A few years ago, while still a political consultant, I was quoted in the Weekly Planet about the matter of Sami Al-Arian. I concluded that the most interesting thing about it was how the media had covered the case, with the Planet's coverage siding with the defense, the Tampa Tribune siding with the prosecution, and the St. Petersburg Times critical of USF. Times change, but the division in our community over the case of the United States of America v. Sami Amin Al-Arian et al., hasn't. In a series of dispatches from what will undoubtedly be The Summer of Sami, I hope to navigate through the long, messy trial process with a wider lens, pointing out when I think either this newspaper or any other media has lost its balance.
The excitement in the local media about the coming trial of Sami Al-Arian and three others on terrorism-related charges isn't exactly palpable.
Who can blame the reporters who will have to cover this Byzantine affair? As the Al-Arian trial begins with jury selection this week (May 16), they see nothing ahead but months of mind-numbing testimony and the possibility that the trial may get moved out of Florida anyway.
So it was, on a slow-news Wednesday, that about a dozen print, radio and television reporters, photographers and videographers gathered to hear the ground rules from federal courthouse officials on how this Al-Arian thing will be covered. Logistically, it is going to be a challenge, especially for the TV types who need juicy video or audio feeds to power their newscasts. In federal court, however, no taping of any kind is allowed. Broadcast TV stations will have to settle, instead, for a courtroom artist's sketches and for whatever videotaped or audiotaped evidence is used in court.
That will make for some boooo-rrriiiinngggg TV. If you wondered why Court TV is re-enacting the Michael Jackson trial with actors every day, it is exactly because of this type of video ban. And for the conspiracy theorists out there, take notice; these restrictions pre-date the Al-Arian trial and are standard for federal court.
The limited access is probably why we're not seeing much interest from national media in the terrorism trial of the century. According to federal court clerk's officials, the only out-of-town media that have contacted them about covering the trial are the Miami Herald and Orlando Sentinel. Where's al Jazeera and Fox News when you really need them?
The trial is expected to last six months. My guess is that by week 3, most of the media will have blown out of this thing, leaving only the Planet and the two local daily newspapers, with occasional drop-ins from radio (WUSF and WMNF had representatives at the media meeting) and TV reporters when explosive (excuse the term) witnesses are called.
Preparing for the trial has done one interesting thing. It has brought together normally warring media companies – print and broadcast alike – to work together in pool arrangements to get the information to the public.
Now if only we could do the same in the Middle East.
Meanwhile, there is the man whose freedom hangs in the balance, Sami Al-Arian. The former University of South Florida computer engineering professor suffered another setback even before trial began on May 10 when prosecutors persuaded U.S. District Judge James S. Moody Jr. to disallow a "Palestinian history defense." Specifically, the four defendants will not be permitted to introduce the history of Palestine, the Arab-Israeli conflict, the occupation by Israel of land in conflict with U.N. resolutions, the intifadas, and all such historical precedents for why Al-Arian is such a vociferous critic of Israel and staunch defender of a free Palestine. Al-Arian and his co-defendants will not be allowed to excuse their alleged activities on the grounds that Palestinians are legal combatants in a war against Israel, or that Palestinians' right to return to their lands justifies attacks on Israeli military or civilians.Defense lawyers argued that trying to have jurors understand Al-Arian's actions without the context of the Israeli-Palestinian dispute would be akin to trying to understand Nelson Mandela without discussing apartheid.
To exclude the Palestinian defense would "bleach this case dry of the history that is its precursor," said William Moffitt, Al-Arian's lawyer. Moffitt invoked everyone and everything from Nathan Hale to the First Amendment in trying to sway Judge Moody, without success.
The government's argument was a bit more simple to grasp: Al-Arian and his co-defendants are charged with criminal activities, and jurors should decide whether they committed those crimes regardless of complex and disputed political realities halfway across the world.
Moody agreed, transposing the issue into a strained analogy about Martin Luther King and the civil rights movement. If King gave a speech, Moody queried, and one of his supporters committed a robbery during the speech to feed the supporters, could the robber introduce evidence of the history of slavery and racism and the civil rights movement in American to justify his or her actions?
Huh?
It was interesting to see how the newspaper accounts panned out. After all, Al-Arian's lawyers have a) said it is crucial to give the context of the Palestinian struggle and b) accused the Tribune of relentless bias in its decade-long coverage. The Trib handed them some more evidence for that assertion. Instead of leading its May 11 account with the Palestinian argument, the newspaper focused on the fact that Moody is considering a change of venue. (The newspaper had already written about the defense's change of venue motion, which was inspired in large part by its own reporting.) The Times and the Associated Press led with the Palestinian defense issue and mentioned the possible change of venue lower in the story.
Moody did reveal during the hearing that he has checked with other federal courthouses about the availability of a courtroom for six months should he have to move the trial from Tampa. The leading candidate seems to be Arlington, Va. Atlanta, a site that seemed to be a defense favorite in its change of venue motion, is not an option because there is not a courtroom available.
After ruling on the scope of the trial, Moody moved quickly to gag the media with an order that prohibited reporting details about potential jurors. The jury, to prevent tampering, will be anonymous during the course of the trial. Moody aims to keep them that way, ordering the media not to photograph jurors, sketch them or give identifying details about them in any way. A judicial assistant later clarified the order, quoting Moody as saying: "You may make general comments like "there are eight men and four women on the jury." You cannot describe the jurors. You cannot say where the jurors work or give other specifics. You cannot say anything that would cause a co-worker to recognize or figure out who a juror might be."
Moody's order amounts to an unconstitutional prior restraint against the media, according to David M. Snyder, the Planet's media lawyer in Tampa. "What transpires in the courtroom is public property," Snyder said. "The court can't take that away by fiat."
Snyder pointed to a March 2005 ruling in a New York case in which a very similar gag order was overturned on appeal.
The Weekly Planet joined the Trib, Times, Newschannel 8 and ABC Action News, among others, in challenging Moody's gag order.
This article appears in May 18-24, 2005.