BlackCommentator.com Editorial Board member Chuck Turner is writing this column from the U.S. Federal Prison in Hazelton, West Virginia where he is serving a three year term for a bribery conviction.  BC is in contact with Mr. Turner by email and telephone.  Click here to send an email message that BC can pass on to Chuck.

Topic: Prosecutorial Terrorism: Midwife of the Re enslavement of Men and Women of African Descent

I said in my April 14th reflection that as African-Americans, we have two roles to play in the liberation of this country from the control and oppression of the oligarchy. First, we have to work with those of all races who recognize our collective need for�strategy and action if we are to establish a framework of economic democracy and equity in this country.

Equally important we have to recognize that�our experiences as the descendent of slaves has created challenges for us that only we can solve. We have to envision strategies that focus on overcoming our oppression while supporting the cleansing of our psyches of the after effects of the slavery experience and neo slavery experience.

This is the first of three reflections designed to stimulate your strategic thinking regarding a plan and a process for psychic and material liberation. I put these forward not as the answer to our dilemma but as thoughts I believe are worth your consideration.�

-0-

Dear Supporters,

I believe that as African-Americans, we are facing our most perilous moment in our 400 year ordeal here in what the Honorable Elijah Muhammad called, "The Wilderness of North America". We seem to be mesmerized by the glitter, glamour, and bling-bling of our "stars" and the hope to one day be within their galaxy. The election of a President of African descent has rekindled our hope for a better future. However, we seem more focused on what he can do for us, than what we have to do for ourselves.

Unfortunately, we have taken our eyes off the insidious, systematic re enslavement of men and women of African descent through policies initiated by U.S. Presidents� and engineered by U.S. Attorneys, state Attorney Generals, and District Attorneys building their careers through our disproportionate incarceration. This era of disproportionate incarceration initiated through Nixon's launching the War on Drugs should have been called, from my perspective, the War to re-enslave Men and Women of African Descent.

Some may argue that it is unfair and inaccurate to suggest that the War on Drugs was designed to remove from the streets large numbers of us for as long as legally possible. However, take a moment to examine the historical context in which the War was launched. In the middle of the sixties, it seemed that we were "On the Road to Freedom". In 1964 President Johnson announced the initiation of the War on Poverty, the brain child of New York Congressman Adam Clayton Powell. In that same year, the Civil Rights Movement reached its objective of securing passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 calling for the elimination of discrimination in public accommodations, employment, housing, etc.

The following year, one hundred years after the end of the Civil War, the Movement achieved another monumental victory. With the passage the Voting Rights Act, for the first time since 1880 when President Hayes withdrew federal troops from the South our voting rights would have federal protection. Thus, despite the escalation of the war in Vietnam and the drafting of increasing numbers of men of African descent to fight in the jungles of southeast Asia, the Civil Rights Movement appeared to have created a path that would eventually lead to our full participation in what President Johnson called the "Great Society".

Then came the seventies with the return to the United States of literally thousands of Black men, many emotionally devastated by the experiences in the killing fields of Vietnam and Southeast Asia. Many returned with addictions to the drugs obtained in Vietnam to dull the pain of being used as paid killers, constantly in danger of losing their lives. What they returned to in most cases were the same mean streets that they left and an economy then in recession.

At the moment that these troops were beginning to return home in 1973, Nixon announced the launching of the War on Drugs that was to take effect in 1975. You could say that it was a coincidence that a policy that could lead to the incarceration of large number of soldiers of African descent was put into effect at the moment these troops were coming home. However, this was also the era of COINTELPRO, a government operation designed to disrupt in by any means possible the movement for justice in this country.

This was five years after the assassination of Dr. Martin Luther King - an assassination that many of us, including the King family, continue to believe was a conspiracy. This was the period of an the armed assault on the Black Panther Party, for advocating that we arm ourselves. What better way to assuage the fears of J. Edgar Hoover and others then the initiation of a War on Drugs to take these men and their threat to the oligarchy off the streets.

