civil disobedience Archives - Witness Against Torture

Manijeh Saba Acquitted in Jan 9, 2019 Supreme Court Protest Case

Fast for Justice 2019 // Film

March 29, 2019

On March 27, U.S. District Court Judge Deborah A Robinson granted Manijeh Saba’s Motion for Judgment of Acquittal of the charge of illegally protesting on the steps of the Supreme Court on January 9, 2019. She agreed that the government failed to show that Manijeh had violated the statute by bringing into public notice a party, organization or movement. Judge Robinson went on to explain that although she appeared as one of five holding a sign, the sign did not refer to a party, organization or movement. The sign read, “We Target, We Torture, We Terrify: Who Are We?” There was no mention of Guantanamo Bay on her clothing or on the sign or in the words to the song they were singing: “Know where you stand — No More War; Know where you stand and stand there!”

Manijeh’s trial began on March 6. On March 27, she continued her cross-examination of Supreme Court Chief of Police, Jeffery Smith. Acting as her own attorney (pro se), she asked carefully constructed questions making the point that the charged offenses, and subsequent treatment during over 24 hours in police custody, were far harsher than the defendant’s nonviolent conduct warranted.

Here is an excerpt from her cross examination of the Supreme Court Chief Of Police:

Saba: Were we orderly and peaceful? Smith: Yes
Saba: Is it true that we did not interfere with ingress or egress to the Supreme Court? Smith: Yes
Saba: Was it standard procedure to arrest me? Smith: Yes.
Saba: Did you know they would hold me overnight? Smith: Yes.
Saba: Was it standard procedure not to have a phone call? Smith: I can’t answer that.
Saba: Was it standard procedure not to have enough clothing? ….. My outer garments were removed and held, and when I was released from jail without any ID or money I had to find my way back to the Supreme Court without winter garments. Smith: That was transport. I cannot speak for what happened.

When all the testimony had been presented, Manijeh delivered her Motion for Judgment of Acquittal (MJOA), a motion asking that the charges be dropped. Her statement began:

Firstly, the law is too broad, as Chief Judge Howell articulated [in Hodge v. Tarsi]. The law is intended to ensure decorum and prevent disruptive demonstrations that would prevent ingress or egress to the Court, which did not occur in this case. Therefore, a conviction for being behind a banner on the lower steps is not in keeping with the intention of the legislature and is an improper application of this law.

Secondly, the charge is for a de minimus violation which should not result in a conviction. There is no signage to indicate that you lose your first amendment rights at the temple of justice, the very place where such rights should be protected. There was no proper warning, since the police could have easily told us that we could lawfully demonstrate just a few feet away on the sidewalk. It is not proper for the police to say that the warning is meaningful, since they say “You are in violation of Title 40″ – am I really in violation of all several hundred pages of that title of the US code?

Judge Robinson obviously understood the reasonableness of Manijeh’s MJOA and the importance of the First Amendment. After hearing the government’s and defendant’s testimony and reviewing the videotape of the arrests and arrest photos she concluded that the government failed to offer evidence that their purpose was for assemblage or display to bring into public notice a movement. Moreover, she stated that there was no proof that Manijeh was in a nexus with the people on the sidewalk who were protesting Guantanamo.

Afterwards Mark Goldstone, her Attorney Advisor, said, “Manijeh Saba has tirelessly advocated for First Amendment freedom of speech rights since becoming a citizen many years ago. She spoke out non-violently on the steps of the Supreme Court. She defended herself in Court and her voice was heard as she won an acquittal using her voice to speak truth to power.”

Manijeh’s persistence should give us hope, even in the times when we do not prevail in court. She had no idea she would be acquitted when she said in her opening statement on March 6:

I engaged in a peaceful, inspiring demonstration against unending bombing and killing of Yemenis that our government supports. With respect to Guantanamo, I was protesting the unlawful detentions and demanding the release of five Muslim men who have been approved for release, and 32 Muslim men who shouldn’t have been detained in the first place, as determined by the courts. I was standing on the safe public grand plaza of the Supreme Court. I crossed no barrier or barricade. My conduct was heartfelt and peaceful in defense of my inalienable right to speak for peace and Justice. Therefore, it did not seem reasonable to me for the officer to stop us from speaking out peacefully by arresting us.

