AMCHA to court: Closing the AIPAC trial to the public could lead to a second Dreyfus affair

It is a legal document I had to read twice as to make sure that it's real - that those writing it really mean what it says - that they actually dare to compare the trial of the two former AIPAC lobbyists, Steve Rosen and Keith Weissman, to the one held in 19th century France against Captain Alfred Dreyfus.

But there it is, black on white: "This is precisely what occurred in France during [and after] the closed trial of Captain Alfred Dreyfus." "This" meaning a trial behind closed doors serving as the perpetrator of speculation, lies and innuendo - what this document sets out to prevent. It was filed to the court ("amicus curiae") by AMCHA, The Coalition for Jewish Concerns, in support of the defendants' desire to strike any intent by the prosecution to use the method known as the "silent witness." This procedure enables the prosecutors to provide evidence to the defense and to the jury, but still withhold it from any public consumption.

The battle over the openness of this trial started a while back, and AMCHA is not the first organization to file in support of the defense's position. In late March the defense argued (read it here) that the government is trying to use means that will make the trial "fundamentally unfair." News organizations, among them The Associated Press and The Washington Post, joined in opposition to the closing of parts of the trial. Lucy Dalglish of the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, which spearheaded the motion by media outlets, explained in the Post that "We're concerned that this case is going to be much more secret than necessary." Not an amazingly surprising stance on either the defense's or the media's part.

But the fresh memorandum, by AMCHA, takes this debate to a whole new, breathtaking, level. It claims that closing the trial could serve to "fan anti-Jewish feeling" and uses the example of Dreyfus as proof: "Why did the secret trial of Alfred Dreyfus cause such widespread anti-Jewish feelings? Due to the fact that the evidence against Dreyfus had been shielded from the public." In the name of fellow Jews, AMCHA claims that "The American Jewish community has a particular interest in ensuring that the trial does not lead to the same result."

Ultimately, the court will be the one pondering the legal arguments appearing in this new memorandum. But some points can be made in regard to memorandum even before the judge makes up his mind.

1. About the organization:

AMCHA is not one of the major Jewish organizations, but apparently, it is the one that is willing to take the risk of joining the defense in this case. Many months ago I wrote that "There are signs that the Jewish community is beginning to come to its senses regarding the AIPAC case - to perceive the significance of the moment and maybe even to take some action." However, translating comprehension to action isn't always easy, and just a couple of weeks ago Nathan Guttman reported in the Forward that "Several Jewish organizations are refusing to cooperate with the defense". AMCHA was brave enough - or foolish enough - to cooperate. But is it significant enough as to represent the interest of the American Jewish community?

2. About Rabbi Weiss:

The head of AMCHA is Rabbi Avi Weiss, a controversial and vocal activist. He is also one of the strongest proponents of clemency to the spy Jonathan Pollard, not a case with which Rosen and Weissman would want to be identified (they weren't indicted for espionage but were frequently called "spies" by less than knowledgeable media outlets covering this affair). Does relying on someone like Weiss a sign of weakness or desperation? He is a man of great wisdom and many accomplishments, but he is not the natural first choice for a trial lawyer tasked with helping Rosen-Weissman.

3. About the History:

Does this trial really carry any resemblance to the Dreyfus trial? It's a different era, a different country, a different system, a different accusation. Making this comparison demands some imagination, much ambition, and maybe a speck of chutzpah too.

Weiss has it, I guess, and Steve Rosen too. But does judge Ellis have it?



Previous blog I wrote about this trial: Did the government pressure AIPAC to stop paying Rosen's and Weissman's legal fees?).