Counterpunch Weekend Edition
October 20/21, 2007
The FBI's War on Black Liberation
COINTELPRO and the Panthers
By RON JACOBS
The history of relations between the Black liberation movement and law
enforcement has always been adversarial, at its best. At its worst, it is
a history of murder, beatings, lies and frame-ups. There are few groups in
this history that experienced the latter more than the Black Panther
Party. The history of FBI and police harassment and intimidation of
Panther members during the Party's heyday is well documented. It includes
the murders of several members, the constant harassment and petty arrests
of members by local police forces and the framing of many of its leaders.
Most of these frame-ups resulted in long prison terms for the members
accused and convicted falsely.
What may be surprising to many who know this history is that these
frame-ups continue today. It was under the FBI/Justice Department program
known as COINTELPRO that the first frame-ups took place and it is that
program's successors that have occurred under. Two false convictions that
received much of the publicity in the 1990s were those of Geronimo Pratt
and Dhoruba bin Wahad. Both of these men spent over fifteen years in
prison for crimes they did not commit, thanks to frame-ups carried out
under the auspices of the COINTELPRO program.
Two ongoing cases that appear to be frame-ups from this vantage point are
those of Mumia abu Jamal and the San Francisco 8. The former is a case
involving the murder of a Philadelphia police officer in 1981 and the
latter involves the murder of a San Francisco policeman in 1971. In both
situations, the prosecution's case is based on evidence that is flimsy at
best and just plain false at its worst. Neither prosecution has proven its
case beyond a reasonable doubt despite several chances. In addition, the
politics of the defendants has been used by the prosecution in an attempt
to prejudice the jury.
Mumia's case has always carried the stench of a frame-up. The conflicting
testimony of witnesses, the failure of witnesses to appear and many other
instances of questionable conduct by the prosecution and law enforcement
have conspired to create this perception. A recent book by Michael
Schiffmannn titled Race Against Death (currently available only in German)
adds even more documentary fuel to this perception. The text, which does a
good job placing Mumia's case into a historical context of racism in the
United States, provides a history of the case itself and the movement that
has grown in support of Mumia following the 1995 signing of his death
warrant by then Pennsylvania governor Tom Ridge. The new material at the
end of the book includes several never-before-published photographs of the
1981 crime scene that were also never produced in court. These photos
raise more questions as to Mumia's role in the events of that night the
policeman was killed. The litany of miscues and missing evidence already
familiar to those who have followed Mumia's case around the world is
repeated here, with a renewed emphasis. In addition to this evidence is
the newly discovered fact that a fifth bullet fired by police at the scene
for comparative purposes was "lost."
The photos in Schiffmann's text cast more doubt on the state's case by
proving that the prosecution's statements that Mumia stood over Officer
Faulkner and fired at him several times. The photos show no marks from the
bullets that were supposedly fired in this fashion. In fact, the sidewalk
was not damaged in any way. Schiffmann goes on to write: "it is thus no
question anymore whether the scenario presented by the prosecution at
Abu-Jamal's trial is true. It is clearly not, because it is physically and
ballistically impossible." (p. 205) The remainder of the photos show a
scenario that constantly contradicts the testimony of officers and
witnesses (apparently coerced) and the nature of the scene they described
in Mumia's original trial.
It is the continued refusal of the court to allow a new trial for Mumia
that would allow the new evidence to be introduced that has been pointed
to by Mumia's supporters as part of the proof that not only was Mumia
framed because of his politics and outspokenness as a member of the media,
but that the frame-up continues. Added to this refusal by the court is the
somewhat understandable desire of the slain officer's family to have a
perpetrator locked up, even if that someone isn't really the killer.
Other lesser known cases involving the US government and former Black
Panther members are those of Veronza Bowers, Jr. and Jamil Abdullah
Al-Amin (formerly H. Rap Brown). Bowers has been in prison for more than
thirty years despite the fact that he is a model prisoner and has served
his complete sentence under the law, been approved for parole only to have
it overturned by the Justice department and is still in prison sixteen
months after his sentence has expired. (Actually, Veronza has been in
prison for four years after completing his sentence.--Jericho Movement)
Besides this travesty, the facts of Bowers' conviction are questionable,
to say the least. He was convicted of the murder of a U.S. Park Ranger
based on the word of two government informers. Both of the informers
received reduced sentences for other crimes in exchange for their
testimony. There were no eye-witnesses, nor was there any other evidence
to link him to the crime. Bowers' alibi testimony was not credited by the
jury and the testimony of two relatives of the informants who insisted
that they were lying was not allowed. The informants had all charges
against them in this case dropped. In addition, according to the
prosecutor's post-sentencing report, one was given $10,000 by the
government.
