http://www.workers.org/ww/2001/dcsuit0329.html
Via Workers World News Service
Reprinted from the March 29, 2001
issue of Workers World newspaper
-------------------------
IAC vs. UNITED STATES
'Cops & Bush team violated rights of inaugural protesters'
By Brian Becker
Attorneys representing the International Action Center and other
organizations and individuals charged that the Washington police force and
federal law enforcement agencies violated the free speech rights of
protestors at the Jan. 20 counter-inaugural demonstration.
The J20 lawsuit represents a groundbreaking legal and political effort to
challenge the common use of unconstitutional police tactics against
progressive political demonstrations throughout the United States.
"It is obvious to all the activists in the anti-globalization and anti-racist
movements that the police have opted for a new strategy since Seattle that is
aimed at repressing this new movement before it blossoms into a massive
struggle," said Larry Holmes, a co-director of the IAC.
Tens of thousands of people protested on Jan. 20 in Washington against racist
disenfranchisement and the death penalty, in support of Mumia Abu-Jamal, in
defense of women's rights and in opposition to George W. Bush's right-wing
program.
IAC, et al v. United States
A long list of allegations of police misconduct was included in the March 15
amended complaint to a federal lawsuit, "International Action Center, et al
v. The United States," which was originally filed in a U.S. District Court in
the days before the massive J20 demonstrations.
The suit charges that law enforcement agencies used unconstitutional tactics,
including "agents provocateurs" who carried out unprovoked felonious assaults
using pepper spray on peaceful demonstrators; detained hundreds of people
before they reached the site of the demonstration at Freedom Plaza; and
allowed the Presidential Inaugural Committee to take control of a security
checkpoint to prevent or delay protesters from approaching Freedom Plaza.
The suit charges that the police Civil Disturbance Units' tactics on Jan. 20
included the "routine use of paramilitary force and threat of force; mobile
police and riot lines to splinter groups ... administrative detention, false
imprisonment and false arrest in which the CDUs will, after splintering
groups, trap them on all sides, seize, detain and arrest demonstrators in the
absence of probable cause."
Lawyers from the Partnership for Civil Justice and the National Lawyers Guild
filed the amended lawsuit. The suit was originally argued in a Jan. 18
hearing before U.S. District Judge Gladys Kessler. The protest organizers had
gone to court charging that the police security plans for the inaugural event
were being used as a pretext to inhibit, obstruct or prevent anti-Bush
demonstrators from exercising their right to free speech.
The judge ruled on Jan. 19 that the police security plan was "constitutional"
but insisted that the demonstrators be given equal treatment with Bush
supporters. While the tens of thousands of anti-Bush demonstrators had an
overwhelming presence along the inaugural parade route, they encountered a
wide variety of police attacks on Jan. 20.
One of the most dramatic allegations in the amended complaint charges that
"agent provocateurs," presumably undercover cops, unleashed a fierce,
unprovoked attack along the parade route at the Navy Memorial at 7th and D
Street. They pepper sprayed protesters directly in the eyes and mouth. Many
were injured in the attack that lasted several minutes. Other plainclothes
agents carried out unprovoked beatings of demonstrators.
The pepper-spraying attack and beatings by undercover police agents are
graphically depicted in video footage taken by demonstrators.
'We can win!'
The lawyers and IAC representatives held a news conference on March 15 to
explain why they are going forward with the free speech lawsuit. The
Washington Post, Associated Press, ABC-TV, ABC Radio and other media attended
the news conference.
"We are challenging the tactics, deployment and use of Civil Disturbance
Units by the D.C. Metropolitan Police Department, acting in conjunction with
federal law enforcement authorities. People are being presumptively treated
as criminals merely because they are exercising their constitutional right to
demonstrate and express their political views," said Mara Verheyden-Hilliard,
a lawyer with the Partnership for Civil Justice.
Protest organizers contended in their original suit that the checkpoints were
not really about "presidential security" but a pretext to prevent
demonstrators from getting equal access to the parade route.
In her Jan. 19 ruling, Judge Kessler allowed the government to proceed with
the use of a security plan that included the unprecedented use of checkpoints
designed to screen, frisk and search hundreds of thousands of people outside
of the inaugural parade route.
But her ruling was explicitly premised on the guarantees made by government
attorneys that the rights of demonstrators would not be violated.
Despite promises made by the government in the Jan. 18 federal court hearing,
the amended suit charges that the checkpoints were used to prevent
demonstrators from gaining access to Pennsylvania Ave.
"They turned control of the Freedom Plaza checkpoint over to the Presidential
Inaugural Committee. The PIC thereafter refused to allow the checkpoint to
open, even though other checkpoints were open. This proves that the
protesters' concerns from the start were justified--these checkpoints were
solely to benefit the PIC, and the incoming president's political allies,"
stated Carl Messineo of the Partnership for Civil Justice.
The suit also charges that the police used unconstitutional tactics that have
been widely employed against other demonstrations since the November 1999
Seattle anti-globalization protests shook the political establishment.
On Jan. 20, for example, hundreds of demonstrators were detained at 14th and
K streets, NW, as they tried to march from Dupont Circle to Freedom Plaza.
Police sealed both ends of the block and beat a number of people.
The same tactic was used against a legal demonstration sponsored by the IAC
last April 15. Nearly 700 people were arrested at that action, which was
calling for the freedom of death-row prisoner Mumia Abu-Jamal.
"The police used very similar tactics in Washington, D.C., last spring, and
at the two political conventions in Philadelphia and Los Angeles last summer,
and these tactics were repeated on Jan. 20," Holmes noted.
"Every significant social movement can expect to meet such resistance and
repression from the system that serves the interests of Wall Street
corporations and the biggest banks.
"Our lawsuit is part of a larger political struggle to overcome
state-sponsored repression. We can win by combining mass organizing of the
people around the issues that are vital to their lives while simultaneously
mounting a vigorous defense of our rights through the legal process," Holmes
explained.
The outcome of the J20 lawsuit is seen in the progressive legal community as
an important step in the struggle to combat the national assault on free
speech rights.
"The National Lawyers Guild urges the media and the general public, as well
as our members, to monitor this case. We are aware of similar attacks on free
speech in other jurisdictions, and fully support this lawsuit and other
efforts to defend the precious constitutional right of free speech,"
concluded Zachary Wolf, national vice-president of the NLG.
To obtain a copy of the amended lawsuit, visit the Web site
www.justiceonline.org. Send financial contributions to the IAC Free Speech
Fund, 39 West 14th St., Suite 206, New York, New York 10011. To make an
online contribution, visit the Web site www.iacenter.org.
- END -
