Rahm Emanuel, the Face of Democratic Fascism, Deserves to Lose

By William Boardman, Reader Supported News

05 March 15

 

hicago’s mayoral election may look like a local event, and the media mostly cover it as a local event, but the presence of a large, diverse, and energized opposition demanding change on basic issues of fairness and justice gives the city’s local result a potentially important, totemic meaning for the country. The outcome of the April 7 runoff election, which includes 40% of the city council as well, may signify whether peaceful change is possible, or whether the suffocating status quo will grow more stifling.

There is another way of gauging the April vote: is Chicago yet ready to reject the police state practices of its local government? Is Chicago ready to reject a mayor who seems content to allow police state behavior to go unexamined and unpunished? Will Chicago be where a majority of Americans finally confront the nationwide plague of police hate and violence that makes the term “American justice” an oxymoron?

The current mayor since 2011, the arrogant and ineffective Rahm Emanuel, has catered to his rich-folks base (with “the actions of a mad king”). And he has treated the majority of Chicagoans with destructive disdain, whether he’s closing their schools, attacking teachers and other public employees, or ignoring police brutality and killing. (As a congressman in 2002, Emanuel supported the Iraq War right out of the box.) He is endorsed by major Chicago media that laud his “significant accomplishments,” but they can’t seem to name any. His record is mixed.

Given the preening self-satisfaction of the incumbent pugnacious bully, given the elitist priorities and anti-populist destructiveness of this Clinton-Obama Democrat, the best result for the national Democratic Party – and for the country – would be the clear rejection of regressive, right-wing Democrat Rahm Emanuel for a second term as mayor. Emanuel’s defeat could mean the end of almost 30 years of corporate Democrats (including Richard M. Daley, 1989-2011) running Chicago for the 1% and driving the city into heavy debt that the 99% will be expected to pay.

Chicagestapo story breaks, police lie, everyone else starts stonewalling

Chicago is already paying tens of millions of dollars in restitution to people who have been victimized by the Chicago Police Department over the past four decades (over $50 million paid in 2014 alone). On election day, February 24, Chicago police-state tactics became a clear and present issue in the current election, when the Guardian newspaper published a report about one of the city’s darker open secrets, the Homan Square holding facility that has functioned as a municipal black site for torture and interrogation for years.

In its essence, the story is simple and predictable: the Chicago police have a secure facility where they can take prisoners and hold them more or less indefinitely, keeping no official record of their whereabouts, while treating them with torture techniques made familiar by their application to prisoners at Guantánamo. The Guardian story by Spencer Ackerman, a reliable reporter who used to work for Wired, is based on public records and the personal accounts of both victims and attorneys, none of whom hide behind anonymity. The report provides ample detail that can be independently verified by any responsible public official or investigator or other news organization.

Despite the long Chicago police history of chronic brutality, the department promptly went into denial mode, issuing an unsigned, so-called “fact sheet” that is free of much relevant fact. Beyond that dishonest document, police officials refused to comment. Much of the police “defense” turns on the characterization by witnesses (not by Guardian reporters) of “what lawyers say is the domestic equivalent of a CIA black site,” which it clearly is, based on current evidence.

Homan Square is a large, well-guarded warehouse secure from scrutiny

Homan Square used to be a Sears, Roebuck warehouse complex built in 1904, on a 40-plus acre site, providing 3.3 million square feet of floor space. In 1978, after Sears moved out, 16 acres of the site became a National Historic Landmark and the rest was re-developed in a variety of ways. In 1999, the police took over part of the Sears complex, one four-story warehouse covering most of a city block. In other words, even this smaller piece of the Sears complex is a big building, as the police acknowledge, without saying just how big the Homan Square Facility is:

“It serves a number of functions, some of which are sensitive and some of which are not, however it is not a secret facility. In fact, Homan Square is home to CPD’s Evidence and Recovered Property Section, which is open to the public…. Portions of the facility are sensitive. Homan Square is the base of operations for officers working undercover assignments…. Other sensitive units housed at the facility include the Bureau of Organized Crime (including the narcotics unit), the SWAT Unit, Evidence Technicians, and the CPD ballistics lab…. Homan Square contains several standard interview rooms. Most individuals interviewed at Homan Square are lower-level arrests from the Narcotics unit….”

