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.
This article is copyright under a Creative
Commons License.
Workers World, 55 W. 17 St., NY, NY 10011
Email: ww@workers.org
Subscribe wwnews-subscribe@workersworld.net
Support independent news http://www.workers.org/orders/donate.php)
HOME
:: U.S. NEWS ::
WORLD NEWS ::
EDITORIALS ::
SUBSCRIBE ::
DONATE
Email
this article
Printable
page