|
Miami Activist Defense is the legal
support group defending the rights of those arrested before, during and
after the FTAA Ministerial held in Miami last November. MAD
understands that the Panels hosting today's hearing are the result of
calls for police accountability. MAD salutes those local activists
and residents whose continued pressure has resulted in the existence of
these panels.
Unfortunately, though, like similar
boards around the country, the CIP and IRB have limited investigative
powers and no enforcement abilities. They have no power to
compel changes with the police forces in Miami-Dade. These bodies
can only make
recommendations to the political leadership, who in turn have to have
the will power to SUGGEST changes. Those suggestions by politicos
to the police need not be followed under the current legal regime of the
CIP and IRB.
There is certainly some salutory
advantage to assisting the local activists and residents in giving these
panels the hundreds of collected horror stories of police abuse during
the FTAA protests. But this is offset by very serious legal
considerations.
First, approximately 121 activists
are still facing criminal trials. These defendants are in no
position to bring their complaints to this panel. Nor do they yet
have standing to file civil suits against the Miami P-D and those law
enforcement agencies who participated in the police riots of November 20
and 21. Second, the powers of the federal courts to enforce civil
rights protections in instances of police misconduct show the purported
worth of these bodies to be sorely lacking. MAD is actively
working with some of the country's pre-eminent civil rights litigators
to file suit for the police misconduct which was so prevalent around the
FTAA ministerial meetings in Miami.
As such, Miami Activist Defense has
encouraged people with pending criminal charges or contemplating civil
rights claims to not file complaints with either the IRB or the CIP.
Finally -- and notwithstanding the
pending criminal cases or soon-to-be filed civil suits -- the activities
thus far by these bodies undercuts any trust the activist community
would otherwise have in them. One example is the refusal of one CIP
member, Peter Roulhac, to step down from the panel after presenting
Miami Chief of Police John Timoney an award for "the amazingly
professional work [he] did during the week of the…[FTAA] ministerial."
This conduct shows an incredible lack
of impartiality. To make matters worse, the subsequent "closing
of ranks" in support of Mr. Roulhac by his fellow panel members in
ignoring this prejudice only served as a slap in the face to a
purportedly objective and unbiased investigatory body.
Before any expectation can exist that
the activist community will cooperate with either panel, the CIP must
immediately remove the member in question not only from this particular
inquiry, but from all of its investigative work involving "law
enforcement."
Once criminal and civil cases are
resolved, Miami Activist Defense, and the movement and people it
represents, will be better able to weigh the usefulness of participating
in these proceedings and whether participating will increase the
interests of true justice for those subject to police brutality,
harassment and unlawful government action at the FTAA protests.
Until then, there is much these panels must do to gain the trust and
confidence of the people of Miami and the communities victimized by
police misconduct and violence.
Thank you. | 