This is an exercise in non-denial denial. The police acknowledge some of what Homan Square contains, but there is no claim that this is all it contains. Most of the facility is “sensitive” and inaccessible to the public. Lawyers and reporters have been barred in recent weeks from entering the grounds. Homan Square also reportedly houses a large number of military vehicles and has plenty of space for a secret section in which to hold and interrogate persons of interest.

The police “fact sheet” claims that there are “always records of anyone who is arrested,” which leaves all the room in the world for the truth of the allegation that people have been held and tortured at Homan Square without ever being arrested (as described by Victoria Suter). Similarly, the assertion that “it is not a secret facility” can be true, since it does not deny that this “sensitive” facility may hide one of more secret sections. Defending themselves against brutality claims, police admit that a prisoner in custody died of a heroin overdose. How does that happen with competent policing?

The second and third pages of the “fact sheet” are even less relevant or persuasive. The second page consists of mostly unattributed opinion from friendly local news media (Tribune, Sun-Times, WBEZ). At least one of the police quotes reinforces the possibility that an actual, unconstitutional detention facility exists: “it’s an exaggeration to call it a ‘black site,’” according to one law professor – only an exaggeration?

It’s so much easier to disappear someone you haven’t arrested

The Guardian report makes consistent allegations supported by testimony that can be independently verified:

• that police take people into custody without arresting them;


• that police hold prisoners incommunicado, sometimes for days;


• that police deny prisoners their right to make a phone call;


• that police deny prisoners any contact with their lawyers;


• that police lie to lawyers about the whereabouts of their clients;


• that police keep prisoners shackled hand and foot.

Additionally, there are allegations of further torture, including threats and brutality. Most of this behavior is prohibited by the Constitution.

The third page of the police “fact sheet” comprises a detailed outline of Chicago police “arrest and interview procedures.” In other words, it is no answer whatsoever to allegations about the treatment of people who have not been arrested.

Mayor Emanuel, police officials, and others choose not to address the specifics of the Guardian report. They have been hiding behind this “fact sheet” charade of a defense, referring questioners to it as if it actually meant something. The Chicago Sun-Times and MSNBC (perhaps others) ran portions of the police “fact sheet” verbatim, as if the anonymous police assertions were an independent news story. As the Columbia Journalism Review noted a week after the Homan Square story broke, it “was huge on the internet – but not in Chicago media.” The Review did not go on to note that the Homan Square story was all but invisible in national mainstream media (Democracy NOW covered the story early and in depth). The Review also made a rookie mistake, attributing the “CIA black site” characterization to reporter Ackerman, even though he was careful to attribute it to others.

Police lawlessness in Chicago is an old story – therefore it doesn’t matter?

Remember the Chicago police riot of 1968: it was sanctioned by then-mayor Richard J. Daley, who shouted anti-Semitic insults at the Connecticut senator who spoke out against the violent rampage of city cops against unarmed anti-war protestors. Chicago policing was not good before that, and it hasn’t improved appreciably since. Government in Chicago, as in so many other places, remains tolerant of illegal, racist, brutal, and sometimes lethal police behavior. That’s why it matters.

Rahm Emanuel has responded to the present “black site” report with denial and silence, mostly silence. Perhaps his only on-the-record comment on The Guardian report is: “That’s not true. We follow all the rules…. Everything’s done by the books.”

It’s not credible that he believes that. Emanuel knows full well that the Chicago police have sheltered their share of serial monsters, and may be sheltering others with their code of silence (which he has affirmed).

