ITAL MIM is running excerpts from a newspaper from an organization
which we consider revisionist; that is, it adopts the name
"Maoist," even though much of its theory and practice runs counter
to Maoism.(1) However, even though we have serious disagreements
with it, the fight for Mumia Abu-Jamal and many other prisoners
who do not receive the same level of public attention is a fight
for the international proletariat, and hence, we unite against the
state's attack on activists of whatever understanding or
intentions in the causes of the international proletariat. Just as
2+2 =4 no matter who says it, attacking the state on Mumia Abu-
Jamal is right no matter who does it. It is this scientific
approach which makes anti-sectarian unity of the class possible.
Although many of the forces involved in the Mumia Abu-Jamal case
are there for only partial reasons, and would not take up
countless other similar cases at all, the fact remains that Mumia
Abu-Jamal's cause is a cause of the international proleteriat.
With regard to that case, MIM's position is that legal
technicalities prevent its clear understanding, which is that it
was a matter of proletarian self-defense against the police.
What really needs addressing is why the Black people of the United
$tates cannot walk about the streets on a daily basis without an
occupation army harassing them. When these lawless troops do
physically attack Black people on the streets, as when Mumia Abu-
Jamal discovered his brother being beaten, why is it that the
police and white liberals believe Blacks are incorrect to defend
their families? MIM's position is that people with badges are not
allowed to do whatever they want just because there are white
chauvinist lawyers, police chiefs and judges who will figure out
how to justify their actions after the fact. The killing of
Faulkner would have been just, just as anyone who assisted Rodney
King at the moment of his beating or any other victim of violence
in similar context would have been just.
Below we learn that some of the courts set up by the repressive
ruling class actually believe they have no right to enforce the
First Amendment, supposedly part of the highest law of the land.
The ruling class believes it has the right to imprison people in
the meantime while ponderous court processes decide whether the
First Amendment is involved! These processes are so ponderous,
that even Al Gore could not get one single full recount of votes
in a month's time. We can imagine what they are doing to people
without Al Gore's level of access to the courts! Because of the
way the courts are structured, someone can be jailed for his or
her organizing and speech on the Mumia Abu-Jamal case.
Notes:
1. See critique in "MIM's RCP Study Pack," $15; Review of "America
in Decline" in MIM Theory 4, $6; "Unraveling the RCP's Political
Economy" and others in MT5, $6; "The RCP and the National
Question" and "NAFTA Stand Clarifies RCP Differences with MIM" in
MT7, $6; "The RCP & Trotsky" in MT9, $6; other references
available in the "What's Your line?" Pamphlet, $1; or search the
MIM website www.etext.org/Politics/MIM
END
Revolutionary Worker #1083, December 17, 2000, posted at rwor.org
By Debbie Lang
December 6 was a Day to Support Resisters who had been attacked by
the government for supporting Mumia and part of Mumia Awareness
Week--a concentrated nationwide effort to spread the word to
millions about Mumia Abu-Jamal. I was at the Philadelphia federal
courthouse for C. Clark Kissinger's probation violation hearing.
Clark was charged with violating an order not to travel to
Philadelphia on August 1 to give a political speech against the
death penalty and in support of Mumia at the Republican National
Convention. By the end of the day Clark had been sentenced to 90
days in jail.
Inside the federal building, the atmosphere was tense from the
start. As Clark's supporters entered the building and lined up at
the metal detector, I overheard one court officer tell another
visitor, "These are the people for Mumia Abu-Jamal." Barely 20
people could fit into the seats squeezed tightly together in the
tiny courtroom assigned to this hearing--obviously the authorities
didn't want many people to watch the proceedings.
