"War on Terror" Morphs into Attack on Dissent

I read a newspaper article (L.A. Times, June 18, 2009) two weeks ago that reminded me of a recent comment to this blog.

This person wrote: “I am very grateful for the Rosenberg Fund. I visit the family of an innocent man, incarcerated for being a Muslim.* The Rosenberg Fund pays for their [children’s] school tuition. In the case of my friend, their father's sentence is 15 years. He will only miss their childhoods. But, fifteen years is a long time when you are only 3.” (*The RFC provided a grant to this family after determining that the man in question was targeted for his anti-war activities.)

I was very disturbed to learn that this activist has been transferred to what the Federal Bureau of Prisons calls a “Communication Management Unit,” more colorfully labeled by some inmates “Little Guantanamo.” This transfer also put a special burden on this large family and the RFC’s prison visit travel program (Attica Fund) because this new location is far away from where the family lives.

The article I read addressed these new control units, the lawsuits they are generating and the inmates who populate them. It reported on a suit filed by the ACLU on behalf of a similarly situated Muslim alleging that such transfers violate prisoners’ rights by transferring them with neither hearings, nor opportunity to contest the transfer. It also questions the legality of the units themselves.

The Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) is about to file a similar suit. The article notes, “Inmates in the unit get one 15-minute phone call a week and two two-hour visits a month.” It goes on to quote someone I know quite well: “‘These are political prisons,’ says Rachel Meeropol, a staff attorney at the [CCR]. ‘These people are being targeted to limit their ability to communicate with the outside world, and to limit their ability to be political people.’”

The article concluded by discussing the case of Daniel McGowan, who recently was transferred to a similar unit. Although not an RFC beneficiary, Daniel was swept up in a wave of “Green Scare” cases that have generated a number of new RFC beneficiary families. He was convicted of burning a lumber company’s empty office and given a “terrorist enhancement” to his seven-year sentence because of the political nature of his crime. Daniel believes he was transferred because he remained politically active in prison and published a blog. Lauren Regan, his attorney, with whom I toured the Pacific Northwest in the fall of 2007, noted that the only difference between Daniel and other Green Scare defendants who were not transferred was “the outreach that he was doing and the voice that he had behind bars.”

This convergence of circumstances between religious and racially profiled Muslim anti-war activists, and those fighting the corporate destruction of our environment, is one of the clearest demonstrations I’ve seen of using draconian post-9/11 laws and procedures to expand the “war on terror” into a more general attack on dissenting movements throughout the nation.

And the fact that this is taking place months after Bush left office provides a stark warning for all those who do not question the human rights and civil liberties intentions of the Obama administration.

(To get a notification when there’s a new post to Out On a Limb Together, subscribe now.)
 

If An Agent Knocks

I recently received a notice from one of my favorite organizations, The Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR). (Full disclosure, my younger daughter, Rachel Meeropol, works as an attorney there so I may not be entirely objective.) The CCR has reissued its pamphlet, “If An Agent Knocks” as a public service. Since this pamphlet is designed as an aid for targeted activists, and the RFC’s mission is to provide for the educational and emotional needs of the children of targeted activists, I am reproducing the CCR’s information about their pamphlet here as a service to the RFC community:

"If An Agent Knocks," [provides] advice to activists likely to be targeted by FBI agents or other federal investigators, in Pittsburgh and beyond. This booklet is a resource to protect activists from government investigation. [The CCR] also want[s] to support the power you show when you exercise this fundamental right of dissent.

Since its original release in 1989, CCR's "If An Agent Knocks" has been widely circulated in progressive activist communities across the country. This guide includes both the timeless advice included in the original version and extensive updates to reflect the current state of the law and law enforcement tools. It also includes a comprehensive discussion of today's technology, including cell phones, e-mail and Web browsing.

"If An Agent Knocks" is an invaluable tool for activists in a time when efforts to repress expressions of opposition are intensified. We want to get this publication into as many hands as possible. To obtain a free copy, please email iaak@ccrjustice.org . You can also download it in pdf form here. Tell your friends and fellow activists about "If An Agent Knocks," and urge them to place an order too. [The CCR is] giving away a special edition of "If An Agent Knocks" posters to the first 500 people who order the booklet.
 

Another Meeropol sues Attorney General & FBI

Actually, I fudged this post’s title a bit. It’s true that my brother’s and my precedent-setting Freedom of Information Act lawsuit in the 1970’s was against the FBI, the Attorney General and other government agencies. However the “other Meeropol” I mention is my daughter Rachel, and the fudge is that she isn’t a plaintiff against the government. Instead, she is the lead attorney for the Center for Constitutional Rights’ case on behalf of a group of Muslim men detained for months, treated as terrorists and brutalized by federal prison guards in the wake of the September 11th attacks. The men, who ultimately were deported, were only guilty of immigration violations.

Last Friday my wife Elli and I watched Rachel argue her case in the Federal District Court in Brooklyn. Her opposition - six attorneys representing former Attorney General Ashcroft, FBI Director Mueller, the Superintendent for the Bureau of Prisons, the Warden of the prison where the abuse took place, and two prison guards - argued that the case against their clients should be dismissed. It was six against one, but Rachel, in my unbiased opinion, held the advantage. All the officials’ attorneys from Ashcroft to the Warden stated that the case against their clients should be dismissed because they had no direct or personal knowledge of any abuse. Rachel had documentary evidence that Ashcroft and Mueller emailed that the guards were to use “all means necessary” to extract information from the prisoners, and it was not contested that the abuse took place.

