Presentation on theme: "Red Squads Police intelligence units specialized in infiltrating, harassing, and gathering intelligence on political and social groups."— Presentation transcript:
1Red SquadsPolice intelligence units specialized in infiltrating, harassing, and gathering intelligence on political and social groups.
2Red SquadsThe Haymarket Riot in 1886 was emblematic of disruptive police tactics became common in larger cities such as Chicago.Randolph St, Chicago
3Red SquadsInvestigating anarchists, unions, communists, radicals and everyday citizens.The Chicago Red Squad alone, between 1920 and 1960, gathered information on more than 14,000 organizations and 258,000 individuals, including the United Methodist Church and the League of Women Voters
4Political Climate of the 1960s and 1970s Protest at the 1968 Democratic National Convention in ChicagoJohn Kerry with John LennonGroups of activists emerged, from the lawful to the subversive, to protest the war in Vietnam and Civil Rights and other social and political causes.
5J. Edgar Hoover founded and ran the FBI for 48 years, from 1924-1972 A New Threat EmergesPolice and FBI used new tactics to infiltrate activist organizations.COINTELPROChurch CommitteeMany times, they infiltrated lawful groups of citizens.COINTELPRO:COINTELPRO (Counter Intelligence Program) was a program of the United States Federal Bureau of Investigation aimed at investigating and disrupting dissident political organizations within the United States. Although covert operations have been employed throughout FBI history, the formal COINTELPRO operations of were broadly targeted against organizations that were (at the time) considered to have politically radical elements, ranging from those whose stated goal was the violent overthrow of the U.S. government (such as the Weathermen); non-violent civil rights groups such as Martin Luther King Jr.'s Southern Christian Leadership Conference; and violent groups like the Ku Klux Klan and the American Nazi Party. The founding document of COINTELPRO directed FBI agents to "expose, disrupt, misdirect, discredit, or otherwise neutralize" the activities of these movements and their leaders.he program was secret until 1971, when an FBI field office in Media, PA was burglarized by a group of left-wing radicals calling themselves the Citizens' Commission to Investigate the FBI. Several dossiers of files were taken and the information passed to news agencies, many of which initially refused to publish the information. Within the year, Director Hoover declared that the centralized COINTELPRO was over, and that all future counterintelligence operations would be handled on a case-by-case basis.A major investigation was launched in 1976 by the Select Committee to Study Governmental Operations with Respect to Intelligence Activities of the United States Senate, commonly referred to as the "Church Committee" for its chairman, Senator Frank Church of Idaho. However, millions of pages of documents remain unreleased, and many released documents are entirely censored.In the Final Report of the Select Committee COINTELPRO was castigated in no uncertain terms:"Many of the techniques used would be intolerable in a democratic society even if all of the targets had been involved in violent activity, but COINTELPRO went far beyond that...the Bureau conducted a sophisticated vigilante operation aimed squarely at preventing the exercise of First Amendment rights of speech and association, on the theory that preventing the growth of dangerous groups and the propagation of dangerous ideas would protect the national security and deter violence."The Church Committee documented a history of the FBI being used for purposes of political repression as far back as World War I, through the 1920s, when they were charged with rounding up "anarchists and revolutionaries" for deportation, and then building from 1936 through 1976.The FBI claims that it no longer undertakes COINTELPRO or COINTELPRO-like operations. However, critics claim that agency programs in the spirit of COINTELPRO target groups like the Committee in Solidarity with the People of El Salvador, Earth First! and the Anti-Globalization Movement.The Church Committee is the common term referring to the United States Senate Select Committee to Study Governmental Operations with Respect to Intelligence Activities, a U.S. Senate committee chaired by Senator Frank Church (D-ID) in A precursor to the U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, the committee investigated intelligence gathering for illegality by the CIA and FBI after certain activities had been revealed by the Watergate affair.J. Edgar Hoover founded and ran the FBI for 48 years, from
6The Weather Underground Weather Underground Organization, was a U.S. Radical Left group organized in the 1960s.The group referred to itself as a revolutionary organization of women and men whose purpose was to carry out a series of attacks that would achieve the revolutionary overthrow of the Government of the United States.A new threat emerges during the 60s. Like the perceived communist threat of the McCarthy era, groups emerged that were intent on disrupting the American system of governmentPollikoff’s buddy, and Professor of Education, Bill Ayers on the left
7The Black Panther Party Fred Hampton was an American activist and deputy chairman of the Illinois chapter of the Black Panther Party (BPP).
