Oakland police in riot gear and with gas masks prepare to attack protesters (in background with picket signs) at the APL terminal April 7, 2003.
By Steve Stallone
Almost three years after the bloody police riot at the Port of Oakland that left nine ILWU longshore workers and dozens of anti-war demonstrators injured and scores of protesters and one ILWU business agent arrested, the City of Oakland finally settled the lawsuits against the police. The settlement included not only monetary damages for the injuries and constitutional rights trampled, but new, more restrictive policies on the Oakland Police Department’s (OPD) use of force in protest situations. But the waterfront employers in the Pacific Maritime Association (PMA) that colluded with the police in those actions have yet to pay for their crimes.
"The settlement of this litigation represents a total vindication of civil rights not just anti-war demonstrators but also ILWU members and other union workers," ILWU attorney Rob Remar said.
Shortly after the U.S. military invaded Iraq, peace activists organized a protest at the port to highlight war profiteering by some ship companies. SSA had recently received a no-bid contract to operate the Iraqi port of Um Qasr for the occupying forces and APL had a contract with the U.S. government to ship munitions and other war materiel to Iraq.
Before the first shift Monday, April 7, 2003 they set up picket lines outside the gates at the Stevedoring Services of America (SSA) and American Presidents Line (APL) terminals. The protesters had organized their action publicly, advertising it through flyers and web postings. The employers and the police were aware of it and plotted their response in secret. Documents obtained through the lawsuits’ discovery process revealed that representatives of SSA, APL, the Port of Oakland and the PMA met several days before the demonstration with the Oakland police. Together they toured the APL facility to prepare for the demonstration. Oakland Police Dept. Lieutenant Edward Poulson, in charge of the police response, was granted his request that an APL and Port representative be present at the police command center during the protest, and actually "deputized" an employer representative as part of the police "command and support team" to assist in arresting people.
The documents also show that the police were informed that ILWU longshore workers, upon seeing a picket line, would stand by until an arbitrator ruled on whether or not they were contractually required to cross the line. But at no point did the OPD, the Port of Oakland or any of the employers notify ILWU Local 10 of the meeting or communicate with the local’s officials in preparation for the protest.
Instead, the documents show that the San Francisco Police Dept. told the OPD the Local 10 had taken a public stand against the war and that longshore workers would likely "sympathize with the protesters and participate in the direct action." Further, according to an investigative report in the May 18, 2003 edition of the Oakland Tribune, the OPD received an "intelligence" report from the California Anti-Terrorism Information Center (CATIC) five days before the demonstration. The CATIC, a state agency staffed with personnel from the FBI, the Defense Intelligence Agnecy and other federal, state and local agencies, warned the police the protesters might turn violent. The CATIC selectively gleaned information from activist websites and list-serves and intercepted email correspondence of ILWU members to support its notions of the protest and protesters.
The Tribune quoted CATIC spokesman Mike Van Winkle justifying his agency’s tactics.
"[I]f you have a protest group protesting a war where the cause that’s being fought against is international terrorism, you might have terrorism at that [protest]," Van Winkle said. "You can almost argue that a protest against that is a terrorist act."
With that kind of information and arguments the OPD greeted the demonstrators in full riot gear and armed with so-called "less-than-lethal" munitions—wooden and rubber bullets, concussion grenades and lead-shot filled bean bags. Longshore workers arriving for their morning shift at the APL and SSA terminals saw hundreds of people picketing the gates and a line of trucks backed up down the road. They stood by a good distance away as local officers had instructed, awaiting the arbitration. But the police did not.
One police officer, using a barely audible bull horn, declared the demonstration an illegal gathering and ordered everyone to disperse. Then the police moved in formation toward the demonstrators with rifles drawn and aimed head high. Suddenly shots rang out and concussion grenades arced overhead and boomed. Protesters and longshore workers alike fell to the fire. Others were run into by cops on motorcycles, beaten and arrested. Local 10 Business Agent Jack Heyman, rushing to help his members get out of harm’s way, was pulled out of his obviously marked ILWU Business Agent car, thrown to the ground, handcuffed and arrested.
Many of the injuries were severe enough to require hospitalization and surgery. Video and photos showed the police aiming at people’s heads, in direct violation of the munitions manufacturers’ warnings that such practice could result in death. Injuries to heads and shoulders confirmed the violations were common. The multitude of wounds in the back showed police were shooting at retreating people.
The next day’s New York Times quoted OPD Chief Richard Word saying the police dispersed the crowd at the behest of APL and SSA. Outraged that ILWU members would be shot on orders from the employers, as if this were 1934 and Bloody Thursday once again, the Coast Committee fired off a letter to Oakland Mayor Jerry Brown and Chief Word. The union demanded an independent investigation into the incident that would focus on who decided the police should come to a peaceful protest armed with munitions, who gave the order to fire unprovoked and indiscriminately at demonstrators and workers and why ILWU officials were targeted for brutality.
While Local 10 and injured and arrested protesters prepared their lawsuits against the city and its police department, Alameda County District Attorney Tom Orloff moved preemptively. He charged 24 protesters with failure to disperse and interfering with a business, and charged BA Heyman with obstructing justice and failure to comply with a police officer’s order. Those charges were all eventually dropped.
From the day of the event Mayor Brown and City Council President Ignacio De La Fuente defended the police action, claiming they were responding to demonstrators throwing rocks and bottles. But as the case moved forward, the police department’s own video showed no violence on the part of the demonstrators. Rather than go to trial without evidence for its position, the city offered an out-of-court settlement. In total the police use of excessive force on peaceful citizens exercising their Constitutional rights of free speech, assembly and dissent cost Oakland taxpayers $1.25 million to settle 59 lawsuits arising from that day, not including attorney and court fees.
"City politicians spent all this money to suppress civil liberties and trade union rights when it could have gone to Oakland schools and paid teachers decent wages and benefits," Heyman said.
Closing the deal, the Oakland City Council voted unanimously Feb. 7 to pay up and get out of this embarrassing mess, all the while claiming they were not admitting guilt. Local 10 declared victory and voted to accept the settlement at its Feb. 16 membership meeting. Only the PMA, SSA and APL have yet to answer for their role in putting ILWU members and protesters lives and limbs at risk that day—so far.
"The documents we got from the police in this case show without a doubt how today’s employers still turn to the police to enforce their power over workers just as they did in 1934," Heyman said. "We won’t forget that."
