The New Liabilities
of Political Dissent
proposed D.C. bill may label YOU a terrorist...
by Mara Verheyden-Hilliard
March/April 2002
Volume 39, Number 2
Have you ever participated in nonviolent civil disobedience? Locked
down and blocked traffic? Participated in a high-wire banner hang? Then
according to the U.S. government, you may be a domestic terrorist.
Have you ever been arrested and charged during a demonstration here
in Washington, D.C., even when you weren't doing anything unlawful?
Depending on the charge, under a bill being considered by the D.C. Council,
you may face a minimum of ten years in jail next time around.
Across the country local jurisdictions are enacting legislation similar
to the USA PATRIOT Act, which defines as "terrorist" any act that violates
any criminal law, is potentially dangerous to human life, and appears
to be intended to influence the policies of the government through intimidation
or coercion.
The District of Columbia has introduced its own "anti-terrorism" legislation,
though the final version of the bill has not yet been released. The
original bill parroted the PATRIOT Act in substantial part and criminalized
as "terrorist" non-violent violations of the law, easily encompassing
acts of civil disobedience, as well as other violations motivated by
a political viewpoint, regardless of the fact that those violations
might never intend to, or in actuality, cause harm to human life.
The Council has indicated that it will not go forward with some of
the most repressive measures, but the most recently disseminated working
draft of the legislation still contains provisions that, if enacted,
would jeopardize the ability of persons who engage in the democratic
process to express their views without the risk of punitive repercussions.
This is of particular concern to activists who participate in demonstrations
here in D.C., where in recent years activists have been subject to repressive
law enforcement. Paramilitary policing strategies, institutionalized
against communities of color, are now routinely used against persons
participating in mass demonstrations. In DC, hundreds have been subject
to false arrest and preventive detention, others have been beaten bloody
while peacefully protesting, while others have been drenched with chemical
weapons. People have been arrested and overcharged by prosecutors, often
for offenses they did not commit. Now the police and prosecutors may
have a new weapon: a new class of political crimes.
The proposed legislation defines an act of terrorism as certain acts
intending to "intimidate or coerce a civilian population," or "influence
the policy or conduct of a unit of government." Thus the political content
accompanying certain acts will trigger minimum ten year penalties. It
is important to note that the underlying acts are already considered
crimes. All this bill does is add additional penalties and mandatory
minimums if certain crimes are carried out with political intent, taking
away the ability of judges to evaluate the totality of the circumstances
in determining sentencing.
The definitional language regarding influencing the "conduct" of a
unit of government is noteworthy, and does not appear in the federal
anti-terrorism legislation. It expands the scope of actions falling
within the definition of "terrorist" in a way that can include situations
between a civilian and an agent of the government, escalating some alleged
crimes into acts of terrorism at the government's discretion.
In the working draft of the D.C. Council legislation, provision 102(5)(h)
elevates assault with a dangerous weapon to an "act of terrorism" if
it is allegedly carried out with political intentions. Assault with
a dangerous weapon - you would never do that, right? But one can imagine
a demonstrator being charged for doing nothing more than holding a placard
in what a police officer might later claim to be a manner intended to
alter his course of conduct. At a demonstration last year, prosecutors
charged assault with a dangerous weapon for the burning of a confederate
flag. Would that now be terrorism?
Sections 102(2) and 102(3) of the working draft are also very concerning.
They define and criminalize as "terrorist" the "provision of material
support or resources" in order to create a sweeping net for prosecution.
Once a political act, or even a political violation of the law, has
been deemed as "terrorist" at the government's discretion, this provision
becomes an indiscriminate weapon in the hand of prosecutors. This can
create a domino effect of prosecutions: loaning a person five dollars
to purchase that confederate flag to burn, handing them a lighter, or
perhaps even providing "expert assistance" about the legal ramifications
of flag burning could become terrorist acts.
The government asks that we trust that these new laws will not be misused,
and that we trust their discretion in applying them. Discretion in the
past led to the closure of demonstrators' meeting spaces in April of
2000 with the announcement by Asst. Chief Terrence Gainer that puppet-making
materials constituted a Molotov Cocktail and that ingredients for gazpacho
in the kitchen was proof of a pepper spray making factory. What if these
laws had been on the books then? Would IMF/World Bank demonstrators
have been charged as terrorists making weapons of mass destruction?
The reality is that there are no laws that the Council can enact that
would effect a deterrent to the tragic attacks on civilians of September
11. The terrible nature of the attacks created a desire for people,
and legislative bodies, to do something in response to unthinkable wrongs.
But crimes of violence are already severely sanctioned.
We must fight against creating a new class of political crimes that
can be used to put down mass demonstrations, civil rights protests and
other forms of non-violent political activity in the Nation's Capitol.
Educate yourself and others, hold community meetings and teach-ins.
You can contact the council for a copy of the most recently available
working draft of the bill, and tell your council member what you think.
Learn more about the provisions of the PATRIOT Act. Take public stands
in solidarity with those who are being targeted under it.
(www.Civil-Rights.net)
We cannot, despite this time of passion, anger and fear that we live
in, allow the government to take actions that criminalize dissent as
terrorist. People come to D.C. from all over the country to communicate
with policymakers and the world. These people are not terrorists. They
cannot buy access to the halls of power and privilege, so our streets,
sidewalks and parks are the stages of expression. Our cherished rights
to dissent must be protected and fought for here in D.C., especially
right now, when there is such government-sponsored hostility to free
speech and democracy.
Mara Verheyden-Hilliard, is an attorney and co-founder of the public
interest law firm, Partnership for Civil Justice, Inc.