Despite the strength of the CCR’s case, the Judge, relying on recent Supreme Court decisions insulating government officials from liability, may still lean toward granting the government’s request concerning Ashcroft and Mueller. Whether the prisons are in Brooklyn or Bagdad, the Supreme Court apparently wants to ensure that only those at the bottom of the chain of command be held responsible for post-9/11 abuses, and Federal District Court Judges usually abide by the rulings of their superiors.

The Warden, however, may not fare as well. Perhaps the most interesting interchange of the morning came when the judge posed a hypothetical question for the government attorneys. “Are you saying” he asked “that if the Warden comes upon a guard beating a prisoner, and he has the ability and authority to stop the beating, but does nothing, that the Warden can’t be held liable?” When the government attorney said that was his position, the Judge responded, “That can’t be right.”

I felt very proud of Rachel’s excellent performance. Elli heard one of the opposing attorneys in the hall after the hearing say of Rachel, “She really knows her stuff.” But I also couldn’t help but share her frustration at how unlikely it is that the CCR’s case will result in those most responsible being found personally liable. That does not mean, however, that all is in vain. Rachel’s already won damages of over $1,000,000 for several of the original clients in the suit, and remains quite hopeful that many others will receive compensation for the torture they suffered.

Progressive attorneys don’t have the power to prevent such atrocities, but they can, as the CCR does repeatedly, make the government pay dearly for them. And Rachel and her colleagues give me hope that someday the perpetrators will be brought to account.

----------------------------------
To receive a notification whe
never there is a new post to Out on a Limb Together, subscribe now.
 

Green is the new Red?

Next Wednesday (12/7) I’m joining a panel organized by The Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) entitled: Red to Green: Political Panic from McCarthyism to “Eco-Terrorism.” It will take place at the Community Church of New York, 40 East 35th Street, from 6:30 to 8:00 pm. Other panel members include journalist Will Potter, author of Green is the New Red: An Insider’s Account of a Social Movement Under Siege, and Jenny Synan, activist and partner of jailed environmental activist Daniel McGowan. The panel will be introduced and moderated by Rachel Meeropol, a staff attorney at the CCR. (Oh yes, she’s also my daughter.)

Although some in the RFC’s community are aware of the series of “Green Scare” cases from the last decade, and understand the parallels between them and the Red Scare spy cases of the 1950’s, many of our supporters give me a blank look when I talk about the Green Scare. Many others appear reluctant to equate these “violent environmental extremists” with people like my parents.

We should be wary of accepting the government’s and mainstream media’s characterization of Green Scare defendants. As far as I know none has any caused injury, let alone death, to anyone, yet some have received multi-decade sentences and been branded violent terrorists. True, some have committed property damage, but even that is not always the case.

For instance, six people went to prison under the Animal Enterprise Protection Act (AEPA) for organizing against Huntingdon Life Sciences. The AEPA created the new crime of “animal enterprise terrorism” to punish those who caused physical disruption. The young people who organized Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty (SHAC), and who along with their organization became known as the SHAC 7 caused no physical disruption. Instead, they planned a very public and successful effort to shame and harass a large corporation, Huntingdon Life Sciences. However, in post-9/11 America, prosecutors developed a new legal theory by expanding the “physical disruption” language in AEPA to include loss of profits. The SHAC 7 were convicted of being animal enterprise terrorists under that interpretation of physical disruption. In 2006 a Judge sentenced the “conspirators” to up to six years in prison.

When people turn their backs on those they feel have been imprisoned for being too militant, it reminds me of my parents’ case. Few alive today remember that A.J. Muste, the pacifist mainstay of the War Resisters’ League, refused to get involved in the effort to save my parents’ lives because they had been accused of aiding the Soviet military. Fellow pacifist, Dave Dellinger, disagreed. He argued that regardless of what my parents might have done, all progressives should stand in solidarity with them because they were being subjected to violent, right-wing political repression.

Dellinger foresaw the long-term negative consequences of the split between leftists and liberals generated by McCarthy-era charges of communist subversion. The military industrial complex took this lesson to heart and has repeatedly driven a wedge between mainstream and militant progressive movements ever since. Those on the Left who turn their backs on Green Scare defendants, fail to see that this round of repression is another iteration of the divide and conquer strategy.

Others on the Left, although not necessary members of the RFC community, have characterized environmental and animal rights activists as self indulgent, well-off white kids who seem more concerned with trees, birds and puppies than they are with worldwide human suffering. Those who think this way appear blind to the common thread of corporate exploitation that propels environmental destruction, animal torment and abuse of workers. The successful, big business-driven legislative effort to redefine terrorism as anything that hurts commodities or profits, should set off alarm bells among all people on the Left. This is part of a larger corporate strategy to have law enforcement treat all progressive activism as a form of terrorism.

Finally, while the panel will focus on the Red and Green scares, we should never forget that attacks did not end in the 1950’s, only to resurface after September 11th, 2001. COINTELPRO took a terrible toll on many progressive movements in the 1970’s that were neither communist nor environmental. And the repression did not end with COINTELPRO’s exposure; it has had a significant negative impact on progressive activity during my entire lifetime.

This just scratches the surface of what we’ll be addressing next Wednesday. I hope to see some of you there.

--------------------------T
To receive a notification whenever there is a new post to Out on a Limb Together, subscribe now.