We disagree. I have provided below a response to you and would hope that
some of the more obviously incorrect characterizations you make in yur
open letter will be corrected before its circulation.
I am particularly concerned by your attempt to cast of activities in a
sinister light by referring to our "compiling" a list of innocent
citizens. The information on our website comes from advertisements--
paid advertisements by individuals who wanted their names to appear
in print as supporters of Abu-Jamal. Your rhetorical tricks to convey
a sense of unease about the F.O.P.'s choice to reproduce a public
advertisement are, or should be, beneath you.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++
>
>I object, of course, to the list being named "Supporters of Daniel
>Faulkner's Killer." I believe we best honor Officer Faulkner and all
>slain officers by being absolutely convinced about the identity of the
>killer.
>I, along with 500 to 600 other professors in colleges and universities
>across this country, believe that the conditions of the first and only
>trial, the Post Conviction Relief Hearings and the appeals process were
>flawed and skewed by the context of racist-adversarial politics in
>Philadelphia and Pennsylvania. At the very least, he deserves a new
>trial. Many of us believe he should be released immediately. I am
>among them. Even a lawyer writing for AMERICAN LAWYER magazine, who
>had little or no sympathy for Mumia's politics, said he was joining
>the "Save Mumia Campaign" right away.
The personal feelings of several hundred academics notwithstanding, there
was no reasonable doubt in the minds of twelve jury members who Abu-Jamal
helped select. They convicted him and sentenced him to death. Further,
the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has, on three occasions (1995, 1996 and
1997), reviewed the case and did not find any flaws in the original trial
or the appeals process, least of all any "racist-adversarial politics."
Thus, there is no legal reason for Abu-Jamal to be granted a new trial.
Surely you cannot believe that new trials ought to be granted, irrespective
of the evidence and a compelling legal reason, on the say so of some
celebrities, college professors or rock stars.
>
>Moreover, I find the FOP's compilation of this list to be especially
>disturbing in this year of 1999, the same year that AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL
>singled out the United States as featuring a serious problem of police
>use of excessive force ("Police Brutality - A Pattern of Abuse," UNITED
>STATES OF AMERICA: RIGHTS FOR ALL, www.rightsfor all-usa.org). So
>epidemic is the problem, that this consistently cautious international
>rights organization argues that this constitutes a violation by the
>government of U.S. citizens' human rights.
I think an objective and open-minded review of their report will reveal it
to be a mediocre piece of propaganda and not a very serious study or
source of accurate data. Further, Amnesty International's position on
"Police Brutality" has very little to do with the fact that Abu-Jamal
murdered Danny Faulkner, was convicted of that crime and sentenced to death
by a jury of his peers.
>
>Instead of responding positively to this year's Amnesty report, with
>corrective actions and a cooperative attitude, the largest police union
>in the U.S. is found to be compiling lists of citizens who, in exercise of
>their freedom of expression, simply want a new trial for a figure in a
>controversial case.
The Fraternal Order of Police is engaged in an effort to heighten the
level of awareness about this case, the facts of which are routinely
misrepresented by Abu-Jamal and his fundraising operation. The F.O.P.
does not have celebrities to speak for the memory of Danny Faulkner, nor
are any rock bands holding concerts in his memory. Those individuals who
appear on our website as supporters of Faulkner's murderer were not
"compiled"--they are from an ad published in the New York Times.
>
>In the process of this list-building, the FOP is arranging itself in
>clear opposition to ordinary folk trying to be good citizens. In
>addition, the FOP strikes an oppositional stance toward some of the most
>distinguished writers, educators, people of conscience of our time
>(including several Nobel Laureates). This does not look like a police
>force ready to respond positively to the Amnesty report, or to the
>struggle of all peoples to build a just society. --
Again, we have not engaged in list-building or list compiling, as the
information we have provided on our website comes from an advertisement in
one of the largest newspapers in the world.
As to our "oppositional" stance, I believe we are permitted to hold
different opinions from other ordinary, good citizens, be they a front man
in an alternative rock band, a movie actor, or a Nobel Laureate without
being castigated for doing so.
The F.O.P. is not a police force, but an organization of good, honest
citizens, who, in their role as law enforcement officers, put their lives
on the line everyday. We are working toward a just society and feel that
one of the requirements of a just society requires than justice be carried
out and not set aside simply because one is adept at using celebrities to
raise funds or college academians to build coalitions.
>
>I suspect that the FOP is within its rights to organize and express
>itself, even as a police union.
"Even as a police union?"
>why not add some more names. In the PHILADELPHIA DAILY NEWS of August
>11, 1995, more than 500 faculty members (in Philadelphia and in
>Pennsylvania schools of higher education, and throughout the nation)
>signed and financed an ad calling for a stay of execution, a new trial for
>Mumia, and (at that time) the recusal of Judge Albert Sabo from the case.
>All signers contributed money to the ad, and thus meet the Union's
>criterion (i.e. financial aid to Abu-Jamal) for being a person or group
>subject to "boycott" and listing.
If you would forward this list to me, I will do my best to see that it
finds itself on our website. Of course, this would not be "list-making,"
as you describe it, but merely information sharing.
>
>Many of us are working for, and dreaming of, a more positive working
>relationship between police and all our communities. We share this work
>and dream with some police officers. Recall, that the National
>Association of Black Police Officers is also on record as opposed to
>Mumia's execution, and has called for a new trial.
The F.O.P. is working for, on a daily and ongoing basis, to build better
relationships with the communities they protect. We do not regard the
National Association of Black Police Officers as a legitimate
organization--they do not represent anyone.
>
>Actually, I believe that the FOP's legitimate interests, and those
>of all citizens, are better served by stopping the exercise in
>list-building.
You seem to be simultaneously eager to add to our list and anxious to have
us stop providing the information. I submit to you that there would be no
lists if people had not paid to have their names appear in print as a
supporter of this murderer. We have not made, built, or compiled any
list--we have reproduced advertisements.
I think the legitimate interest of the public is better served if the
truth is made plain and unambiguous.
>When groups like the police, who have socially sanctioned
>powers to use force, compile such lists of citizens, many will feel this
>to be more than just your freedom of expression. It will seem like an act
>of intimidation.
Law enforcement officers have the legal authority to use force, not
"socially sanctioned powers." There is an important difference, as only
just and appropriate force is lawful.
I will repeat the assertion that we have compiled no list.
I cannot help that our efforts may be wrongly perceived as intimidating
any more than I cannot help that celebrities, rock stars and academics may
be wrongly thought to be voices of weight and authority in the case of the
people vs. Abu-Jamal.
>
>Our society is not well served by a police force that works
>by intimidation, either direct forms as in police brutality, or indirect
>forms like police listing.
Our society is very well-served by its law enforcement officers, whom do
not keep the peace through intimidation, but through just authority.
Misinformation, racist propaganda and ignorance, especially masquerading
as "justice" does the public a grave disservice.
--Tim
Timothy M. Richardson National Legislative Office
Legislative Assistant Grand Lodge, Fraternal Order of
Police
PH: (202) 547-8189 309 Massachusetts Avenue, NE
F: (202) 547-8190 Washington, DC 20002
http://www.grandlodgefop.org/legislat.html