8“THE RED SQUAD”Subversives Activities Unit of the Chicago Police Intelligence DivisionExclusively gathered information on lawful political activitiesOpenly harassed individuals and organizations“The Red Squad acted like any other secret police. They’d find out who was dissenting. If a group was considered a threat to the status quo, they’d try to destroy it, directly or indirectly. Because it was such a blatant violation of the First Amendment…the Alliance decided that the best thing to do was to file a lawsuit.”Richard GutmanAttorney for the Alliance to End Repression(Quoted from The Price of Dissent by Bud and Ruth Schultz)
9Red Squads ReactFred Hampton was killed in his apartment by a tactical unit of the Cook County, Illinois State's Attorney's Office in conjunction with the Chicago Police Department and the FBI.Chicago police removing the body of Fred Hampton from his home at 2337 West Monroe St.
10The Citizens RespondGroups such as The Alliance to End Repression form in response to police misconduct and violations of Constitutional rights.
11THE ALLIANCE TO END REPRESSION What is it?A coalition of religious and community groups formed in response to violations of civil liberties in Chicago.How was it formed?On December 4, 1969, Black Panther leaders Mark Clark and Fred Hampton were assassinated by the Chicago police. The assassinations were planned by the Chicago police and the FBI, with the help of an infiltrator.The assassinations were regarded as the “ultimate in repression” and the Alliance was created as a response.
12THE ALLIANCE TO END REPRESSION What does the Alliance do?John Hill—executive coordinator of the Alliance“We decided we were going to attack repression wherever it was. There were so many wrongs that needed to be righted.”“Then I began to realize that all you needed was a handful of people with normal intelligence and experience. If you were steadfast and continued to meet; if you were flexible, able to say, “That one will never work”; and if you were sufficiently courageous—but more than anything else, if you were persistent—you would be able to answer most of the social problems confronting the community. So I had this feeling right in my gut that it was possible to make a change.”Bail Project, Prison Visitation Group, Discrimination in Police Hiring(Quotes from The Price of Dissent by Bud and Ruth Schultz)
13HOW IT BEGAN Richard Gutman Attorney for The Alliance to End RepressionFirst job was with the Illinois American Civil Liberties UnionDuring this time, the Alliance attorney came to the ACLU for assistance in filing the complaintNo one from the ACLU wanted to work on the lawsuit—”high risk case”
14A QUOTE FROM GUTMAN: Quoted from The Price of Dissent by Bud and Ruth Schultz “I’d rather have this than any other kind of case I can think of. I didn’t become a lawyer to practice law as an end in itself. I became a lawyer because that was the way I saw myself participating politically. When I learned of this case, I knew how important it was. A unit of government whose purpose is political repression, that does nothing but target lawful political dissent—to me, that’s an extremely important type of litigation. It’s something that affects all groups, everyone.”
15THE COMPLAINT Filed on November 13, 1974 as a class action lawsuit Brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983Violations of 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th, 8th, 9th, 14th AmendmentsAllegations:1. surveillance and intelligence-gathering2. unlawful wiretapping and other electronic surveillance3. unlawful entry and seizure4. dissemination of derogatory information5. summary punishment and harassment6. infiltration of private meetings and political organizationsRelief requested:Declarative reliefInjunctive releifCompensatory damages
16MOTION TO DISMISS General argument: Discovery stopped Plaintiffs lack standing to seek injunctive reliefNo justiciable controversyBased on Laird v. Tatum (S.C. 1972)Allegation of existence of system of surveillance of unlawful activityAllegation of “chilling effect” on exercise of 1st Amendment rightsNo allegations of specific action takenDiscovery stopped
17FIRST MAJOR BREAKTHROUGH An unrelated lawsuit against the Chicago Police Department regarding employment discriminationDiscovery produced payroll list of all the officers by name, race, sex, disciplinary actions, unit, and assignment“Assignment Unknown”8 officers assigned this categoryHoward Pointer—Operation PUSHMarcus Sloane—OBA and MAHAMelvin Barna—CAPGeno Addams—Alliance to End Repression
21SIGNIFICANCE OF EXPOSURE Exposure of double standardPublic generally more responsive when those in the “mainstream” are targeted“When radical or Black groups are being spied on, the media really doesn’t care too much. They think: “It’s probably good that the government watches them.” But when it’s mainly white mainstream-type groups, all hell breaks loose.” –GutmanThe result?The Red Squad was voluntarily abolished and completely discreditedThen the Motion to Dismiss was denied on May 16, 1975Grand Jury is convened by State’s Attorney Bernard Carey
22GRAND JURY REPORT Cook County Grand Jury Report November of 1975 “The evidence has clearly shown that the Security Section of the Chicago Police Department assaulted the fundamental freedoms of speech, association, press and religion, as well as the constitutional right to privacy of hundreds of individuals.”