Throughout the hearing it was clear this was an attempt to silence
Clark and send a message to those who would speak out in support
of Mumia Abu-Jamal and against this system. Judge Rapoport was
openly hostile to the defense and supportive of the prosecutor. An
appeal of Clark's conviction--on the grounds that his political
rights were violated--is pending in District Court. And the very
first thing Rapoport said was: "The only subject is violation of
terms of probation. All other issues are part of the pending
appeal. Any attempt to disrupt this courtroom is going to result
in your immediate removal by the U.S. Marshall Service." Judge
Rapoport claimed he had no jurisdiction to deal with the First
Amendment questions--but insisted he did have jurisdiction to
sentence Clark. And, over and over again, the judge continued the
blatant political persecution that has marked this case from the
beginning.
As a condition of his probation, Clark was restricted to the New
York City area and required to ask his probation officer for
permission to travel. Clark asked six times for permission to
travel. Three times it was granted--when he wanted to see his
mother in Massachusetts. Three times it was denied--in each
instance when Clark wanted to travel to give a speech in support
of Mumia Abu-Jamal. He was denied permission to travel to speak at
a commemoration of the MOVE bombing in Philadelphia; at a
conference against the death penalty in San Francisco; and to give
a speech at a legal rally in a plaza at the Republican National
Convention on August 1 in Philadelphia.
On August 1, to the surprise and delight of hundreds of us on the
plaza, Clark appeared and spoke. It was the most intense day of
protest at the RNC. Thousands of youth faced police in the streets
and shut the city down. The day's themes were resistance to the
death penalty, the execution of Mumia Abu-Jamal, police brutality
and the injustices of the prison system. More than 350 people were
arrested and many were subjected to brutal conditions inside the
city's jails. Because he went to Philadelphia to make this speech,
Clark was accused of violating the terms of his probation and
ordered to appear in court on December 6.
The week before his probation hearing, one of Clark's attorneys,
Ron Kuby, spoke about his case at a celebration of Clark's 60th
birthday in New York City: "Clark Kissinger is, to my knowledge,
the very first person at least in modern American history--post-
World War II American history--to face imprisonment specifically
for traveling to the cradle of liberty--Philadelphia--and giving a
speech at one of the premier events in American history, the
Republican National Convention. It is an absolute outrage to put a
man in prison for giving a legal speech at a public event in the
city of Philadelphia."
All during the hearing, the judge and prosecutor claimed that the
only subject of the hearing was whether or not Clark violated his
probation, but the first words out of the prosecutor's mouth were
a quote from the speech Clark made on August 1: "George W. Bush is
a smirking frat rat, son of a former head of the CIA, who went on
to become a speculator oil man, and went on from there to be a
blood-stained executioner, and now wants to be the ruler of the
world." The prosecutor noted that Clark called the Republican
National Convention the "Executioners Ball" and that he promised
to continue to defend Mumia Abu-Jamal.
The defense argued that Clark was justified in going to
Philadelphia because the terms of his probation and how they have
been applied are unjust restrictions on political speech and
therefore unconstitutional violations of Clark's First Amendment
rights. Attorney Ron Kuby told the court that Governor Bush, the
man responsible for sending 135 people to death, and Tom Ridge,
the man who had signed Mumia Abu-Jamal's death warrants, were in
Philadelphia and Clark felt it a "necessary act of conscience" and
that he had a moral responsibility to speak out against the death
penalty and the attempt to execute Mumia Abu-Jamal.
The prosecution tried to claim that this was not a restriction on
speech since Clark could "speak in the Eastern District of New
York freely." But Attorney Kuby said there was a link between the
speech and its location--that the place to be to speak about the
death penalty and Mumia on August 1 was Philadelphia, where Bush
and Ridge were.
Attorney Kuby asked the judge why he had denied Clark permission
to travel to Philadelphia on August 1. At first he responded,
"Fortunately I don't have to explain that and I don't intend to."
When Attorney Anthony Urba pointed out a court decision that said
that a judge does have to provide evidence of the reasons for a
sentence in case of a probation violation, the judge said: "Past
behavior shows that his speech ends in civil disobedience. You
want to know why? There's your answer. Do you want to know
anything else?... He wants to come back here to deal with the same
subject... He did it before. Am I to assume he won't do it again?"
