Grand Jury Repression of Muslim Students in California

Speak No Evil Again Israel, Or Else (Image by S)

The Orange County (California) district attorney’s office has convened a grand jury that will consider filing conspiracy charges against the Irvine 11, a group of Muslim students who disrupted a 2010 speech by the Israeli Ambassador Michael Oren. The students shouted over the Ambassador as he tried to deliver a speech on U.S.-Israeli security. They were disruptive enough to force Oren to take a 20-minute break. They were later arrested.

There is speculation that the move is politically motivated and intended to win conservative Jewish votes in conservative Orange County. Callers to the morning radio show, Air Talk, expressed shock that a grand jury was being convened for what is essentially a free-speech issue.

Grand juries are often used as a way to suppress popular movements and free speech. The grand jury has no power to convict the students; only to determine whether they should be charged with felony conspiracy. However, the grand jurors are not screened for bias. They can subpoena virtually any document, physical evidence or witness they desire, giving them phenomenal power to “fish” for anything that could be used against the suspects, or any of their friends, family or colleagues. The grand jury operates in secrecy. Defense lawyers are not allowed to be present and may not present evidence. Witnesses cannot obtain transcripts of their testimony and cannot take the 5^th. Either you appear and do what they say, or you are in contempt and face as much as two years in prison.

Fight Back Against Grand Juries

There is a movement to resist grand juries as they are often used to attack social movements. You can read about strategies for resisting grand juries at the No Compromise website: “How to Crush a Grand Jury the No Compromise Way.” You can also find out more about grand juries and grand jury resistance at the Grand Jury Resistance Project.

Subpoenas Envy In Chicago Redux

On Tuesday, January 25, union members will stand in “solidarity” outside Chicago’s federal court house with activists who are resisting grand jury subpoenas being used as fishing expeditions against the anti-war movement. All of those subpoenaed had been involved in completely legal activities in support of the anti-war effort. At least 18 unions or labor councils have passed resolutions supporting those resisting the subpoenas, including the 30,000-member Chicago Teachers Union.

The action by unions, while largely symbolic, nevertheless indicates their clear understanding of how national security laws are being used to intimidate people from expressing their rights to free expression and assembly. True solidarity would involve taking some risk, like going on strike until the subpoenas are withdrawn. Nevertheless, the fact that some unions have taken an anti-war stance in the first place could be considered progress. During the Viet Nam war, many unions were outright hostile to protesters and some served as goon squads that beat up and intimidated activists.

Some union members are among those subpoenaed and refusing to cooperate. Stephanie Weiner and her husband Joe Losbaker, both SEIU members, had their home raided and computers and personal items confiscated. They are refusing to cooperate with the subpoenas. The SEIU Illinois is likening the subpoenas to the Palmer Raids and McCarthy hearings.

The use of subpoenas to intimidate and stifle dissent is an old, but effective tactic. Refusal to cooperate can result in contempt charges and prison time. You cannot plead the fifth to avoid self-incrimination during grand jury investigations.

Chicago is no stranger to the political subpoena. HUAC issued subpoenas for Jerry Rubin and Abbie Hoffman following the 1968 Democratic National Convention demonstrations. Activists who weren’t subpoenaed suddenly came down with Subpoenas Envy. Hoffman and Ruben made a mockery of the process, attending in a Santa Claus outfit and draped in the American flag, respectively.