Emanuel is still dealing with the case of Chicago police detective Jon Burge, who tortured suspects into false confessions for twenty years (1973-1993). Burge was dismissed in 1993. He was never charged criminally. Burge’s settlement with the city protected the mayor at the time from having to testify, perhaps embarrassingly, under oath. That mayor was Richard M. Daley (in office 1989-2011), the son of Richard J. Daley (in office 1955-1976). In 2010, Burge was convicted of perjury in civil suits and sentenced to 4-plus years in prison. He is now a free man, collecting his $3,000-a-month pension, thanks to a decision, apparently barred by statute, by Chicago’s Police Pension Board. Every other taxpayer gets to pay for his crimes through multi-million dollar settlements to his victims ($67 million to 18 victims, and counting) and legal fees. Emanuel has opposed establishing a fund to provide health care and job training to Chicago torture victims.

In 2013, when the city council approved $12.3 million in settlements to two victims, Mayor Emanuel’s comments were cold:

This is a dark chapter on the history of the city of Chicago…. a stain on the city’s reputation…. I am sorry this happened…. Now let us now all move on.

Or not. Emanuel is also dealing with the more recent case of Chicago police detective Richard Zuley, whose possibly torture-induced convictions are also threatening to come back to haunt the city. Zuley was such a good Chicago torturer (1977-2007), that he went on loan as a Navy reserve lieutenant to Guantánamo, where his torture techniques set the bar high for brutality. Zuley, his attorney, and the Chicago police have refused to answer questions from The Guardian.

Police brutality, torture, black sites still not election factor

Emanuel has never shown any inclination to take on the corrupt history of Chicago policing, even as its costs mount for a city in declining financial health. Other public figures, like the media, are also leaving the issue alone. There have been a few well-deserved calls for an investigation, especially one by the U.S. Justice Department (which so far has refused any comment).

Even Emanuel’s opponent in the April runoff, Jesus “Chuy” Garcia, has only promised public comment. How hard can it be to condemn police torture in Chicago? The charges are many and easy to document and have a long history of turning out to be true. Last November, the United Nations Committee Against Torture issued a report on U.S. compliance with torture law that singled out Chicago police violence against young black and Latino people as well as “excessive use of force” generally used by Chicago police.

Emanuel was expected to win the mayoral election in the first round, outspending his opponents roughly $15 million to $1.3 million. He also had President Obama’s endorsement. He won 45% of the low-turnout vote, with 55% preferring someone else (voting for three other candidates). Now the runoff is a one-on-one and the polls (which overrated Emanuel in the first round) are showing him with a small lead or in a dead heat. He seems aware of his vulnerability, having released an apologetic ad saying he’s sorry he rubs people wrong and should maybe listen more and talk less.

Jesus “Chuy” Garcia is three years older than Emanuel (who is 56) and has a longer political career, all of it Illinois, most of it in Chicago. He is a current member of the Cook County Board of Commissioners. He is an established progressive. He was an ally of Chicago Mayor Harold Washington (1983-1987). Garcia’s silence on Chicago police torture is somewhat mystifying, and likely only temporary.

Police: better than mere citizens, above accountability?

In 2012, Mayor Emanuel attempted to expunge a jury verdict that concluded that the Chicago police “code of silence” was a reality. The mayor backed a court motion to vacate the jury verdict and won the support of a woman who had been beaten by a cop, promising to pay her the $850,000 jury award even after the verdict was vacated. Emanuel effectively reached for a code of silence about the “code of silence,” hoping to protect future cops against the consequences of their own brutality. A federal judge rejected the ploy.

The police torture issue is as universal as it is local. The issue cuts deeply. Emanuel is already on the wrong side of it. Even as mild a position as a call for an investigation by the Justice Department would be difficult for traditional Democrats like Emanuel, Obama, Hilary Clinton, and all the rest of the don’t-prosecute-torturers crowd that has become the dominant, anti-democratic wing of the Democratic Party. The defeat of Rahm Emanuel would be at least a momentary check on the smart and soulless drift of the Democratic Party.