Manijeh’s legal defense was expensive and although WAT has been able to contribute some from general funds, she’s still got a long way to go. To help her, write checks out to Witness Against Torture, with “Manijeh legal defense” in the subject line and mail to:

New York Catholic Worker
Attn: Witness Against Torture
55 East Third St.
New York, NY 10003

Manijeh Saba fell ill during court proceeding: Her trial continues on March 27

In Focus - Front Page // Film

Manijeh Saba’s trial in U.S. District Court for the charge of protesting on the steps of the Supreme Court began on Wednesday March 6th. On January 9, she and four others were calling out the U.S. government’s complicity in war atrocities against the people of Yemen as well as its ongoing torture of Muslim men at Guantanamo Prison. They were arrested on January 9, but charges were dropped against three others and Joanne Lingle pleaded guilty.

Early in Wednesday’s proceedings Manijeh fainted, and Judge Deborah A. Robinson scheduled a continuation of the trial on March 27 at 10:30 in Courtroom 4 of the Prettyman U.S. District Courthouse, 333 Constitution Avenue NW, 2^nd floor. Please come for support, if you can!

After trial preliminaries Manijeh presented her opening statement. As she spoke, she needed to pause as she became overcome with emotion and also began to feel faint. Judge Robinson asked if she would like to sit down, but she insisted on completing her statement:

Good Morning your Honor, I’m Manijeh Saba.

Today, you will hear that I allegedly violated a law by protesting. I intend to show you that my actions were not illegal, that they were an exercise of my First Amendment Rights. I will ask you, at the end of this trial, to find me not guilty, because my conduct is protected by the First Amendment of our Constitution.

I am a 72 years old Iranian-American mother, grandmother of three, and married to Majid Maleki for 46 years. I came to the United States in 1977 for graduate studies. I am a political sociologist with focus on women and development.

I was born in Iran, in a military household during a short-lived, decade of burgeoning democracy whose life was cut short, thanks to the US-British coup d’état of 1953. Hence, I have experienced two authoritarian regimes in Iran, one that of the Shah, and the other the continuing brutal theocracy of the Islamic Republic. As a result, I know what it means to live under a dictatorial regime.

As I remember, I have always been curious, asked questions, and pushed against unreasonable boundaries. Therefore, resistance against totalitarianism, regardless of where it exists, and however it rears its vicious head, is a fundamental part of who I am.

I became a US citizen in 1996 and have voted in every election since then. As part of the citizenship process, I took the oath to “support and defend the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic”. I have great respect for our constitution and carry a copy with me at all times. I took the pledge of nonviolent resistance and have tried to follow the path of Mahatma Gandhi and Dr. Martin Luther King who, in the face of violence, gave their lives in promotion of peace and justice.

It is this background that has brought me before you today.

On January 6th of this year, the 17^th anniversary of the opening of Guantanamo prison, I joined Witness Against Torture for a week in Washington DC to fast, remember, and raise awareness about the 9 Muslim men who died in Guantanamo, and the condition of the 40 remaining in the extrajudicial trap of indefinite detention each for at least 10 years. Of the 40 Muslim men still detained there, 5 have been cleared for release, as not a threat to security. The US Federal courts have determined that 32 others are detained unlawfully. How could this happen in the United States? I could neither forget nor stand by, when innocent people including the hundreds who have already been released without charge from Guantanamo are targeted and tortured with no end in sight.

Also, we spent the week remembering the horrific condition of the people of Yemen due to the US backed Saudi led coalition war since March 2015. This war is being fought with the support of United States Intelligence as well sale of bombs made in the United States. This forgotten war on Yemen has so far killed 146, 000 people, at least 70,000 of them children, and has displaced millions of people, causing a humanitarian catastrophe. On August 9^th 2018 a Saudi warplane dropped a US made 500 pounds laser-guided bomb killing 40 school boys and 11 adults. And of the 79 civilians wounded by this bomb, 56 were children.

On January 9, we marched to the United States Supreme Court protesting all forms of torture and the on-going Guantanamo detentions, as well as the unending wars and mass destruction that our government is concurrently involved in globally, particularly in Yemen since 2015.

Dozens of us, members of Witness Against Torture, most in orange jump suits and black hoods, representing the Guantanamo detainees, arrived on the sidewalk before the steps of the Supreme Court in the early afternoon. We were singing and chanting, we carried signs and banners denouncing the United States-backed Saudi bombing of Yemen and called for the closure of Guantanamo.

Several people in orange jumpsuits and black hoods laid down on bloodied shrouds on the sidewalk. We also placed 36 blue children’s book bags on a bloodied shroud, bearing names of the children killed in Yemen on a school trip.

