prairie fire organizing committee

Repression in Chicago

Speech at the University of Chicago rally on Feb. 16, 2001, to oppose the overturning of the Consent Decree limiting the Activities of the Chicago Red Squad

by Melinda Power, National Lawyers Guild

First of all, I would like to thank the organizers for having this rally to oppose the overturning of the consent decree and for inviting me to speak. It's really important to both oppose this court ruling and to educate ourselves and others about what this court ruling means.

The recent "modification" of the consent decree by the 7th Circuit Appellate Court for the Northern District of Illinois must be understood within the context in which it occurred. First, it is important to understand that the state ­ and certainly we live within a state and a system ­ the U.S. government ­ will do anything it feels necessary to protect its power. Thus, the overturning of the consent decree needs to be seen in the context of the recent protests in Seattle, Washington, D.C., Philadelphia and Los Angeles.

Here, in Chicago, the court, as a wing of the government, understood that the consent decree hampered, as least legally and on paper, the ability of the Chicago police to spy on and infiltrate movements here. With the rise in protests nationwide, the City of Chicago needed to be unhampered in its response to protests. Thus, the law needed to be changed.

The decision is a very interesting one to read. I want to point out some important points from the decision. First of all, the court found that the realities that caused the consent decree to come into existence no longer exist. The Red Squad, which the court maintained began in the 1920s, but which has certainly been around much longer, existed within a time period that no longer exists. It was, the court found, necessary in order to prevent illegal actions and groupings. And what were the illegal groupings cited by the court? The court specifically claimed that the Black Panther Party, Puerto Rican separatists and radical anti-Vietnam War activists necessitated the existence of the RedSquad.

So what does it mean for the court to find that these groupings were subject to investigation? It's important to understand that it was not illegal to be a member of the Black Panther Party. So, the court is saying the police were ­ and are now once again ­ legally justified in spying on a legal group. Further, to be a Puerto Rican separatist means to ideologically support independence for Puerto Rico. There are no actions mentioned by the court. A belief in independence for Puerto Rico justified spying and infiltration by the Red Squad. Finally, the court held that "radical" anti-Vietnam war activists were properly subject to investigation.

The court found that although the realities of the 60s and 70s no longer exist, there is a new threat. Terrorism! The court found that international terrorism ­ and its domestic manifestation right here in Chicago ­ justify the Red Squad. Now, one may ask oneself, what terrorism is there here in Chicago? Further, one may say to oneself, but if the terrorism is international, isn't it the role of the F.B.I. to investigate? We can all be sure that the F.B.I. is totally involved in investigating such so-called groups. What is really going on here? Well, the government wants to pave the way to legally permit the Chicago police to investigate groups that oppose what the U.S. is doing. For example, based on the court's analysis, the Chicago police could find that this demonstration is legally an appropriate activity to spy on.

Further, the court held that now, if a person were to speak publicly and spouse violent beliefs, not only is that person subject to investigation and monitoring, but any group to which that person belongs is also subject to investigation. Further, the police may "perhaps" put an infiltrator in that group.

As someone who works in the Puerto Rican community, I have seen the use of this spying, where people are followed, grand juries are used to harass pro-independence activists and people are intimidated from supporting Puerto Rican independence.

It's good you are here and it's good to actively oppose this decision by a person who teaches on your campus. Let him know what you think. Thank you very much for having me speak.