Rahm Emanuel is a particularly nasty piece of work as a political being. Why would anyone think it a good idea to be governed by a nasty piece of work? Have American voters learned nothing since 2000, when five nasty pieces of work on the Supreme Court imposed on us a whole nasty piece of work presidency that gave us endless war and debt for which we still pay dearly? Have American voters learned nothing since 2008 when we elected a not-so-nasty piece of work who promptly hired a nasty piece of work as his chief of staff, encouraging the nasty pieces of work in Congress to keep any good from happening – even closing Guantánamo – by any means possible? This collusion of nasty pieces of work prolongs the war crime of Guantánamo, one of America’s nastier pieces of work, preserved in perpetuity as a monument to the depravity of the nasty.

Is that really so hard to say in Chicago, or anywhere the nastiness won’t end if it’s not confronted?

---

William M. Boardman has over 40 years experience in theatre, radio, TV, print journalism, and non-fiction, including 20 years in the Vermont judiciary. He has received honors from Writers Guild of America, Corporation for Public Broadcasting, Vermont Life magazine, and an Emmy Award nomination from the Academy of Television Arts and Sciences.

Reader Supported News is the Publication of Origin for this work. Permission to republish is freely granted with credit and a link back to Reader Supported News.

Who Will Lead Black Americans?

By Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, TIME

05 March 15

 

t’s either a sad irony or a fitting tribute that the end of Black History Month dribbles right into March Madness. No sooner do we finish celebrating significant African-American contributions to American culture than we get to see some of our finest young black competitors perform amazing feats of athleticism. Seems like even more cause for celebration. Except that a 2012 University of Pennsylvania study concluded that 64% of basketball players in the six top teams in American college conferences are black, though only 3% of the entire student bodies are black.

Are colleges exploiting young, black athletes when they’re good for their sports franchises, and ignoring their educational needs otherwise? It certainly looks that way, by the numbers. But who’s manning the watch for African Americans? When it comes to education, when it comes to employment opportunities, when it comes to systemic civil rights violations by police departments like those uncovered this week by the Department of Justice report on Ferguson, Mo., who is willing to take on this intense and often contentious responsibility?

This weekend our nation will commemorate the 50th anniversary of the Selma to Montgomery voting rights march known as “Bloody Sunday.” Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. is on our minds, and for many people so is one burning question: Where is today’s Dr. King? I’d argue it’s the wrong question. In the act of canonizing Dr. King, we’re forgotten that no movement is ever advanced by one voice alone. This country wasn’t founded by a single person, but a group of visionaries who didn’t always share the same vision. Dr. King’s voice was lifted by many others — Malcolm X, Bobby Seale, Angela Davis — who may have marched to a different drummer but marched in the same direction.

Bringing about change requires, as Liam Neeson might say, “a very particular set of skills.” Leaders have to notice subtle shifts in the political landscape that threaten the rights and standing of blacks in society. They have to analyze complex information and question even more complex motivations. They have to be socially responsible in not attributing every societal stumble to racism. They have to have a clear and articulate voice in explaining when injustice occurs, and they must have the courage to tell the world — even when the world doesn’t want to hear it. Finally, they must be able to offer practical solutions to specific problems and have the drive and charisma to inspire people to participate in those solutions.

Who are the leaders in the African-American community willing to bring all aspects of injustice to the public’s attention, especially when the public doesn’t want to hear it? The black community has many brave and dedicated leaders, so no simple list will do them all justice. Some leaders operate on a very local level. Even though they help many in need, they will not be recognized as a national leader. The best I can do is mention those who have become a public face and voice for many African-Americans. At the same time, it’s important to understand that the 43 million members of the black community are not a single voice. Like every other ethnic group, they have a broad spectrum of political, religious, and social beliefs. However, they do have a nearly unanimous voice when it comes to believing that there are institutional injustices aimed at them as a group.

A 2013 poll commissioned by BET founder Robert L. Johnson asked a sample of the black community whom they considered to be their leaders. President Obama was the clear winner here with 91% approval. The question of leadership was trickier when asking who spoke for them most often. Surprisingly, when given a list of seven of the most prominent black leaders and asked, “Which of the following speaks for you most often?,” 40% said “none of the above.” Some may find this discouraging because it indicates a lack of unity, but I find it an encouraging sign that the African-American community is not quick to let others speak for them in a one-spokesperson-fits-all manner. Instead of blindly following a political figurehead, they look at each issue, weigh what individuals are saying, then choose sides.