The true objectives of the War on Drugs became even clearer when the Reagan administration initiated two policies focused on the incarceration of those dealing with drugs.� The first was mandatory minimums that took away from judges the right to use discretion in the imposition of sentences, particularly in drug cases but not in white collar cases. These mandatory minimums meant that regardless of the circumstances of a case, the judge was required to impose sentences of ten, fifteen, twenty years depending on the offense and the length of the sentence required by law.� Every day I talk to fellow inmates who have been in jail for more than a decade who still have another five to ten years to serve for a first offense because of the mandatory minimums.

Coupled with the mandatory minimums was a policy that imposed a higher sentence for the possession of crack (a cocaine derivative) than for the possession of the same amount of cocaine. That is, someone caught with one gram of crack would receive the same mandatory sentence as someone with 100 grams of cocaine. The minimum mandatory sentence for five grams of crack was set at 5 years; for 50 grams of crack 10 years. Since crack was a drug of choice in the white community and cocaine was a drug of choice in the white community, the policy clearly targeted us. Through mandatory minimums, judges who rebelled against the disparities had no power to eliminate them during the sentencing process.�

Democratic presidents should not be viewed as having clean hands. President Clinton, cleverly appeased the African-American middle class by increasing the number of African-Americans at all levels of his administration while appeasing his white law and order constituency by allocating more resources to the engineering of this re-enslavement process.� No wonder he was called "Slick Willie".

What was the effect of this re enslavement process initiated by those of both parties elected to lead this country? In 1973, 300,000 people of all races were in jail. Today, estimates are that there are over 2 million men and women in jail and over half are of African descent. Since most of those incarcerated have families, the effect of this disproportionate incarceration probably directly impacts the lives of 4 to 5 million of us. By the way there is no other country that incorporates as many of its citizens and minorities than the United States of America.�

�

If you question my use of the word re-enslavement, I urge you to think about the situation of the man or woman of African descent leaving jail. If you have been sentenced to a mandatory minimum, you have been in jail for up to twenty years or more. When you leave you can not live with your relatives if they live in public or government subsidized housing. You are not eligible for your own public or subsidized housing. Even if are qualified for a particular job, the employer can say that he will not or cannot because of laws or regulations hire you because of your criminal record despite laws against job discrimination. You can't access education funds for seven years if you were convicted of a drug crime. And in many states you can not vote because of your status as a felon.

I don't believe that we have spent four hundred years in this country to see our people destroyed by the criminal injustice system. The question is what must we do "To free the slaves" and eliminate the re enslavement process. Fortunately, because of the work of Families Against Mandatory Minimums (FAMM) and other organizations fighting the mandatory minimums and disparate sentencing policies, some progress is being made on tearing down the legal structures that have been the foundation of this process of re enslavement.

A temporary amendment to the crack sentencing policies lessening but not eliminating the crack/cocaine disparities was passed in November of last year by the US Sentencing Commission which make sentencing recommendations to Congress. On the 11th of December of the same year, they announced that the policy would be retroactive. This mean that 19,500 are eligible for sentence review. The Massachusetts review was scheduled to begin in March of this year. Chief Justice Mark Wolfe of the Massachusetts federal judiciary welcomed the change, noting that the excessive penalties "caused federal judges for the last 20 years to be administering a system of legalized injustices". However, while there have been some legislative changes in the mandatory minimums, mandatory minimum changes for crack cocaine will require additional legislation.

However, even if the legal framework is dismantled, the engineers will still be in place.� That is, the District Attorneys,, the Attorney Generals, and the US Attorneys who have built their careers on playing to their constituencies' fears and racial prejudices by putting more and more people of Latin and African descent in jail for longer and longer periods of time will still be in place.� If these men and women have built their careers on appeasing the this country's vast law and order constituency, why would we assume that their thinking, tactics, and ambitions would change even if the legal structures are being altered.

