ARMY SENDS FORMER WEST POINT OFFICIAL TO AFGHANISTAN, SEEKS TO BLOCK FREE SPEECH TRIAL

By Nick Mottern

The Federal government has notified U.S. Federal Judge Stephen C. Robinson
that it will move to block a free speech case against a former West Point
official because the Army is sending him to Afghanistan.

In a letter to the judge dated December 31, Jeanette A. Vargas, Assistant
U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York, said that the
government will move to stay the free speech case against J.B. Spisso
because his National Guard unit "will be deployed to Afghanistan on January
15, 2008, where he will be stationed for at least the next 15 months...and
therefore will not be able to participate in his defense."

Mr. Spisso was manager of the West Point basketball arena on February 28,
2004 when eight Westchester County, New York residents were arrested for
standing silently at the beginning of the annual Army-Navy basketball game
wearing T-shirts that together spelled out "U.S. Out of Iraq." The eight,
who had tickets to the game, were arrested by military police and were
subsequently barred from West Point for five years for "displaying
objectionable clothing during an Army-Navy basketball game."

After the eight hired civil rights attorney Michael Sussman, West Point
dropped the arrest charges but refused to drop the ban. The eight
immediately filed suit against Spisso and another West Point official for
violating their First Amendment rights.

After a variety of delays, several at the request of the government, Judge
Robinson ordered in 2007 that the case go to trial, rejecting the
government's motion that it be dismissed. The judge agreed, however, to
drop the other West Point official from the case, leaving Spisso as the sole
defendant.

"I am distressed that the governmment has not expempted Mr. Spisso from any
deployment orders," said Mr. Sussman, "so we can resolve the critical
constitutional issues the case raises. After deciding not to pursue an
appeal of Judge Robinson's orders, this deployment certainly raises
questions of whether in this changing political climate, the government is
seeking to evade movement on this case."

The government has promised to make a motion for a stay which, Mr. Sussman
said, the plaintiffs will oppose. "There are feasible means of proceeding
to trial even if the government insists on deploying this defendant."