|
Enthusiastic Crowd waits to see film
Tampa Theatre May 16, 2007
Photograph credit: Tone Andersen.
Scene from the Film
U.S. Attorney Paul Perez meets the press outside the courtroom after the verdicts were announced.
Photograph credit: Dalchows verden.
Family with Director Line Halvorsen and Director of Photography Tone Andersen at Tampa Theatre
Photograph credit: Tone Andersen.
Nahla and Line
Tampa Theatre, May 16, 2007
Photograph credit: Tone Andersen.
Photograph credit: Tone Andersen.
|
|
On many levels, the new documentary, USA vs Al-Arian, provides graphic evidence of how the "War on Terror" is failing us. It is painfully ironic that Americans may not get to see such an important film anytime soon. So far, U.S. film distributors and media networks have refused to show the film in the United States.
This new documentary by Norwegian filmmaker Line Halvorsen has been widely distributed and favorably reviewed in Europe and the Middle East. Recently, it won awards at the New Orleans International Human Rights Film Festival, the Canadian HotDocs Film Festival, and the Tromso Film Festival in Norway.
Thanks to local sponsorship, an enthusiastic hometown crowd filled the 1250 seats of historic Tampa Theatre for a single showing on May 16, 2007.
This film provides an up-close-and-personal view of the Al-Arian family as they struggle to cope with the government's arrest, prosecution, and imprisonment of their father and husband for his alleged role as a leader of a terrorist organization. In the film and in court, Sami Al-Arian's attorneys have described this as a freedom of speech case. Dr. Al-Arian and his family insist that he has never been a terrorist and that he has been unjustly targeted in the War on Terror because he is an outspoken Palestinian activist.
The film covers the period from Sami Al-Arian's arrest in 2003 to his plea agreement in 2006. Most of the film consists of scenes filmed live with family members. Context is provided using a combination of news clips and live interviews with key figures in the case.
Some viewers may be surprised when this family turns out to be so American—and so likeable. As they make their way through the justice system, this family gains the respect of all who meet them, including the audience, while respect for the government plummets. When the jury returns not one guilty verdict for any of the charges, we hear U.S. Attorney Paul Perez proclaim that the government is pleased and has not lost the case after all. The audience laughs at the absurdity of this.
Later, Mr. Perez fills us in on why Dr. Al-Arian is still in prison despite eight "not guilty" verdicts. He matter-of-factly describes how the "War on Terror" has changed the goal of the Department of Justice from court convictions to pre-emptive, unlimited detentions of persons who might be considered a threat by someone. It is clear from his words and from the conduct of this case that it no longer matters to the Department of Justice if the evidence won't stand up in court. The shock, embarrassment, and outrage that the audience feels as they hear this would also be felt by our whole nation if they were able to witness what has been going on in this case. As long as the film doesn't get distributed in the United States, there won't be much risk of that.
The government's trustworthiness is further eroded when, after the six month trial concluded, two jurors point out to the interviewer that the government's case was not weak—"there was no evidence."
Several local reviewers of the film were disappointed because they said the film did not present an objective airing of the evidence brought against Dr. Al-Arian at the trial and instead focused on the experiences of the family. Given that for at least ten years before the case went to trial news outlets flooded the Tampa Bay area with sensational stories that presumed guilt, criticizing the film for being subjective is ridiculous. In fact, the government's side of the case was well represented in the film's many news clips detailing the government's accusations and in the generous air time given to the U.S. Attorney and other government officials. The film also included excerpts from the prosecution's closing arguments and from Judge Moody's harsh scolding of Dr. Al-Arian at the sentencing.
Even though many of us hope for a detailed accounting of the evidence in future documentaries, this film remains an important contribution to our understanding of this case through the eyes of those who are on the receiving end of the War on Terror. In the face of these long years of government spin and sensational entertainment news, you don't have to agree with this film or this family to recognize that it provides a refreshingly honest look at a very human family suffering real pain at the hands of a government gone mad with its brutal "war on terror."
Before the film was shown, Line Halvorsen told the audience that whether you agree with Sami Al-Arian or not, "he is a man of principle" who "fights for what he believes in. And he's not afraid to speak his mind." Apparently, such conduct is not readily appreciated by the current Department of Justice.
The showing at Tampa Theatre was sponsored by the Tampa Chapter of the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR), the Tampa Chapter of Amnesty International, WMNF Community Radio, and Friends of Human Rights.
Panel Discussion
After the film, a panel discussion was moderated by WMNF News Director Rob Lorei. Members of the panel included:
- Abdullah Al-Arian, Sami's eldest son
- Line Halvorsen, Film Director
- Warren Clark, Pastor of First United Church of Tampa (UCC)
- Kay Long Masero, former producer for Fox News
- Linda Moreno, Defense Attorney
- Ron, one of the jurors from the trial
⇒ Listen to Panel Discussion
⇒ Read Transcript of Panel Discussion (pdf: 64 kb, 17 pages)
Kay Long Masero, a news producer who covered the entire six month trial, said that it became obvious to her early on in the trial that there was not much of a case. She said that if the trial had been televised, the American public would have been able to see "the shenanigans that went on in that courtroom" and outcome of the case would have been much different than the current situation with Sami Al-Arian still in prison.
Defense attorney Linda Moreno outlined troubling examples of the unusual treatment her client received before, during, and after his trial.
- One of the accusations was that Sami Al-Arian had lied to a newspaper reporter. The prosecution wanted that included in the plea agreement, but Ms. Moreno noted that if lying to reporters was a crime, more prisons would be needed because lots of politicians would be headed that way.
- Of the more than one thousand legal motions filed on behalf of Dr. Al-Arian, all were denied by the judge. She said she has never seen a federal case where every single defense motion was denied.
- Before the trial, Dr. Al-Arian was kept in isolation in the maximum security Special Housing Unit at Coleman Federal Prison. This unit is reserved for convicted violent offenders. Dr. Al-Arian and his codefendant were the only pre-trial prisoners detained at Coleman. While he was at Coleman pre-trial, he was denied phone calls and visits with his defense team for months at a time. When Ms. Moreno was allowed to visit with him to prepare for trial, she was restricted from bringing in more than three inches of documents which meant she couldn't bring the entire indictment because it was about six inches thick.
- The guards at Coleman would not carry legal documents. Every time he met with his attorneys while at Coleman, Dr. Al-Arian would have to hobble from his cell to a distant building with his hands and feet shackled and stooped over to balance piles of legal documents on his back.
- During the trial, the defense was prohibited from mentioning anything about the Israeli occupation of Palestinian lands or the context of activist speech about the occupation. Yet, the prosecution was allowed to bring many witnesses from Israel to testify, even though they had no direct relation to any of the charges in the case. The prosecution was also allowed to show films of the aftermath of a horrific suicide bombing in Israel, even though the prosecution admitted that Dr. Al-Arian was not accused of being involved in that bombing or in any acts of violence.
- There were many instances of mistranslations by the prosecution. One particularly absurd "mistake" was when they insisted the word was "brigades" when in fact it was "pancakes."
- The judge allowed a conversation with Sami Al-Arian that a man had in his dream to be admitted into the evidence against Al-Arian.
Also speaking during the panel discussion, Abdullah Al-Arian, Sami's eldest son, noted that the government had wire-tapped more than 400,000 conversations amounting to more than 20,000 hours. In court, the prosecution presented heavily edited clips without context, some less than a minute long. The defense had no access to what the government had cut out of the tapes.
USA vs Al-Arian Official Film Web Site
|