In my first conversation with my lawyer after being arraigned, I said that I intended to launch a media campaign to declare my innocence since I planned to run for office and the trial would not take place until long after the election. When he said he thought that was a dangerous strategy, my response was why is that dangerous since they don't have the evidence to convict me. His matter of fact reply was "If they don't have it, they will make it up. Their objective is to maintain their conviction record."

Of the 130 men of all races here in the work camp at USP Hazelton, there are very few who went to trial even if they were innocent. The reason, "It doesn't pay to make the prosecutor mad". This is especially true at the federal level with the resources they have at their disposal. �One of their common tactics, if the defendant won't plead is to charge them with obstruction of justice or perjury after the trial.� That is, if the jury finds you guilty then obviously you obstructed justice by going to trial and when you testified you perjured yourself since the jury didn't believe you.

Both the prosecutor and the judge in my case asserted that I had perjured myself when i said on the stand that I didn't remember ever talking to their agent.� The judge even said he knew I was lying.� However, he didn't say how he knew.� Later it became clear that their assertion of perjury enabled them to give me 36 months for a first offense where the government initiated a sting. They even admitted in court that they just wanted to see if I would take a bribe.

Remember, I was 67 at the time of the sting and have never been accused of financial wrongdoing. I didn't even have a campaign finance violation in the eight years I had served at that time. But that didn't matter. I think their initial objective was to put me in a situation where I would testify against Senator Wilkerson, Massachusetts' first female senator of African-American descent, who was their major target. A traditional tactic is for them to set up a secondary target to get them to testify against their primary target.

When that didn't work, their objective became punishing me for not cooperating. The judge even said at sentencing that if I had cooperated with them, they would have cooperated with me on the sentence. But I didn't. So here I am at Hazelton doing 36 months for a first offense based on the allegation that I accepted $1000 to hold a public hearing on discrimination in the issuance of 56 liquor licenses and that I perjured myself when I simply told the truth.

What is the motivation of these men and women to pursue winning at all costs rather than justice. Ego and ambition I believe are the key factors. That is, the vast majority of the prosecutors are career politicians who understand that putting those of Latin and African descent in jail builds trust with their constituencies and therefore super incarceration statistics are viewed as a path to fame, wealth, glory, and power. What about race you ask? Race is always a factor so why even mention it.

As an example of how political motivations drive the process, let me focus on former US Attorney Michael Sullivan who initiated the sting targeting the state senator and I. Sullivan, who I believe could qualify as a poster child for prosecutorial terrorism, began his political career as a state representative. He then served two terms as a District Attorney before being appointed Massachusetts US Attorney in 2001.

When he became the US Attorney, rather than focusing on white collar crime which is viewed as a key responsibility of US Attorneys, he continued to act as if he was a district attorney. Joseph Savage Jr., a former Asst US Attorney now practicing as a defense lawyer, said in a Boston Globe article in 2007, "He (Sullivan) brought the priorities of a local district attorney's office and has de-emphasized the area where federal prosecutors used to be uniquely involved, particularly white collar crime.����������������������������������������������������������������������������������

Sullivan not only began to bring drug cases from state court to federal court but also would refuse to plea bargain, thus forcing defendants to go to trial. Even though their chances of winning were slim, it seemed to many that they had nothing to lose since if they pled guilty Sullivan was going to give them the mandatory minimum rather than a lesser charge with a lesser sentence.

One of the effects of Sullivan's policy was a drastic increase in the number of trials. Data shows that the percentage of federal defendants who went to trial in cases in Sullivan's office from 2002 to 2006 increased by over 300%. Johnathan Saltzman in a Boston Globe article in 2007 discussing the effects of Sullivan's stance against plea bargains said, "The increase in trials said several defense lawyers, reflects Sullivan's insistence that prosecutors file the most serious, provable charges and resist plea bargaining.� As a result, defendants face long potential prison sentences, sometimes 30 years or more, and are more likely to go to trial, defense lawyers say.� Because there are more trials they say, prosecutors have less time to file new cases".

