ustxtxb_obs_1969_01_10_50_00012-00000_000.pdf

Page 3

by

said, who included concerned lawyers and representatives of various factions of the movement, disagreed on many things but were in agreement on these points: that there is a great amount of repression being instigated to silence the movement and that it will inevitably increase in volume and style and the movement progresses; that the instrumentality of the repression is the law-making, law-enforcing and judicial systems now in the hands of those who, he said, want to keep things the way they are; and that there should be a way to unclog the channels to allow change to occur. Cohen said the reasons there is now no instrumentality for extending systematic legal services to the New Left are because lawyers are uninterested or fear the social and economic consequences of accepting controversial political cases and because there is no one who knows who the New Left is at any given momentit is a movement which, he said, has been unable to define itself. He added that other considerations he thought should affect the tone of the conference were concern with a government that continues to insist on “a monstrous war”; concern with what Cohen sees as the growing intimidating and repressive powers of police and their almost unmolested access to other agencies and to the privileges of such devices as wire-tapping and eavesdropping; and concern for laws that no legislator, Cohen said, can defend on constitutional grounds, such as those dealing with homosexuality and marijuana. Cohen ended his opening remarks by saying he had talked to a representative of the Ford Foundation, who had indicated funds might be available for the proposed organization. Next on the agenda was a panel of five representatives of the movement. It was chaired by Caroline, “a temporary employe of the university,” he called himself with a smile. The first panel speaker was Miss Dohrn. The gist of her talk at the beginning seemed to be that while the conference was a very ambitious one, it must not take itself too seriously and that the movement should not get hung up about legal defense. And, she said, repression must not be thought of as coming, it is here, rooted in the polarization of American society around the calls for law and order. “The outrage, impossible to gauge,” she said, “has to be understood as going on every minute. We must move into an aggressive instead of a defensive posture; we must fight against the fight directed at us.” She added that the courtroom must be used as a political forum for the purposes of the movement, as in the Newton trial. “The movement does not need lawyers just for technical assistance. It needs people who will commit themselves to a fighting defense of movement principles.” AUSTIN attorney Jim Simons, a movement defender in the courts, spoke next. Simons began by naming the three 12 The Texas Observer areas in the state where he thought repression of the movement is the most serious: SNCC in the big cities, the Killeen-Oleo Strut situation where mliitary personnel are being “systematically busted” and student activists who are being hit with “harrassment cases.” The situation, he said, “calls for a different kind of relationship between lawyer and client and requires motivations other than money.” He said lawyers must also understand that they can’t dominate the tactics and direction of the radical left movement as they have with other movements, “such as labor,” and that traditional notions of defense must go. In defending someone from SNCC, for example, a lawyer must not insist that his client get a shave and haircut and wear a suit and tie, Simons said. He asserted that the pattern of political arrests of movement people has changed from one usually involving arrests on misdemeanor civil liberties issues to “a systematic liquidation” of movement leaders by busting them on felonies such as possession of marijuana, cases politically motivated from the planting of the evidence to the prosecution and usually guilty sentence and outrageously high bonds, said Simons. McMillian, a SNCC leader from Dallas, out on bail while appealing a conviction for malicious destruction of private property resulting from a black boycott and shop-in of a grocery chain \(Obs., said, in essence, that he and his brothers were concerned about the two “dead-end alternatives” they are offereddeath or imprisonment of the soul and death or imprisonment of the body and that faced with these they would rather die on their feet than live on their knees. He cautioned against apathy and inaction and said, “We must end the type of imperialism, capitalism and racism that go hand in hand.” Josh Gould, one of the proprietors of the Oleo Strut, the radical-staffed coffee house in Killeen near Fort Hood, who also is out on bail after recently being arrested on a marijuana charge, told of Pfc. Peterson’s problems and discussed an article of the Uniform Code of Military Justice which holds that any military person can be punished for bringing discredit to the military, which is to say, Gould said, that any military person can be punished for anything. The final panel speaker was Rag editor Harvey Stone. Speaking of the rumbling of students in this decade, Stone said that for the last eight years they have grown up with a specific perspective from which to judge society and have developed a pronounced distaste for the nature and direction of our national life. He said his generation has been catalyzed by the civil rights movement and the Vietnam war and asserted that they have become disgusted with planned obsolescence in consumer wares and the spectre of giant corporations having the power to see that war is wielded or peace is allowed, “whichever suits their dividends.” KUNSTLER discussed the need of the lawyer to represent his movement client with conviction, the politicalization of the courtroom and the sacrifices that might be entailed by a lawyer who represents movement people in the courts. He noted that clients often don’t trust their attorneys and said that as an officer of the court a lawyer is an officer of the system and that it makes a client uncomfortable to turn to an officer of the system to escape the s y s t e m. In serving his client with conviction and making a political forum of the courtroom, he said, a lawyer is required almost to become a schizoid performer in conforming to his duties as an officer of the court and fulfilling his commitment to his client. Insisting that people must be supreme in a lawyer’s cause and the transcendental reason for his practice, he said a lawyer need not act or dress like his movement client but he must let his client know that he is not adverse to hit cause. He must insist on his client’s right to dress and act as he wishes so long as it is within the legal limits of the courtroom. “If you are seeking approbation of the system,” he said, “why consent to its traditional frills? . . . Your client’s thing will go sullied and destroyed unless you are willing to show at least a fraction of his courage. Do not be a eunuch for your client nor make him a eunuch to the court.” Garry told of his involvement in the Huey Newton case, a hallmark of courtroom politicalization. He said he first met Newton as the Panther leader lay on his hospital bed, which policemen on guard, Garry said, had been kicking periodically, hoping Newton would hemorrhage to death from his wounds. Garry said during his questioning of the venire in the case, he discovered that only two persons in the group had heard of the Kerner Report that had been released three months earlier. Only one of them had read excerpts from it in the paper. The report claimed that two of every three white Americans are racists, and Garry said it follows, if that is so, that two out of every three potential white jurors are racists and two of every three white judges are racists. With these odds, he said, one begins to see the difficulty in getting fair jury in such a case. #ripitz’ Since 1866 The Place in Austin GOOD FOOD GOOD BEER 1607 San Jacinto GR 7-4171