In that Robert L. Johnson poll, the Reverend Al Sharpton received the most votes of any individual, with 24% saying he spoke for them most often. He was followed by the Reverend Jesse Jackson (11%), Congresswoman Maxine Waters (9%), NAACP president Benjamin Jealous (8%), Congressman James E. Clyburn (5%), and former Chairman of the Republican National Committee Michael Steele (2%).

Clearly, the men and women in the BET poll are all significant leaders in the black community. They have continually raised their voices, even when others would shout them down. They have sacrificed, endured, and persevered. But there are a few more whom I’d like to mention — some obvious, some not. This is a kind of All-Star roster of Old School warriors and up-and-coming rookies. In no particular order, here are some additional leaders who have, as the Bible says, “fought the good fight” and “kept the faith.”

• Cory Booker. The first black U.S. Senator from New Jersey is a contender to be the next black president. He’s a straight-talker about the problems we face and an articulate and reasoned spokesperson against all forms of bias. One of his priorities is to find ways to encourage economic growth for a fairer distribution of wealth.


• Eric Holder. The outgoing U.S. Attorney General has been an outspoken champion of equal justice for all Americans since he was a student activist in the 1970s. Not content to go gentle into that good night, Holder is leaving office still fighting against the discriminatory death penalty and other forms of injustice.


• Kevin Johnson. The first black mayor of Sacramento is not yet a national name in politics, though he is as a former NBA All-Star. But his focus on educational matters makes him invaluable in improving economic opportunities for black children.


• Keith Ellison. As the first Muslim elected to Congress, Ellison could have coasted as a symbol of diversity rather than as a fighter on behalf of tolerance for all people. He is an outspoken proponent of a woman’s right to choose, LGBT rights, and international human rights.


• John Lewis. One of the original leaders of the Civil Rights Movement in the 1960s, Lewis has spent the last 28 years in Congress trying to keep the U.S. out of wars while supporting legislation to fight poverty and promote national health insurance.


• Oprah Winfrey. Some might dismiss her as a pop-culture phenomenon, but that would be wrong. Through the sheer force of her personality and intelligence, Oprah has done much to dispel stereotypes about African Americans, African-American women, and women in general. She has promoted literacy, gay rights, spiritual introspection, and social responsibility.


• Phillip Agnew. As head of Dream Defenders, an organization dedicated to realizing Dr. King’s “dream” for America, he is one of the young activists fighting racial violence, advocating more educational opportunities, and ending inequities in the prison system.


• Brittany Packnett. It would be enough to be a top official with Teach for America, the non-profit organization that is working to eliminate inequality in education. But Packnett was also a major organizer of the Ferguson protests and has since been selected as a member of the Ferguson Commission, which is charged with investigating racial and economic inequality in the St. Louis area.


• bell hooks. Educators and social critics like hooks articulate the issues and see connections that are necessary to forge lasting solutions. Her writing on the interrelations of race, capitalism, and gender and how it is expressed in our cultural institutions helps us understand that fighting injustice requires seeing a bigger picture.


• Cornel West. Like hooks, West is an educator whose work focuses on race, class, and gender and why we must address all of them together in order to affect meaningful change. More than an academic, he has often been on the front lines of protests across the country.


• Harry Belafonte. As an internationally renowned singer, he has traveled all over the world to perform for enthusiastic audiences. As a humanitarian, he has traveled all over the world to help the downtrodden and to fight injustice. A couple years ago he gave the keynote speech at the NAACP Image Awards show and had us all battering our hands in applause for his rousing call to political action. At 88, he’s still an energetic and unapologetic voice for equality. He is a reminder that activism is a lifelong commitment.

This list is incomplete. It will always be incomplete, because new voices arise daily. As you’re reading this, please imagine me at home berating myself for the names I inadvertently left off the list and know that I am feverishly scribbling down additional names. At the same time, there’s something inspiring about knowing there are so many dedicated, selfless, and brave leaders that I can’t fit them all into a single article.