Although most people I know are joyful that the Supreme Court recently reinstated the right of Habeus Corpus, few people are aware that some of our neighbors right here in the D.C. area mounted a campaign on behalf of the Guantanamo detainees which went to the D.C. Superior Court. Prior to the recent Supreme Court decision a friend who was arrested for these activities sent an account of some events related to this campaign. His account is about 2 and a half pages long so I am going to summarize it here with only a few sentences from each paragraph. The hearing for these citizens ended on May 29, only about 12 days prior to the decision by the Supreme Court to uphold Habeus Corpus.
These citizens were arrested for demonstrating in front of the Supreme Court building wearing orange jump suits and black hoods.
Here is the first full paragraph from account received on June 4:
"Last week, as prisoners continued to languish in the infamous and illegally-run US concentration camp of Guantanamo, I was fortunate to join 34 fellow criminals in Washington DC at the District of Columbia Superior Court as our case, for an act of peaceful civil resistance, was heard by a judge and prosecuted by one of America's officers of the court. Our court experience was far more than our unfortunate brothers in Guantanamo have received after 6 years in their open-ended confinement. Approximately 270 Guantanamo prisoners are held in captivity without charges, Habeas Corpus rights denied, access to civil courts denied, living in conditions of abuse, torture, and with little hope for life or liberty. Some have committed suicide because of their desperate situation."
"On January 11, 2008 hundreds of people solemnly processed from The National Mall to The United States Supreme Court marking the 6th year of the prison camp to redress our grievances against the US Government and its use of abusive treatment, torture, and the ending of Habeas Corpus rights for the Guantanamo prisoners.,...
Those of us who were arrested for our peaceful justice-advocacy for the prisoners were charged with "unlawful free speech" and a second charge, for those inside, of "causing a harangue". The "harangue" charge was eventually dropped.
After our arrest we were held for over 30 hours in a chain of custody from the US Supreme Court Police to the DC Metropolitan Police, and finally in holding cells below the courtroom by the US Marshals. We chose not to have any identification such as drivers' licenses and instead told the police that we were there in the name of a specific Guantanamo prisoner....
On May 27, 2008 we gathered for our trial in the DC Superior Court. As we went to trial our numbers had decreased from 80 initially arrested to 34 prepared for trial. Several of the 80 had made agreements with the government not to get arrested for 6 months and having their records cleared if they maintained this agreement. Others had their charges dropped for no apparent reason just before our trial....
The trial lasted three days ending late on Thursday May 29. During our trial almost half of my fellow co-defendants wore orange jumpsuits and remained silent and would not take an active role in their defense....
During the trial several of my codefendants made deeply moving and passionate statements concerning the rights of the prisoners, about the abuse and torture we know is inflicted upon them, the importance of Habeas Corpus, human rights, and international law. They spoke eloquently about why we were called by conscience and the need to follow a higher law that is above statutes that govern behavior in and around a federal building. We all acted peacefully at the US Supreme Court on January 11, 2008 and firmly believe that we were there to uphold the law...
During the trial the government failed to provide any evidence of our individual guilt....Nevertheless we were all found guilty by the judge....
We did what we did and went to trial because of the prisoners of Guantanamo. We were there for them. We were there to speak out for those who cannot. We were there to uphold international law, our constitution, our Bill of Rights, The Geneva Conventions, for justice and humanity....
We now all face one year of probation and a one year order to stay away from the US Supreme Court building, grounds, and the surrounding sidewalk. Some of us have fines of $50 and a few have, including myself, a $100 fine....
Our judge gave us these punishments because he said he wants us to learn a lesson. But, in reality the government is clamping down on peaceful dissent by jailing us and threatening us with more jail if we continue our nonviolent resistance to injustice....
As long as the Guantanamo concentration camp is open and in operation none of us is truly free. As long as the likes of Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, Gonzalez, and Yoo remain at large ordering, advocating, and approving of torture none of us is safe. As long as the bipartisan US Congress fails to restore Habeas Corpus and close Guantanamo we have lost our republic and tyranny will rule us...
For more information on the campaign to close Guantanamo, including pictures and video, information on the trial, and the work to end torture go to: http://www.witnesstorture.org/
Bush's petulant comment supporting the minority opinion from the Supreme Court (against the majority decision to restore habeas corpus rights for the prisoners at Gitmo) sends chills up my spine: he is only a baby step away from imposing the same denial of habeas corpus rights to American citizens on American soil. The excuse of Bush-Cheney and fellow-traveling Republicans is that the threat of terrorist attacks makes these perilous times "different" ignores the long historical struggle for habeas corpus in English history, and the high importance of securing exactly that right in the Declaration of Independence and our Constitution.
Holding prisoners secretly without charges, who are unable to notify relatives or get an attorney's advice, then never being brought to trial on specific charges, unable to face their accusers, unable to know what evidence the government had against them--- this was done by British kings who faced what they thought was a perilous "different" situation, too: treason, rebellion, religious spies, rival candidates for their throne, spying for hostile foreign powers and so on... every bit as frightening and dangerous in their time, if not more so, than what we face today from "terrorists." The big breakthrough in English law was establishing that, regardless of whatever threat a suspect was considred to be to the state, that suspect was entitled to exactly the same rights as any other subject of the crown... Regardless of any opinion of the king that the suspect was dangerous. The barons at Runnymeade forced King John to terms with the Magna Carta; Bush obviously thinks he himself is King John, above the law.
The Rule of Law is not fungible. It is not subject to the personal whim of the King (or the President), and the top executive is not above the law. It applies most especially when it is not convenient, even when the accused is slimey, alien, dangerous, and unlikeable. When denied to the least among us, it is denied to all of us.
Thank you to the demonstrators who marched on the Supreme Court... peacefully.