As for Al-Amin, he was recently removed from state custody in Georgia by
federal authorities and sent to the federal control unit in Florence,
Colorado. No reason was given for the transfer, despite repeated requests
from family and friends. According to the website maintained by the family
and friends of the prisoner Dr. Mutulu Shakur, the transfer seems to be
part of a more general move by the Bureau of Prisons to prevent programs
that have had an "impact on the transformation of dozens of men, from a
criminal mentality to liberation consciousness." The transfers and other
intimidation by the bureau seem intended to make it difficult for these
prisoners to build networks of support. Other aspects of this campaign
include the suspension of cultural and educational programs within the
federal prison systems and the increased harassment of politically active
prisoners.
As mentioned above, another ongoing case involving former Black Panthers
and the government is that of the San Francisco 8. This case against eight
former Panthers and Panther supporters charged with the murder of a San
Francisco policeman in 1971 was thrown out of court in 1975 because the
evidence used by the prosecution was obtained by torture. It was revived
in the early part of the twenty-first century by the California attorney
general with help from the US Justice Department. There seems to be no new
evidence in the case, although the prosecution hints that some does exist.
DNA taken from all of the defendants in 2005 failed to match any previous
evidence and the prosecution has hinted that it will reintroduce the same
evidence thrown out back in 1975 because it was extracted by torture.
Evidence obtained by torture is not considered to be verifiable beyond a
reasonable doubt precisely because it was obtained by torture.
Anybody following the current debate around the U.S. rendition program for
terror suspects is quite familiar with the proven argument that torture
does not produce credible evidence. Of course, if the purpose of the
torture is something other than the procurement of credible evidence or
confessions, than it doesn't really matter as to its effectiveness.
In the case of the San Francisco 8, it appears that the prosecution was
not so much interested in finding the people responsible for the killing
of the San Francisco policeman in 1971 as it was interested in helping to
destroy the already splintered Black Panther Party. As any student
studying the COINTELPRO program can tell you, one of its primary goals was
the destruction of the Panthers. This goal was pursued by a variety of
means. Among them was murder, the spreading of false rumors concerning the
members' personal lives, the placing of snitch jackets on members, and the
intentional framing of its members on felony charges.
The case of the San Francisco 8 falls under the latter category but is
also unique if only because the entire case was based on police
speculation and torture. None of the accused was ever found guilty of the
murder the first time they were tried. After the torture was exposed in
1975, the prosecution's case was thrown out. The men who were not in
prison on other charges (of a questionable nature as well) returned to
their communities and lived active and law abiding lives until 2005. In
2005, the Department of Homeland security revived the same case that had
been discarded in 1975. Together with the State of California they
convened a grand jury and called many of the same defendants to testify.
To their credit, the men refused and served time for their refusal. In
2006, DNA was extracted from the men by the prosecution in the hope that
this evidence could be tied to evidence from the 1971 crime scene. After
more than a year of silence, the defense was told that none of the DNA
samples matched any of the evidence. Despite this, the prosecution refuses
to drop the case and appears to be intent on resubmitting the evidence
obtained under torture back in the early 1970s despite the earlier court's
refusal to allow that same evidence. Randy Montesano, the attorney of
Harold Taylor--one of the defendants--told the media after a motion to
deny admission of the torture-extracted evidence that despite the refusal
of the court to approve the motion "there is no way to get a fair hearing
today, especially given the delay of so many years and (because) the
passage of time alone precludes any reliable adjudication,¬ so we will
ultimately prevail."
One respects Mr. Montesano's optimism, yet it can not be emphasized enough
that this case may not go the way it should (and the defense hopes it
will) unless the light of the world is shown upon it. It will take the
concerted effort of a popular movement to insure that the men known as the
San Francisco 8 are not framed for the murder of the policeman in 1971.
The alternative for these men would be spending the rest of their lives in
prison, much like the future faced by Mumia abu Jamal. In fact, it is the
growing popular movement supporting the San Francisco 8 that helped
convince the judge in the case to lower the bail of most of the men and
allow them to go home to their loved ones. Likewise, in the case of Mumia
abu Jamal, it is the popular movement around his case that has kept him
alive.
Ron Jacobs is author of The Way the Wind Blew: a history of the Weather
Underground, which is just republished by Verso. Jacobs' essay on Big Bill
Broonzy is featured in CounterPunch's collection on music, art and sex,
Serpents in the Garden. His first novel, Short Order Frame Up, is
published by Mainstay Press. He can be reached at:
rjacobs3625@charter.net
--
Free All Political Prisoners!
nycjericho@riseup.net •
www.jerichony.org
