REPRESSION
WHAT HAS CHANGED
WHAT HAS REMAINED THE SAME SINCE 9/11?
By Melinda Power
Member of Prairie Fire Organizing Committee
Speaking on behalf of the National Lawyers Guild
At a rally against the violation of civil liberties
11/7/01, Chicago
First of all, I would like to thank the American Friends
Service Committee
and all the other groups that sponsored this really good march and rally
in support of Civil Liberties.
It is important to understand that repression is a constant
feature of the U.S. state. When the state perceives a threat to its
power and control, it will respond with repression. Look at the police
presence in the Puerto Rican, Mexican and African American communities.
The police routinely stop, search and harass youth, mainly males, in
these communities. Chicago abounds with cases of police brutality.
Surveillance, infiltration and disruption of peaceful, legal
demonstrations here in Chicago were so blatant that in the 1980s the
federal court entered a Consent Decree that prohibited the police from
spying on or infiltrating demonstrations or other First Amendment
protected activities. In a foreshadowing of the post 9/11 laws, in
February 01 the 7th Circuit Federal Appellate Court in Chicago, in an
opinion written by Judge Posner, overturned the Consent Decree stating
that the police no longer did such things, so the restrictions weren’t
needed. He then added that the only possible threat in Chicago was the
threat of domestic terrorism. In response to domestic terrorism Judge
Posner said that the police could - and should - infiltrate and engage
in activities prohibited under the Consent Decree.
Then came 9/11 and that right wing Attorney General Ashcroft
seized the opportunity presented by 9/11 to enact incredibly repressive
legislation. Here was, for him, the perfect opportunity to get rid of
laws that impeded the police, F.B.I. and C.I.A. He oversaw the passage
of the so-called Patriot Act which will remain in effect for four
years. Here are some of its more important points. The government can
now incarcerate "suspected terrorists" for up to seven days without any
charges. The seven days can be expanded to up to six months. There is
no definition of what is needed to determine when there is a reasonable
suspicion. Nor is there a definition of what is terrorism.
The government admits that over 1,134 people, mainly Arabs and
Muslims have been incarcerated since 9/11 as suspected terrorists.
Attempts by the media to get information about them under the Freedom of
Information Act have been fruitless. They are alone and they have
deliberately been kept isolated deprived of any contact with their
attorneys.
An article in this week’s Chicago Tribune illustrates who are
some of the people
the government is incarcerating. Eight Egyptian men living in
Evansville, Indiana were taken into custody and brought to the
Metropolitan Correctional Center in Chicago. Why? Because the wife of
one of the men heard him say that he wanted to die and she was afraid he
would commit suicide so she called the F.B.I. This was enough to lock
up eight men! Eventually, they
were released, however, only after they had spent days in terror and
isolation locked up in
the MCC.
Unfortunately, worse has happened. A Pakistani man in his 50s
who immigrated to the U.S. last year looking for work was picked up by
the F.B.I. and held in custody for a week in New York. He suffered a
heart attack and died shortly before he was to be released. This is a
very
upsetting example of what these totally unjustified and illegal arrests
can do to people.
New prison regulations are under consideration which will put
prisoners who are suspected of terrorism, or had a connection with
violence, in isolation for up to one year. Already, even before the
regulations have been put in place, the government had put political
prisoners such as Sundiata Acoli, in prison since the early 70s for
being a member of the Black Liberation Army, in isolation.
Additionally, the government can now get access to peoples
e-mail. Further, the government can now tap any phone used by a
"suspect". Previously, the government had to get authorization for each
phone, now if a phone has been used by a "suspect" it is subject to
being tapped. What’s the justification for this? I have to quote
Senator Orrin Hatch, who must have inside information on the terrorists
since he seems to know their habits well. He said, and I quote, ‘The
terrorists just buy ten cell phones at a time, talk for a while and then
throw them out the window." The fact that such a statement could be
made and not challenged shows the tenor of the times.
Perhaps what has changed most dramatically since 9/11 is the
acquiescence or acceptance on the part of the public to whatever laws or
measures the government implements. The public appears willing to
accept violations of our civil rights. Why? Well, one reason is the
use of fear tactics by the government. Time will reveal, I believe,
that this anthrax threat has been totally enhanced to justify giving the
government a free hand to enact whatever repressive measures it wishes.
And one must be a bit skeptical of these so-called terrorist threats
announced by the government! They won’t tell us where, when, who or
what, but we are supposed to be scared.
In response to the fact that apparently none of the 1,134
people held in custody have given the government any useful information,
the government has not said, oh, well, maybe we made a mistake in
arresting them. Instead, the idea of torture is being floated in the
media. We in Chicago know about the police use of torture. Right now,
at least ten men are on death row here in Illinois as a result of false
criminal confessions extracted from them under torture by the police.
We have to oppose torture.
Many people are scared since the 9/11 attack which may have
killed 3,000 not 5,000 people. Why weren’t we similarly scared when
people died in Rwanda, the former Yugoslavia or Iraq? Why don’t those
people have as much humanity as the people in New York do? Why, in the
eyes of many Americans, are the lives of the people in New York worth
more? We need to care as much about the people who are dying right now
in Afghanistan as we do about the people who died in New York.
And we need to act. We need to organize. We could be entering
into a very repressive period. We need to be out organizing against the
repressive legislation and violation of our civil liberties. Thank you
very much.
top
| 
home about us campaigns & alerts resources calendar contact search