23CLASS CERTIFICATIONOn March 25, 1976, two plaintiff classes were certifiedIndividual plaintiffsAll residents of the City of Chicago, and all other persons who are physically present within the City of Chicago for regular or irregular periods of timeOrganizational plaintiffsAll organizations located or operating in the City of ChicagoWho:Engage or have engaged in lawful political, religious, educational or social activities and who, as a result of these activities, have been within the last five years, are now, or hereafter may be, subjected to or threatened by alleged infiltration, physical or verbal coercion, photographic, electronic, or physical surveillance, summary punishment, harassment, or dossier collection, maintenance, and dissemination by defendants or their agents.
24DISCOVERY July 1, 1976: October 14, 1976: November 10, 1976: Court order for production of documents related to intelligence activities of Chicago Police—but access limited to plaintiffs’ attorneysOctober 14, 1976:Court allowed plaintiffs’ attorneys to disclose to each plaintiff their own police fileCourt did not restrict plaintiffs from disclosing files to anyone of their own choosingNovember 10, 1976:Court entered preliminary injunction against defendants from infiltrating the plaintiffs’ legal team and from using any information gained in that manner
25SECOND MAJOR BREAKTHROUGH Won access to all Red Squad files in entirely undeleted formThere were 33 named plaintiffs, but because this case was certified as a class action suit, they were able to get the files on everyoneWon the right to search the Red Squad file room and copy anything on anyoneWon the right to show these reports to the people who were spied onWon the right to let people give the police reports about themselves to the media
26DISCOVERY RESULTS Documents produced by Alliance infiltrators Reports of Alliance activity for the Chicago policeTalked about the strengths of the AllianceReported when the Alliance was ready to file the lawsuitIncluded warning: “The people in authority better do what they have to do, because pretty soon it’s going to be too late.”Reports regarding legal preparation of the AllianceIncluded questionnaires that were used to help find potential plaintiffsLed to ruling by the courts—although narrow“Under the rules of procedure, if you want some information in a lawsuit, you have to file a request. You can’t just send somebody into the organization to spy on them.” –Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals-
27NEGOTIATIONS Lasted for more than 2 years Described as nothing less than “arduous and adversary”Nearly every line, paragraph, and many words of the resulting consent decree were the product of intense negotiationsImpasses occurred at two separate occasionsBut in the end, attorneys for both parties agreed that the consent decree was “fair, reasonable, [and] adequate”
28WHY ACCEPT?“To me, it was a no-brainer. The most important factor was that even if we were to win a trial, we would not obtain injunctive relief even one-quarter as strong as the consent decree. It is a basic principal of law that a party can agree to an injunction that goes beyond what is required by law.”Richard Gutman (via )
29OPINION OF THE COURTNo judicial decision or legislative enactment is as protective of citizens 1st Amendment rights as City of Chicago consent decreeLegal protections of consent decree go far beyond the legal relief likely entered by the courtThe law in this area is largely unsettledProof of case at trial would pose difficulties for plaintiffs
30FIRST AMENDMENT CONDUCT Broadly defined in the Consent Decree:Includes “the right to hold ideas or beliefs concerning public or social policy, or political, educational, cultural, economic, philosophical or religious matters”Includes “the right to assemble privately concerning such ideas or beliefs, the right to advocate alternative systems of government, and the right to associate in connection with legal advice and litigation”
31CITY OF CHICAGO CONSENT DECREE Imposed against any agent or agency of City of ChicagoProtects 1st Amendment activityEnforced by CourtAllows any person affected by prohibited conduct to bring a claimInvestigation of 1st Amendment activity only allowed for:CriminalThere must be “reasonable suspicion based on specific and articulable facts that the subject has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime.”Dignitary protectionPublic gatheringRegulatory