Attorney Ron Kuby noted the judge's answer didn't explain why the
judge prevented him from speaking at the MOVE commemoration or
traveling to San Francisco for a conference against the death
penalty. Kuby told the judge: "This is the only case I've ever had
where I've been in a courtroom seriously considering incarcerating
a person for coming to Philadelphia, the cradle of liberty, and
giving a speech about one of the most important issues of the day,
the death penalty.... It was vitally important to be here in
Philadelphia to give that speech. This was the Republican National
Convention. The eyes of the world were here. Mumia Abu-Jamal was
sentenced to death here."
*****
The prosecution argued that Clark's August 1 speech was "not
lawful speech." He claimed tourists at the Liberty Bell considered
themselves in danger--from people who had linked arms to block the
doors to a building! He cited a "disturbance" at the probation
office, when Clark showed up with a demonstration of 30 people,
and he claimed Clark was a "danger to society." In response to
arguments from the defense, the judge erupted: "Mr. Kissinger
created a riot the first time he showed up at probation, did he
not?" The prosecutor openly spoke of punishing Clark and making an
example of him: "Maybe he will learn that obeying the law is a
better idea than breaking it, in which case the court's sentence
will have worked." The prosecutor went on to speak about "general
deterrence"--the idea that punishing Clark would also deter others
from defiant political action.
Unfolding before us was an attempt to set a dangerous precedent--
to outlaw political protest and speech--with serious implications
for everyone. And I think it drove home even more the importance
of Clark's determination to speak at the RNC protests. The judge
and the prosecutor repeatedly labeled political protests and
speeches as "dangerous to the public" --including Clark's August 1
speech, the actions at the Liberty Bell and the so-called
"disruption" of the probation office when Clark first reported
last June. What were people doing in that probation office? In the
words of the probation officer himself-- "protesting, chanting,
handing out literature...taking pictures." The prosecutor and
judge called this a "pattern of conduct." And the prosecutor
requested that Clark be imprisoned for the remainder of his
probation (six months) to "reflect the seriousness of the offense
and promote respect for the law."
*****
During the sentencing phase I was constantly reminded of the
infamous Judge Sabo, who presided over Mumia's original "trial"
and his PCRA appeal in the summer of 1995. When the defense argued
that since the First Amendment issues were on appeal the sentence
should wait until the appeal was heard, the prosecutor said: "I
don't know why they're still talking about the First Amendment."
And the judge responded, "Neither do I."
When Clark rose to address the court, the judge was livid.
Judge Rapoport: "This is not a political forum and we are not
going to turn it into one!"
Clark: "What's really involved in this case is the attempt to kill
Mumia Abu-Jamal."
Judge Rapoport: "This is not what's involved in this case and you
are not going to bring it up here!"
Clark: "This is an attempt to put a brake on a political movement
the government does not like."
Judge Rapoport: "Sit down! Sit down unless you're going to address
whether or not you violated the terms of your probation!"
Clark: "I'm going to tell you what's involved here."
Judge Rapoport: "You're going to tell me? I don't think so!"
Clark: "I don't even have a right to speak in this court? I'm not
allowed to speak at a major event in this city's history and not
allowed to speak in this courtroom?...General deterrence is
involved here. The government explictly saw grounding me as one
way to put a brake on a political movement the government does not
like."
Judge Rapoport: "That's not true! It's not relevant! Stop that!"
The judge's attempt to silence Clark outraged people in the
audience and some spoke out in protest. They were thrown out of
the courtroom by U.S. Marshals.
Clark spoke about the death penalty and why it was necessary for
him to speak at the protests against the Republican National
Convention: "A new generation [came to protest in Philadelphia].