At first, I stood without a sign at the foot of the steps. Later, I was given a sign bringing attention to the boys Killed in Yemen. I held it up high. Several minutes later, someone else took the sign and I joined four others who were holding a banner that read:
We Target, We Torture, We Terrify! Who Are We?

As we stood there we repeatedly all sang:   “Know where you stand. No more war. Know where you stand, and stand there.”

A short while later, we who held the banner walked up the first few steps of the Supreme Court and stood on the grand front plaza. It was a place that was safe, open for us, and we posed no threat and or obstruction to anyone who would enter or leave the building. It was a very cold (about 35 degrees), quiet day with very little public activity on the front plaza of the court. We repeatedly sang the song, along with our group standing on the sidewalk at foot of the steps.

After a while standing there, a Supreme Court security officer gave us three warnings to disperse or get arrested. I continued holding the banner and singing “Know where you stand, no more war. Know where you stand and stand there.” I risked arrest and did not leave. Why didn’t I leave? Because I believed then, as I do now, that the First Amendment of the United States constitution that states:

“Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech, …or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances”

protects my action.

I engaged in a peaceful, inspiring demonstration against unending bombing and killing of Yemenis that our government supports. With respect to Guantanamo, I was protesting the unlawful detentions and demanding the release of 5 Muslim men who have been approved for release, and 32 Muslim men who shouldn’t have been detained in the first place, as determined by the courts. I was standing on the safe public grand plaza of the Supreme Court. I crossed no barrier or barricade. My conduct was heartfelt and peaceful in defense of my inalienable right to speak for peace and Justice. Therefore, it did not seem reasonable to me for the officer to stop us from speaking out peacefully by arresting us. Nor does it seem reasonable that they did not offer us the alternative to speak out with others a few feet away on the sidewalk. There is nothing that distinguishes the sidewalk from the step.

Around 1:00 PM I was arrested along with 4 other fellow protesters, and was taken to the basement of the Supreme Court for processing. I was not given a phone call. I was questioned after I said I did not want to speak without an attorney being present. And then, I was sent to jail overnight in terrible conditions before conviction. My experience in custody of the Supreme Court police of the United State was most unusual and shocking.

Who are We?

I appear before Your Honor today, asking if the Constitution condones the arrest and jailing of five peaceably assembled protesters. It is my belief that it does not. That is why I was there that day and why I continued to protest. I will show the court throughout this trial that the law under which I am charged criminalizes peaceful demonstration of dissent, and therefore, it is a thoughtless affront to our Constitution and our values as Americans. I hope you will find that peaceful political protest is fundamental to our democracy and not a crime in our society. This is, who we are.
Read to the court on March 6, 2019.

The government then began its case by putting the Supreme Court Chief of Police, Jeffery Smith, on the stand. Manijeh was sitting down while cross examining him, as she wasn’t feeling well. Judge Robinson called a ten minute recess for her, but during that time Manijeh fainted. She quickly revived, nurses and paramedics arrived, examined her and asked if she wished to go hospital but she declined. After the recess Judge Robinson decided to schedule a continuation at 10:30 am on Wednesday March 27 in Courtroom 4 of the Prettyman U.S. District Courthouse, 333 Constitution Avenue NW, 2^nd floor.

Many local peacemakers were unable to attend on March 6 because of other events, including the annual Ash Wednesday service in front of the White House. Now everyone is encouraged to come to support on March 27th!

To help Manijeh with her legal defense, write checks to Witness Against Torture with “Manijeh legal defense” in the subject line and mail to:
New York Catholic Worker
Attn: Witness Against Torture
55 East Third St.
New York, NY 10003

David Barrows’ Day in Court: A Most Persuasive Guilty Plea

News // Film

by Helen Schietinger

What’s a good outcome when you’re pleading guilty to calling out a major crime by breaking a minor law? On March 8, when David Barrows pleaded guilty to “disrupting Congress” last spring — warning the senators not to confirm Gina Haspel as CIA director — he achieved what some of us would call a significant achievement: the judge acknowledged that the government should not try to stop civil disobedience.

Here’s how the hearing went: David, with Attorney Mark Goldstone at his side, appeared in respectable Court Drag: he displayed a distinguished presence in his dress shirt, vest, tie and cuff links. David’s guilty plea was established, and then the government’s prosecutor spent an incredible amount of time presenting the government’s sentencing recommendation. First he extensively reviewed David’s (admittedly extensive) record of prior arrests and convictions. Then he correlated those events with when David had been on probation for previous infractions.