32The Consent Decree(a) The FBI, in conducting domestic security investigations and inquiries, shall be concerned only with conduct and only such conduct as is forbidden by a criminal law of the United States The FBI shall not conduct an investigation solely on the basis of activities protected by the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States, or on the lawful exercise of any right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States. The consent decree was designed to protect the political freedom and Constitutional rights of American citizens.At the same time, law enforcement did not want to be so restricted that it could not protect public safety.To that end, the FBI was restricted to investigating only “criminal activity” and could not investigate solely on the basis of activities protected under the Constitution:
33The Consent Decree The FBI: “shall not conduct in the City of Chicago any warrantless unconsented physical searches in domestic security investigations, any unlawful unconsented physical searches of premises or property of U.S. persons in foreign intelligence collection or foreign counter-intelligence investigations, any unlawful entries that constitute searches under the Fourth Amendment, or any unlawful disruption or harassment of the lawful activities of any United States person.”The decree also addressed Fourth Amendment issues of “search and seizure.”Notably, these provision applied to foreign intelligence collection and counter-intelligence investigations,precisely the issues that were modified in the 2001 decision. The original decree provided that the FBI:
34The Consent Decree The FBI: “shall not conduct in the City of Chicago any warrantless unconsented physical searches in domestic security investigations, any unlawful unconsented physical searches of premises or property of U.S. persons in foreign intelligence collection or foreign counter-intelligence investigations, any unlawful entries that constitute searches under the Fourth Amendment, or any unlawful disruption or harassment of the lawful activities of any United States person.”The decree also addressed Fourth Amendment issues of “search and seizure.”Notably, these provision applied to foreign intelligence collection and counter-intelligence investigations,precisely the issues that were modified in the 2001 decision. The original decree provided that the FBI:
35Smith Guidelines“When, however, statements advocate criminal activity or indicate an apparent intent to engage in crime, particularly crimes of violence, an investigation under these Guidelines may be warranted unless it is apparent, from the circumstances or the context in which the statements are made, that there is no prospect of harm.”The consent decree was challenged by the adoption of the FBI “Smith Guidelines” in 1983.These new guidelines attempted to give law enforcement greater latitude in investigating and preventing crime:
36Posner on the Guidelines Posner doubts that “in agreeing to the consent decree the Justice Department tied its hands to such an extent; for if it did, it was trifling with the public safety of the people of Chicago.”The Alliance plaintiffs responded by bringing a cause of action for an injunction against the guidelines, which they believed were inconsistent with the original decree. However, the 7th Circuit found for the government.Writing for the court, Judge Posner expressed their doubt that “in agreeing to the consent decree the Justice Department tied its hands to such an extent; for if it did, it was trifling with the public safety of the people of Chicago.”Hon. Richard Posner, Chief Judge of the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, thinks this decree could use a little “modification”
37Consent Decrees Did the decree work? Are consent decrees the best way to approach institutional reform?Roger Parloff, World Pad, CNN.comDecember 09, 2006: Judge Posner takes book tour spending a couple hours in Second Life, the metaverse simulated by servers operated by Linden Lab.
38Consent Decrees In institutional reform litigation, consent decrees: Allow the state greater flexibility than hard rulesProtects the rights of citizens
39Consent Decrees Dual Character of Consent Decrees An “agreement” approved by the courtA “contract” binding the parties
40Balancing TestConsent decrees such as Alliance must balance civil liberties and public safetyConsent decrees are often part of a balancing test, with civil liberties and constitutional rights on one side, and public safety or national security on the other.The 7th Circuit allowed a modification that tipped the balance in favor of the government’s right to investigate the public.