Consequently Sullivan's strategy led to a drop in general criminal prosecutions as well as a 44% decline in white collar criminal prosecutions. Commenting on the strategy in the same Globe article, Joseph Shapiro, a defense lawyer, said, "They only have so many resources and if you're spending those resources among a lot of trials, they obviously have less time to spend on preparing cases and filing cases." Commenting on the politics of Sullivan's strategy, Timothy Watkins, a federal public defender said, "Its politically expedient to be able to say, "I don't make deals with criminal defendants". I would add, "Especially drug dealers".

Despite his passion for taking these men off the streets, he arranged for probation for the drug dealer who was a partner of the agent he used to carry out the string against the senator and I. While Ron Wilburn's partner, Manny Soto, never spent a day in jail for selling 200 grams of cocaine, the man who bought the drugs from him is still serving a ten year sentence and rumor has it that Soto is on the payroll of the Boston FBI office.

To me Sullivan's motivation for his "crusade against drug dealers" was clearly career and political advancement. By not focusing on white collar crime, he would please his superiors in the Bush administration which would lead to promotions. It seems that his strategy worked since the Bush administration appointed him acting head of the Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms administration in 2006 while he continued to serve as US Attorney. However, his appointment was never approved by Congress.

After he resigned in 2009, he joined the law firm of John "Patriot Act" Ashcroft, former Attorney General under Bush, as a partner and head of the Boston office of the Ashcroft group that also has offices in Washington, Houston, Dallas, and St. Louis. I think it is very interesting that in addition to Sullivan the Ashcroft group has 10 other former US Attorneys as principles in the firm as well as a former Governor of Missouri and former Speaker of the Missouri House of Representatives.

By focusing on multiplying the number of drug convictions, he strengthened his law and order image, thus creating a constituency that would enable him to run for higher office. That also would explain why he targeted the senator and me. Given our public image as strong advocates, to force us out of office and put us in jail would look good on his political resume. I continue to believe that the purpose of the Ashcroft partnership is to give him a base to run for future office.�

Chief Justice Mark Wolfe of the Massachusetts federal judiciary was so frustrated by Sullivan's focus on state drug cases that at the swearing in of the new US Attorney, he remarked that the past practice of taking state drug cases to federal court had to stop. The irony is that he could speak out against the practice after the fact but apparently did not have the power to stop the practice while it was taking place.

Sullivan's assistants also had a history of concealing evidence helpful to the defendants. After catching another Asst US Attorney, Suzanne Sullivan (no relation) concealing evidence that would have been helpful to the defendant, Chief Justice Wolfe issued in January of 2009, two months before Sullivan resigned to partner with Ashcroft, a 42 page memorandum. In it he threatened to censure either or both and said, " The egregious failure of the government to disclose plainly material exculpatory evidence in this case extends a dismal history of intentional and inadvertent violations of the government's duties to disclose in cases� assigned to this court".

Yet, he acknowledges the difficulty that even Chief Justices have in reigning in rogue prosecutors, when he cited nine major cases he presided over during the last two decades in which prosecutors working for Sullivan and his predecessors withheld evidence where the misconduct led to mistrial and convictions that were overturned. Many of those cases involved drug dealers of African descent. He continued by saying that his only successful sanction occurred in 2002, when he ordered an inexperienced prosecutor to attend a seminar on wrongful convictions after the lawyer repeatedly withheld critical evidence.�

In 2007, in what the Boston Globe called an extraordinary rebuke of the US Attorney's Office, Chief Justice Wolfe asked� the Bar Counsel of the Massachusetts Board of Bar Overseers to launch disciplinary proceedings against a veteran federal prosecutor who withheld key evidence in a Mafia Case. Over three years later, the panel convened by the Bar recommended suspension but a final decision has still not been made.��

Over analysis can lead to paralysis so the question is what must we do to stop the prosecutorial terrorism that has played a major part in our re-enslavement.� I would suggest three steps for your consideration. First, we must recognize and acknowledge the class attitude that I believe has made it difficult for us to organize as a people around this issue that endangers us all. We are powerful when we act collectively.� When we allow ourselves to look at others of our race who are being oppressed and accept the system's excuse that it is their fault, we are strengthening� the system's ability to oppress us all.