Arguing that David is a “Career Protestor,” the prosecutor said, “Mr. Barrows doesn’t stop his conduct unless he is on probation and threatened with jail…. The government doesn’t want him to go to jail, or do community service, or pay a fine, or report to CSOSA. The only way to stop his behavior is to order him to stay away. Therefore he should have a 6-months stay-away from all Congressional buildings and 5 years of probation.”

When Attorney Goldstone began his response, Judge Solerno cut him off, saying, “This isn’t about torture.” Mark pushed back, arguing that David spoke out because our government had destroyed videotapes that would have documented crimes, and the Senate was deciding whether to approve Gina Haspel, the very person who had authorized the destruction of those tapes, to head the CIA.

Judge Solerno reiterated that that wasn’t what this case was about.

Attorney Goldstone concluded by insisting that it was unreasonable for the government to ask for a maximum sentence for a nonviolent offense, in particular for saying something in a public place simply because the government wants to prevent speech there. Moreover, because the people have every right to be in and to speak out in Congressional buildings — public buildings — he challenged the stay-away order as inappropriate.

David then read his sentencing statement:

Your Honor, I would like to inform you about my state of mind and motive involved in the protest for which I enter a plea of guilty.

I admit that I spoke out during the Senate confirmation vote on Gina Haspel to head the Central Intelligence Agency, speaking from a visitor balcony in the United States Senate chamber so that my words of warning could be heard by the senators below. I did not curse, nor did I use obscenity, nor was I violent.

I simply warned that any senator who voted for Gina Haspel to become head of the CIA would be knowingly giving approval to, and career advancement to, an unrepentant overseer of torture and destroyer of evidence of torture who had never been held accountable. Ms. Haspel had supervised torture at a black site (a secret site) in Thailand where at least one man had been tortured to death under her watch.

Therefore, those senators voting for her would be rewarding behaviors deemed criminal in violation of the United Nations Convention Against Torture, the Geneva Conventions and the Nuremberg Principles and the Eighth Amendment. As a former United States Government employee I took an oath to defend the United States Constitution against all enemies, domestic and foreign. Haspel is now, despite all this, the director of the Central Intelligence Agency.

I had just heard Senators Leahy and Wyden say they would not vote for Haspel because of her unrepentant involvement in torture and her destruction of evidence of torture. The late Senator McCain, who was a torture survivor himself, had days before implored other senators to take this stand.

During the week of this critical vote I had stood in front of the Senate office buildings for 3 hours in the rain with a sign that read, “Any senator who votes to affirm a torturer as head of the CIA is a criminal as well.” I also wrote two letters about this issue to the editors of the Washington Post and the New York Times.

Today with the increased threats of nuclear wars and ever increasing climate disasters the whole human race is virtually floating on a life raft. When we entrust our fate to torturers and criminals, we sink our own ship.

I admit that I broke the Senate’s rules of etiquette and its criminal statute, but I did so because I believed that it was my duty as an American citizen to non-violently stand up and speak out for justice itself.

I thus ask this court for a sentence of community service in lieu of jail. I can do more good for the community outside of jail than within. What I did was speak up for victims and try to prevent further victims of torture.

Thank you, Your Honor.

When David finished, the courtroom was silent for an entire two minutes: his words had reached Judge Solerno.

When the judge finally spoke, he said he understood the prosecutor’s point about preventing repeat conduct, but “What we’re preventing — there’s nothing particularly dangerous or violent about it. There’s no reason to prevent civil disobedience. I don’t think a 5-year stay-away or probation would be useful.” He sentenced David to a 30-day suspended sentence with 9 months unsupervised probation, and 30 hours of community service and $50 to the Crime Victims Fund. During that time he is not to enter 11 of the 14 Congressional Buildings, but he is allowed on Congressional grounds.

David entered his guilty plea as part of a plea deal with the Government in return for their dropping charges in a more recent arrest, which resulted in not only the charge of interrupting Congress but also contempt of court. Only a few weeks before David had – in a Congressional hearing – confronted Elliott Abrams whom Trump had appointed as head of U.S. interventions in Venezuela. (Years ago Abrams was convicted of the felony of perjury for lying to Congress to cover up massacres in Central America by the Contras.) Given these multiple charges, David was faced with almost certain jail time.

David Barrows is extremely grateful to those who were able to be in court for him. He wants them to know that they were as important an audience as the judge: “They were the friends who could bring the best out in me.”

Some activists would wish for the ultimate goal: for the court to find David innocent because he was fully justified in using civil resistance to call out injustice and criminal behavior by the government. But until that day comes, this was a very successful day in court!