Could I have done anything less? Could I have remained at home
when they were willing to put themselves on the line?...The eyes
of the world were on Philadelphia...The moment I wanted to open my
mouth and criticize this government I wasn't allowed to...the
issue of free speech is that the intended audience be allowed to
hear it."
Clark again told the judge that he would not be turning over the
names of financial contributors and people he associates with.
The judge announced he found the "defendant clearly violated
probation in a knowing and understanding fashion.... [The
defendant has raised] a series of events that were not made the
subject of this hearing...continuing a pattern of disruptive
behavior." Then he angrily declared, "My office has been inundated
with letters, phone calls and faxes," accused Clark's "followers"
of threatening him, and said to the defense attorneys, "There is a
trail of disruption wherever your client goes."
People in the audience had grown increasingly outraged by the
judge's openly hostile conduct, and at this point somebody laughed
at the judge. Rapoport ordered the courtroom cleared. U.S.
Marshals attacked the audience. People were grabbed and dragged
out of the courtroom.
When I stepped into the hallway outside the courtroom there was
chaos. U.S. Marshals attacked anyone within their reach who spoke
out against what was happening. One person was put in a chokehold.
Others were beaten to the floor. Two members of the Refuse &
Resist! Youth Network were cuffed and arrested. Other people were
shoved all the way out the hall to the elevators, forced inside
and pinned against the walls. When I stepped out of the elevator
into the lobby a group of about 50 people stood and chanted
"Shame!" in the faces of the Marshals and "Mumia is fearless/Clark
is fearless--so are we! We won't stop until he's free!" The
Marshals eventually forced everyone outside. Ernst Ford, a Haitian
activist with International Concerned Family and Friends of Mumia
Abu-Jamal--whose own life was recently threatened by the
Philadelphia police because of his support for Mumia--told me that
the scene reminded him of the Ton Ton Macoutes in Haiti.
Upstairs with only Clark's family, lawyers and a few journalists
left in the courtroom, the judge sentenced Clark to 90 days and
guards took him away. And the judge added something the
prosecution never even asked for--when Clark finishes his jail
time he will have to finish the rest of his six months probation.
*****
The first time I went to a hearing at the federal courthouse in
Philadelphia, Mumia Abu-Jamal was challenging efforts by the
government to silence his voice by obstructing the publication of
his book Live From Death Row. Mumia is facing the ultimate state
censorship--execution by lethal injection. Yet he has not been
silenced. His voice has made its way out of the prison walls in
the form of books, tapes, CDs, radio broadcasts, newspaper columns
and Internet postings. He has defied every attempt the government
has made to suppress his voice. And on the outside, literally
millions of people have helped make this happen.
When I saw Clark before his hearing, he had a toothbrush in his
suit pocket. Smiling, he told me this was something he had learned
from people's lawyer Bill Kunstler--who always brought a
toothbrush to court in case the judge jailed him for contempt.
When it became clear the judge was going to send him to jail,
Clark told the court: "What should I be remorseful for? Contrite
for fighting for justice for Mumia Abu-Jamal? I will never show
remorse for that.... The day is going to come when Mumia Abu-Jamal
will be free. And on that day, the prison doors will swing open
and the people will be able to throw their arms around Mumia and
he will walk with us.... This court and the government as a whole
should understand that every attack on us only makes us stronger.
There is absolutely nothing that is going to stop this worldwide
movement to provide justice for Mumia Abu-Jamal."
As we go to press, C. Clark Kissinger is being held at the Federal
Detention Center in Philadelphia. Word of his case hit the news on
the "Democracy Now" show, Pacifica radio; WBAI, New York; KPFA,
Berkeley; and the Independent Media Center. ... Calls demanding
Clark's release can be addressed to:
Warden Vanyur: 215.521.7210, FAX 215.521.7220
Mayor John Street: 215.686.2181
Congressman Chaka Fatah: 202.225.4001
U.S. Marshalls' Office: 215.597.7273
Judge Arnold C. Rapoport: 610.776.0369, FAX 610.776.0370
