SUMMARY OF COURT PROCEEDINGS WED 28 MAY 2008

Prosecution rests in trial of thirty-five protesters arrested for protest against Guantanamo at the Supreme Court on January 11.

The second day of the trial began with the thirteen defendants who have chosen to remain silent filing solemnly into the courtroom in orange jump suits and standing until all 35 had reached their seats. When Judge Gardner attempted to conduct a roll call of those present, those in orange jump suits continued their silence, their expression of solidarity with the Guantanamo detainees who are unable to speak for themselves. The Judge accepted the statement of Mark Goldstone, attorney advisor for the defendants, that they were all present.

The government continued the presentation of its case, calling six police officers as witnesses against those arrested inside the Supreme Court Upper Great Hall. Photographs of individuals standing beside police officers were introduced as evidence of the arrests of twenty people alleged to have been protesting inside the Supreme Court. Even with the visual prompt of the photographs, witnesses misidentified two defendants sitting in the courtroom.

Police witnesses claimed that those arrested inside the Upper Great Hall had come in along with other citizens who were waiting in line to hear a lecture. They said the defendants then donned orange jump suits and orange T-shirts with the words Shut Down Guantanamo, unfurled a banner, and kneeled shoulder-to-shoulder in two rows.

Some police witnesses variously claimed the defendants were chanting, singing, and yelling; one said that they appeared to be speaking but that the noise in the hall was too loud to hear what they were saying. Officer Simpson said he could see one person’s lips moving but the noise level was too high to hear what he was saying. When on cross-examination defendant Claire Schaeffer-Duffy asked, “Isn’t it possible that he could have been praying,” Officer Thomas Simpson replied, “Yes.”

The prosecution dropped the charge of haranguing, which had been lodged against two of the defendants arrested inside the Supreme Court, leaving the single charge of parading against all thirty-four defendants.

When the government rested its case, Maria Allwine stood to introduce a Motion for Judgment of Acquittal on behalf of the defendants. In keeping with the practice of all the defendants, she began by stating her name and the name of a Guantanamo prisoner: “I represent Mohammed Khan, illegally held and tortured in the penal colony at Guantanamo.” Judge Gardner denied the motion. In response to the defense claim that the government had failed to provide evidence to place three of the defendants in the Great Hall, he explained that circumstantial evidence was sufficient proof that they were there at the close of the government’s case. He said there was no evidence that there was co-mingling of those arrested outside and inside or co-mingling of protesters with those people waiting for lectures.
Defendant Allwine rebutted by saying that the government had not proven that those arrested had violated the statute. She said, “We have not called attention to ourselves, but to the torture of human beings at Guantanamo. This is not a movement.” Judge Gardner thanked her for her response before explaining again that he was denying the motion.

Toward the end of the day the defense began its case. The first opening statement was made by Sherrill Hogen on behalf of Ahmed Mohammed, an ethnic Chinese man who has been held at Guantanamo since 2002.

She began, “Having only you to appeal to, and holding therefore that you represent the best judgment of the American people, based on our Constitution which has shaped our democracy and protected the rights of the individual, we bring to you our plea of innocence. We are charged with Disorderly Conduct and Unlawful Assembly. But these were neither our purpose nor our intent. Rather, we came to the Supreme Court in our Capitol, because it has jurisdiction over the two issues about which we knew there were violations of justice: The denial of habeus corpus to the prisoners held by the U.S. at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and the use and acceptance of torture as a legitimate practice by representatives of the U.S. government.”

Gerald Breen then made the second opening statement for the defense, “on behalf of Hosaifa Parhat imprisoned at Guantanamo Bay for six years without being charged.”
Gerald asserted, “Our case will prove that we were not a parade, assemblage, or display of flags on the Supreme Court grounds, nor did we display anything to bring into public notice a party, organization or movement. Our witnesses will show that we were at the Supreme Court to bring into public notice not parties or organizations or movements, but people…men who have been held by our government, many for over six years, without ever having the chance we have today, to see the evidence against us, confront our accusers, and prove our innocence. We were at the Supreme Court on January 11th in the same spirit that we hope to have with us today…a spirit of appealing for justice.”
Judge Gardner thanked the defendants for their opening statements. As witnesses were about to be called, he went on to express concern that the defendants understand that in serving as witnesses they opened themselves to cross-examination and possible self-incrimination. He stated that “every defendant has a right to testify as well as a right to remain silent,” which for the defendants again called attention to the stark difference between their experience in court and that of the prisoners at Guantanamo on whose behalf they speak.

Tarak Kauff, the first defense witness, described himself as a veteran and a father. “As a veteran, I took an oath to protect and honor the Constitution of the United States. I cannot remain silent when Amendments 4, 5, 6, and 8 have been trampled upon by this administration at Guantanamo Bay.” He continued, saying “I acted on behalf of Ali Faruq Ahmed. I knelt on the steps of the Supreme Court on behalf of the prisoners there who have been forced to kneel and do not have a right to stand up for themselves in Court.”

The second defense witness was Tim Nolan, who said, “I represent Fnu Fazaldad and all the people being held in Guantanamo Bay who have never appeared in a court such as this.” A nurse practitioner who lives in Asheville NC with his wife and three children, he provides health care for people with HIV in the rural South. He said that as a medical professional his ethical principles compelled him to speak out against the treatment of prisoners at Guantanamo. “I act on my ethical principles in my daily life: if I know child abuse is occurring, I am required to report it. I know medical providers helped facilitate the torture at Guantanamo, and these abuses also must be acted upon.”

When the Judge dismissed them for the day, the thirty-four defendants (as one case was dismissed yesterday), some in orange jump suits or orange T-shirts and some in ordinary attire, filed out of the courtroom along with their supporters. They gathered across the street to review the day and re-examine their strategy for the fourth day of this trial. Evident in the discussion were mutual regard and a process of consensus, both essential key ingredients that enabled individuals to speak on behalf of the entire group of thirty-four people who are being tried.

Tomorrow they will call and examine more witnesses, continuing the process.