41Application of the Consent Decree Spanish Action CommitteeChicago Committee in Solidarity with the People of El Salvador (CISPES)Raymond Risley1996 Democratic National ConventionAttorney Fees
42Spanish Action Committee of Chicago 1966: Red Squad discredit Juan Diaz, SACC leader.1984: SACC win $60,000 in compensatory damages against the City.Three individual defendants granted qualified immunity.
43Chicago CISPES 1983-85: FBI investigation of National CISPES 19 separate investigations in Chicago.Bank records, phone records, and monitoring of private and public meetings.1987: New head of FBI William Sessions orders audit of the investigation.Disciplines those involvedChanges FBI guidelines.1991: CISPES receives summary judgmentFBI signed Consent Decree with knowledge of its terms and the investigation was undertaken deliberatelyFBI’s actions found to be “intentional non-compliance”.Expungement of files; order to comply.1997: FBI’s negligence is not “intentional non- compliance”.Investigation violates the Consent Decree when conducted with intent to interfere with First Amendment Rights.
44Raymond Risley High ranking Chicago police officer from 1991-1999. Investigated by Internal Affairs for allegedly communicating with the media.Motion dismissed because of 2 year statute of limitationsNo Consent Decree violation unless actual First Amendment conduct!!!Risley alleged that investigation was retaliation based on the mistaken belief of First Amendment conduct.No remedy for City actions First Amendment motivations unless those actions are meant to disrupt, interfere with, or harass a person because of their actual First Amendment conduct.Alleged police retaliation was in response to perceived First Amendment conductDoes this go against the idea that intentional non-compliance by the police violates the Consent Decree???
451996 Democratic National Convention Active Resistance CounterConventionAutonomous Zone, CounterMedia, and Active Resistance Organizing CommitteeAllege they were spied on, radio communications were monitored, cameras and film were destroyed or seized. and participants were generally followed, questions, and harassed by the police.Summary judgmentsurveillance allowed of public gatheringsPlaintiffs would need to show connection between retaliation and their First Amendment conduct for the police conduct to violate the Consent Decree.Taking radio and sending false communications not violation unless police were retaliating because of the person’s First Amendment conduct.If cameras opened to destroy the film of police searching a van, that is retaliation for First Amendment conductUnderlying reason for searching the van did not violate CD.
461996 Democratic National Convention “clear and convincing” evidenceAt bench hearing the plaintiffs fail to show that any of the incidents were retaliation for First Amendment conduct.Unwillingness to enforce where the police action not clearly done in retaliation to the plaintiff’s First Amendment conduct.CISPES negligence standard sufficient
47Modification of the Consent Decree 1997: City motion for modificationA burden on ability to serve and protect?bad public policy?Dist Ct. denies City’s motion for modificationallows motion for interpretation of the Consent DecreeCity presents 13 interrogatories calling for interpretation of hypothetical scenariosCity’s motion for clarification on interrogatories denied, court “cannot be in the business of issuing hypothetical answers.Misguided Natureplaintiffs would not have disputed some of the scenarios if the City had bothered to ask for the plaintiff’s interpretation of the interrogatories.Mr. Edward FeldmanArguing attorney for ACLU
48Modification of the Consent Decree (cont) Attorney Edward Feldman: City had not offered any actual factual examples where criminal activity resulted from City’s inability to investigate a political groupEdward Feldman and Richard Gutman:Decision was based on the 7th Circuit’s assumption of how the Consent Decree affected police activity rather than on the factual record presented.FBI agent affidavit: decree never prevented FBI from doing what they wanted to do in an investigationChanges“reasonable suspicion” standard removed.The Consent Decree is still an open contract that the City must abide by or otherwise face sanctions.Audits.
49Then and Now Then Now That’s a tough one . . . Were the Police correct in assessing the threat to public safety?NowWhat infringements on civil liberties are necessary for national security today?The position of the police and Posner’s pragmatic decision in early 2001 turned out to be eerily prescient. The question now is whether the balance has tipped too far against the Fourth Amendment rights or Americans.That’s a tough one . . .
50Good then Bad now?Essentially, the Police were asking the court for another trade-off: they would continue to respect the First Amendment rights of the residents of Chicago as required by the decree, but were now asking the court for some leniency on the Fourth Amendment.The party seeking modification must then show that the alteration is warranted by changed circumstancesThe rationale for modification assumes that a decree can be “good then, but bad now.”