Legal scholar and litigator, Michelle Alexander argues in her brilliant book, "The New Jim Crow, Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness" that the government's rationale that the disproportionate incarceration is a result of bad choices is undercut when you examine the disparities in searches, arrests, convictions and sentencing. She goes on to say "...studies show that people of all colors use and sell illegal drugs at remarkably the same rates." Yet, in some states she notes that those of African descent comprise 80 to 90 percent of the drug offenders sent to prison. Ms. Alexander challenges us to think critically to move our perspective beyond the government smokescreen and to realize that disproportionate incarceration is a problem� effecting us all.

Second, we must face the fears that standing up to take action against government prosecutors will put those who stand up in danger of becoming a target of these legal terrorists, who at times seem to have limitless power to charge and convict. Without a doubt there are dangers. Throughout our history, men and women have had to face the reality that by challenging our oppression, they were putting themselves in more danger. As I write this from behind the wall, I realize that they have enormous power to retaliate. However, the question has always been and will always be, do we let our fears stand in the way of us doing what we need to do to fight our oppression and build a foundation for future generations. I think the answer is that we have no choice. Our ancestors demand it.�

Third, we need to form a National Committee of Inquiry that organizes units in every state with disproportionate confinement of those of African descent.� These units need to take all actions necessary to expose the reality that what is parading as criminal justice is in fact a process designed to make it impossible for us as a people to move beyond our status as a permanent underclass, continually being used and abused to help the broader society feel less threatened as they struggle with the effects of their own unrecognized oppression. Only through exposure will we develop the strength and momentum to curb their prosecutorial power.

In order to move this my concerns beyond the rhetorical stage, I have asked Peter Gamble, publisher of the Black Commentator, to discuss with his board what role they might play in the organizing of such a National Committee. I am also writing to Professor Charles Ogletree, a distinguished Harvard law professor. I am asking Professor Ogletree, who was on the legal team of the state senator who was also targeted by Sullivan, if the Charles Hamilton Institute which he heads could assist with the organizing of such a National Committee.

Harvey Silverglade, the prominent Boston defense attorney, documents in his book, Three Felonies a Day, that given the lack of controls on prosecutors, they can go after anyone they choose and do.� However, given the disproportionate impact of prosecutorial terrorism on us and our future generations, we shouldn't wait for others to act. At the same time, as we move forward to end our re enslavement, we have to recognize that when we stand up there will be allies who will join the struggle to put justice into the criminal injustice system, based on the oppression that they and their people are experiencing.

I understand that many will say it is impossible to challenge the power of the prosecutors and the criminal injustice system that they seem to control. But since we were brought to these shores, there have always those who have warned against taking action regardless of the situation. If that had been the attitude of those in the 50s and 60s who stood up and challenged segregation where would we be today.

Some battles have to be fought no matter how difficult rather than allow future generations to suffer because of our lack of courage and faith in ourselves and our Creator. Considering that the American prison population has grown 700 % over the last 35 years from 300.000 of all races in 1975 when� Nixon's War on Drugs became operational to estimates of 2.25 today with over half being people of African descent, we have to understand that our future as a people depends on whether we decide to stand up and continue our four hundred year fight for justice by freeing the 21st century slaves.

The Struggle Continues,

Chuck

BlackCommentator.com Editorial Board  Member Chuck Turner - Served as a member of the Boston City Council for ten years and eleven months. He was a member and founder of the Fund the Dream campaign and was the Chair of the Council�s Human Rights Committee, and Vice Chair of the Hunger and Homelessness Committee. Click here to contact Mr. Turner. Your email messages will be passed on to Mr. Turner by BC. You may also visit SupportChuckTurner.com.

You may also write to Mr. Turner.  The address is:

Charles Turner #80641038
Hazelwood Penitentiary, P.O. Box 2000,
Bruceton Mills, West Virginia 26525