably aid her cause more than simply providing us with a propagandistic version. The AP reports thusly:
http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/news.aspx?id=20116

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Beyond sickening...
Posted by: mountainmama on Jun 4, 2008 8:46 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I am so, so heartbroken by this...it is like the last straw for me. What happened to the USA I used to know? It wasn't perfect but it wasn't horrific and a nightmare as it is now. I am 64 and I feel like renouncing my citizenship at this point. One thing is for sure, I am NOT proud of this country! I am not only embarrased of it, I cannot even sing the National Anthem or even put my hand over my heart when it's played. I want to vomit at the beyond-belief hypocracy of this country and all the damn assholes who have helped create all of this...meaning voters and supporters of Adolf Bush and his Nazi henchmen!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Beyond sickening... Posted by: Doubtom
Will ACLU get Into This Fray ??
Posted by: hadashito on Jun 4, 2008 9:29 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"Unlawful free speech? Whaaa ?
Do the moronic jurists who preside over the the DC courts know the definition of an oxymoron ? Well, they have constructed one with this ruling.
I can't imagine there will be no appeal. If the ACLU takes up this case for the defense, it will tear this wierd judgement to shreds.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The bamboozle is sinking in.
Posted by: Paxmana1 on Jun 5, 2008 12:29 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Carl Sagan encapsulated the problem very well.

The blogosphere is seething .. Americas problem is the same as in all of the English speaking nations .. we have a surfeit of Zionism that uses the Law to enslave us all.

America and her legal system is founded in the Magna Carta, (Latin = Great Charter).. fine words and fine promises yet they still rule us all by fear.

Reality is .. King John and his Robber Barons were dividing up the spoils at Runnymede. The hordes of legal parasites understood the true intent and over the centuries have carefully sculpted it and bought forth what was inherent ..

It has been has been clearly demonstrated in America and Britain that Habeas Corpus and Trial by Jury are easily circumvented .. money buys anything .. except happiness and the immortal soul.

The Zionists own my body and even the right to speak my mind but they cannot own my soul. So courage Brothers and Sisters .. we will still face the monsters down.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

'This Court is Out of Order' - End Life time Appointments
Posted by: Purple Girl on Jun 5, 2008 4:10 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It is far past the time to levy Treason War Crimes and Crimes against Humantiy charges against this Adminstration and ALL It's enablers.
Scalia confessed to his complicity during his 'explanation' of torture vs Punishment.
I want Our Troops home not just for their Safety and Our Protection against foreign attacks- i wan them home so we have the 'muscle'an d Multittudes to begin Arresting these domestic Enemies!
The majority of SCOTUS have Proven their complicity with this Corrupt Regime.Startin gwith the '00 election and moving forward, the Charges against THEM are numerous. By convicting this adminsitration we will be able to revoke all appointments, by their actions (rulings0 we will be able to impeach the rest who gained their Seat on the highest Court by nafarious means.
We shall hold their Illegal laws against them - No right to a capable defense, no speedy trial, no jury of their peers, No unbiased Judges! 'Live by the sword....'
it is time we not only hold the exectuive branch accountable but both parties covert operatives and those crimals who have sat on our Highest Court. Take that 'Unlawful Free Speech' and shove it up your Asses SCOTUS!!!!!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Dan Webster
Posted by: dwebster on Jun 5, 2008 5:28 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The US Supreme Court and the Superior Court should be convicted for impersonating a justice system.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

AP VERSION
Posted by: jimmiekeyes on Jun 5, 2008 6:41 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I looked at the AP story
If it is true that the individuals protesting were warned to stay on the sidewalk or risk arrest and the prosecutors showed the court a video of that happening, that is warning them to stay on the sidewalk, then the court had no choice and did enter the correct judgmentThey defended themselves and made their points but without a well prepared defense counsel they never raised the issue of the constitutionality of the underlying criminal law that made protest at the court on the court's steps a misdemeanor. So they worked the system and got what they expected to get. The court could not find the underlying statute unconstitutional without a proper motion etc. etc.
Jimmie

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: AP VERSION Posted by: Paxmana1
Why not substitute Republicanism
Posted by: oregonox on Jun 5, 2008 8:33 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
for "Zionism." You'd be closer to the truth.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Oh say can you see?
Posted by: modeler on Jun 7, 2008 4:16 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Freedom and Democracy, we are bringing it to all those suppressed and mistreated peoples via illegal wars and ever lasting occupations. What a farce! We have free speech, but than it may be illegal. Bushit.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]