Four weeks ago, I was unlawfully arrested in Beirut and sent to jail.  As a result of the collective pressure from national and international public opinion, which you played a prominent role in generating, I was released. That was a week ago.

During the past week, I have tried hard to catch up with the events that took place during my detention.  For during the three weeks of detention, I was in total darkness as to what was going on outside of the prison, and could only learn a little bit about it from my wife, son, and daughter, during brief visits with them. Not only were they always exhausted from their efforts to obtain written permits for the visits, but, while visiting, they also had to compete with many others, who were visiting relatives in detention, for the extremely scarce space made available for a very limited time under the watchful eyes and ears of prison guards and their spies.  The same conditions prevailed each time I was visited by my law associates, who were in charge of the legal efforts to set me free. I was not permitted to read newspapers or receive any printed matter including materials pertaining to my own case.  I was not allowed to contribute to my own defense.

When I was released, and while in the front yard on my way to the prison gate, I was met by applause from a small crowd that was gathered outside the gate to receive me.  That applause was immediately echoed by thunderous applause from inside the jail from hundreds of inmates who could guess what was taking place.  An even more pleasant surprise was that the prison guards at and around the gate joined in the applause.  As I could clearly interpret the moment as one of solidarity against oppression, it was a most gratifying moment indeed.

In the weeks that I spent in detention and the week that followed, I thought hard trying to determine the motives of the real decision makers, those who are ultimately responsible for my unlawful arrest and detention and not the ones who fronted for them. I could think of tens of reasons. Nevertheless, one reason appeared to me as the most compelling.  Not only have I been defending victims of oppression, human and civil rights violations, and abuse of power, but I have also been working hard to teach such victims and other potential victims their rights, civil and human, as well as how to defend themselves on their own. I have always believed, and continue to believe, that nothing empowers people like consciously knowing their rights and believing that they have a fair chance to defend and save such rights. People go down when they are ignorant or unaware of their rights or choose not to defend them.  Each time an individual abandons or abdicates his or her human and civil rights, it is like committing suicide. Such abandonment or abdication of rights should never be permitted to happen.

As my law practice has always been the primary springboard for my rights-teaching venture, the parties that felt most threatened by my endeavors have concluded that my career as a lawyer must end.  Furthermore, they decided to put the heat on my law associates and the other lawyers who openly support me by threatening them with disciplinary measures. One such lawyer, who was present at my press conference of September 2, 2003, was summoned the following morning in a hurry by the president of the Bar Association at Beirut ("BAB") for an explanation of the reasons for his attendance. Two of the lawyers handling the paper work related to my release were also similarly summoned.  The president of the BAB openly maintains that no lawyer may represent me without first seeking his personal written permission! In other words, not only are they trying to eliminate me as counsel for others or myself, but they are also trying to deprive me of my civil and human right to counsel. The paradox was not lost on a columnist for a local French language newspaper, L’Orient Le Jour (September 3, 2003), who remarked the following under the title “Le Silence”:  

Menu de régime, salade. D’avocat. En général, un avocat ça défend. Un avocat général ça attaque. Dans l'affaire Moghrabi, l’Ordre (d’avocats) cotois le parquet.  Un tableau terre à terre qui rappelle le néoréalisme italien.”