Taking the elevator down to meet the TV cameras on the steps of the U.S. District Court on Tuesday, October 1, government lawyers broke character. The stern and humble air they displayed in front of U.S. Magistrate Judge John L. Weinberg went out the window, and the group morphed into prankish frat boys.
"I thought the judge was going to rule the other way," a breathless woman beamed at Assistant U.S. Attorney Andrew Hamilton. Hamilton had just finished arguing that accused al Qaeda supporter James Ujaama was too big a security risk to be released from detention during his trial.
"Oh, I knew how he was going to decide," preened Hamilton, a thin, fiftysomething man who looks like a less regal Lyndon B. Johnson.
After a two-hour hearing, Judge Weinberg dismissed the defendant's arguments--including praise from leaders like King County Executive Ron Sims and former Mayor Norm Rice--about Ujaama's community work, and agreed with Hamilton's claims that Ujaama's alleged al Qaeda ties made Ujaama a risk. Ujaama was cuffed and led out of the stately room.
Bearded, gaunt, and wearing government-issue clothes, Ujaama forced a brittle smile for supporters in the rows of wooden benches, including one woman in a lime green full-length tunic and black burqa who sobbed during the hearing.
Ujaama was on his way back to what his attorneys described as "outrageous and oppressive conditions," where, they contend, he has no hot water, is living in a cold solitary-confinement cell, and only gets a half-hour of recreation in a "dog pen" cage. Sending Ujaama back to this sort of confinement--typically reserved for convicted criminals and not those standing trial--outraged Ujaama's family, mainly because the prosecution presented no hard evidence.
"All the prosecutors did was assert that my brother is a danger," James' brother Mustafa said. "They presented no substantial evidence. Isn't the burden of proof supposed to be on the prosecution?"
Mustafa is right. If James Ujaama is a threat, Hamilton provided no specifics in court. Sure, there was talk about James' travels to Afghanistan and James' connections to inflammatory and high-profile London-based Islamic cleric Abu Hamza (in my opinion, the feds' real quarry in their intimidating prosecution of James), but Hamilton provided no tangible evidence of violence or plotting.
Indeed, what's eerie about Judge Weinberg's detention decision is that it seems based on sealed evidence. While much of what I know about courtrooms comes from TV, I do know this basic legal principle: The prosecution can't ask a judge to consider evidence that the defense hasn't seen.
James' attorney, Peter Offenbecher, raised this point during the hearing, but was dismissed by Judge Weinberg, who said plainly: "That evidence is sealed."
Hamilton told The Stranger that the sealed evidence amounted to simple search warrant requests (i.e., not the findings of search warrants) from a related case, and there were no "earth-shattering" "surprises" in those affidavits that would have swayed Weinberg. The problem with Hamilton's point is that applications for search warrants contain testimony to establish probable cause (e.g., evidence from informants or witnesses)--and Ujaama's defense was not privy to this key evidence.
"The judge said he found 'persuasive evidence,'" Offenbecher says. "But the only thing offered by the government was an assertion in open court without evidence that James Ujaama did this or that. No documents. No witnesses. No proof."
However, given the vague evidence (and the horror of 9/11), Hamilton was able to argue, "The problem with releasing Mr. Ujaama is he will always be a computer click away from Abu Hamza." Judge Weinberg concurred.
Ruling in hand, Hamilton--wearing his game face again--strode onto the stone plaza in front of the courthouse and addressed the TV cameras about the government's "victory."
According to Mustafa Ujaama, it's a strange victory for a government that prides itself on the tenet "innocent until proven guilty."
"If the judge is presuming my brother is innocent," Mustafa asked, "why did he detain him as a terrorist threat?"
(Note: It's come to my attention that vocal members of the African American community don't think Ujaama will get a fair trial because Judge Weinberg is a Jew. I'm a Jew. Was this article fair?)
