Whose Police?
by Candidate for Cambridge City Council, Aimee Smith


A careful review of works by Ward Churchill and Jim Van der Wall documenting the systematic pattern of the Federal Bureau of Investigation being used as tool of political repression rather than for its self-proclaimed purpose of crime fighting is enough to raise deep questions about the legitimacy of the assertion that the United States is a functioning democracy. Since this repression has largely been reserved for organizers and activists of color, the mainstream thinking seems to ignore this history as an aberration in the US government's general promotion of freedom and justice.

In the wake of the COINTELPRO era and subsequent fallout, such as the Church Commission's report, citizens did become more wary about the potential of abuse of power of the federal government, particularly when it worked too closely with local law enforcement agencies. The assassination of Black Panther Party member Fred Hampton by the Chicago PD was widely reported, but it was by no means an isolated incident. While the Church Commission pointed out some of the most blatant excesses of the collaboration of FBI with local law enforcement, it demanded no prosecutions for those who had committed crimes under the program, nor did it call for any meaningful institutional reform to make it likely that the pattern of government abuse would be curtailed. In fact, targets were put on the American Indian Movement leaders such as Leonard Peltier, and uninvestigated murders on the Pine Ridge Reservation continued in spite of national exposure to COINTELPRO. There is no reason to assume that these policies have been discontinued.

In the wake of the Oklahoma City bombing, the Anti-terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 was guided through the legislature by leading Democrats. While this law gutted appeals protections for convicted felons and made materially supporting a designated international terrorist organization a crime, some of the more far-reaching measures would have to wait for the PATRIOT Act and the Department of Homeland Security. These transformations make many of the abuses decried in the Church Commission legal. Far from ending COINTELPRO, the government is now mandating such policies.

You might wonder what this has to do with us here in the Republic of Cambridge. After all, our City Council voted 5-4 in an Anti-PATRIOT Act resolution to reaffirm Cambridge as a sanctuary city. The problem is, resolutions are nothing more than words on paper. There is no mechanism to enforce such an important affirmation of our constitutionally protected rights. The city, on paper, has something called a Police Review Advisory Board that is charged with monitoring police abuses and advising on policy. This board has no subpoena power, but could at least serve to document patterns. Yet even this limited oversight has been undermined by the city manager. He has refused to fill the four vacant seats on the board of 5. The lone seated board member keeps patiently returning to city council meetings to ask politely for some colleagues to enable the committee to get back up and running. Apparently the city manager has more important things to attend to than enabling citizen oversight of law enforcement personnel that we citizens pay the salaries of and entrust with deadly force. Why is this task left up to the city council-elected manager rather than the popularly elected and directly accountable councilors themselves?

This is an important question and requires exploring the structure and history of the implementation of what is called "Plan E government" here in Cambridge. Essentially, the city manager system was seen as a way to distance city government from democratic access back in the days when the powerful and effective organizing of the labor movement was a real threat to corporate rule. Our current city manager has enjoyed his position for more than two decades councilors fear being a lone voice in favor of replacing him because if he survives an attempted ouster, they will be unable to seek concessions from him. This locked-in system of unaccountable power gives the Republic of Cambridge its own dictator.

If you are white or don't practice Islam, you might be under the impression that all is well in spite of the unchecked power of the city manager and the unchecked power of the city police. Unfortunately, you would be incorrect. Two cases that I happen to know quite a bit about are those of Palestinian activists Jaoudat Abouazza and Amer Jubran. Abouazza, while of Palestinian origin, is a Canadian citizen. He entered the US the way most Canadians do he crossed the border and no one stamped his passport. In May of 2002 while on his way to leaflet in Harvard Square for an upcoming protest, Jaoudat was stopped by Cambridge Police for vehicle-related violations. Leaflets for a pro Palestine rally and speaker wire in the trunk of Jaoudat's car led Cambridge police to believe Jaoudat might be a "terrorist."

Within hours, Jaoudat was handed over to the FBI and subjected to a bizarre interrogations, with questions such as Do you know Osama Bin Laden? Jaoudat refused to answer questions without the benefit of a lawyer and interpreter. Eventually he was released by the FBI into INS custody, where he experienced even worse abuse, including medical torture (the forced extraction of four healthy molars.) Ultimately, Jaoudat was released and allowed to return to Canada. He is still receiving corrective dentistry to repair the damage he received while in INS custody. This entire saga began with the Cambridge Police.

Amer Jubran has been subjected to not one, but two serious court cases which have no legal merit. The first was in June of 2001 (before 9/11) and culminated in exoneration after a year of proceedings by, of all things, police surveillance video. (Police videographers continue to cite this as evidence of their positive role as they surveil me and others at protests - I am not so convinced of their benign character.)

Jubran's next case began two days after a permitted protest in Boston. Unidentified FBI and INS agents raided his home and incarcerated him. He was told that if he would please the ears of the nice FBI man, he could be let home in time for lunch. Otherwise, they could let him rot in jail for 50 years. He agreed to cooperate in the presence of his lawyer. This was considered non-cooperation in spite of the legal right to such counsel. Jubran is still dealing with the charges that came out of this arrest - no, nothing to do with terrorism or crime, only questions about the paperwork surrounding his green card application.

Even the judge in the case seemed perplexed by the degree of attention being paid to such a commonplace immigration technicality. As part of Jubran's efforts to understand why he is being targeted by FBI officials, he filed Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests with several law enforcement agencies, including that of the City of Cambridge. Cambridge sent back a reply that was non-sequitur- there was no car accident, even though there was no mention of any car accident in the FOIA request. Nevertheless, someone in the Cambridge Police department seems to be watching Jubran if the Harvard Crimson reporter Jenifer Steinhardt got it right in the following story in her Nov 12, 2002 story entitled "Arrest Caused Commencement 'Lock-Down.'" She writes of Abouazza's arrest:
"Police concerns piqued during the traffic stop and subsequent field investigation when Palestinian activist Amer Jubran, who was sitting at Au Bon Pain, saw the police interrogating Abouazza and offered his services as a translator.
"(According to court records, Abouazza does not speak fluent English.) The presence of Jubran and another Arab organizer at Au Bon Pain at that moment, combined with the passing presence of Abouazza, sparked concern among law enforcement."

If the CPD are not surveilling Jubran, why would his presence spark concern? And if they are surveilling him, they are required by the Freedom of Information Act to provide copies of the documentation they have accumulated about him.

A further complication in the oversight of law enforcement agencies is the presence of private police forces such as those found on the MIT and Harvard campuses. As was mentioned in the Crimson article, the Harvard Police invited Federal law enforcement agencies onto the campus for commencement. Yet, while HPD officers are deputized to make arrest and carry guns, they are not required to make police records public and there is not even the pretense of any Police Review Advisory Board to check this state sanctioned power. Considering the large number of foreign students on our campuses and the ideal that we have for universities as places of open dialog and thought, these private police forces need to be reconsidered in the context of the Homeland Security State.

The truth is, the City Council has no intention of protecting us from the PATRIOT Act here in Cambridge. Yet, I reiterate, the police are supposed to work for all of us, not violate our constitutionally protected rights. We pay their salaries, we entrust them with deadly weapons. I am running for city council because I believe we can do better to protect the public from the escalation of FBI repression. I hope all of you who understand why the PATRIOT Act must go will help us wage this battle on the local level. It has been said elsewhere that the price of freedom is eternal vigilance. It is time for all of us who love freedom to start getting seriously vigilant, and the ballot box should be only one of many forms of resistance to this latest escalation of police state conditions in our community.

Aimee Smith for Cambridge City Council