1984-10-24

On the film of 3rd 1979, five people were killed in a confrontation between the Communist Workers' Party and members of the Ku Klux Klan and American Socialist Party. It happened in Greensboro as did a trial where a clansman and Nazis were found not guilty of murder. I'm Fay Mitchell Henderson. Dr. Martha Nathan is a survivor of that shootout and is joining us to review the events and subsequent ones following it. She is accompanied by attorney Lewis Pitts who is preparing for a new trial in March 1985. They are with the Greensboro Civil Rights Fund. Dr. Nathan, recap for us the events of that day in November back in 1979. Okay. It's important to realize that what happened on November 3rd was not a shootout and that's a term that's commonly used by it was expressed by the media after it happened immediately. Those reporters that were on the scene called it an ambush, they called it an attack, they called it many things.

It only became a shootout later when things had become more consolidated and the coverup had started. What happened on November 3rd was that approximately 100 people were gathered to have a peaceful anti-Klan march and then a conference. There were men, women, children that were singing and doing some chance and just getting ready, generally getting prepared for a march. In the middle of that road, nine carloads of Klan'smen and Nazis who started yelling obscenities, racist slurs, a couple of people kicked cars, Klan'smen and Nazis jumped out of their cars, began hitting people over the heads with sticks, a fight broke out, and then after most of the Klan'smen and Nazis had gotten in back in their cars and driven away from the last two cars in that caravan, came the murders, Klan'smen and Nazis with long guns, with shotguns, with semi-automatic rifles, with high-powered pistols and shot

people down. Left that day were four people dead, one person, my husband Michael Nathan as a physician in Durham died two days later, nine others were injured and since that time not a single person has been in jail, I made it accountable for what happened on November 3rd. Now as I recall, there were some questions, it seems that this was advertised as a death to the Klan rally and there are those who say that the CWP deliberately provoked the attack if that's what we wanted to call it and that it just happens that the Klan'smen shot better. How do you respond to that theory? I think that you have to look at the videotapes which do exist, luckily, and what you see is very deliberate murder. I don't think that there's any way that you can characterize it as a shootout or provocation. I think using provocation is a very, very dangerous word.

Since when do words, no matter what they are, since when do words mean bullets and do words mean murder, death for the Klan was used, it was a political term, it was much, I think that I came out of the anti-apartheid movement where we talked all the time about death to apartheid. It was the same meaning in this death for the Klan, the Klan shouldn't exist because it has a long, long history of racism, murder, 4,000 black people have been killed over the last hundred years, and once again, for all those 4,000 murders no one was ever held accountable, raping, lynchings, terror, the Klan is an organization that by his standards of human decency should not exist. Well in going on to the trial, there was a bit of surprise when no one was found guilty. Mr. Pitts, how did that happen?

As a lawyer, how can you address that? Well actually for the people who were following closely the prosecution effort, it was not a surprise. At the state level there was a trial in 1980, in fact the Greensboro police had an informant who was paid, who was undercover in the Klan, in fact himself was a Klanzman and provided all the information to the police concerning the facts that the Klan was planning to come, they would probably bring guns to Greensboro and they were planning to have a confrontation with the demonstrators. This on the coverage was never even called as a witness. In fact the jurors that were selected were very biased in favor of the Klan, now you would expect the defense lawyers that were defending the Klan and the Nazis to be delighted to have very reactionary and conservative sort of your stereotypic redneck southerner who would be sympathetic with the Klan, but you wouldn't think the prosecutors would put those kinds of people on the jury.

In fact people were seated on that jury who said on the road that they thought the Klan was a patriotic organization and that the Nazis were a very patriotic organization. The only person that had any college education on that state jury was a man who was elected to be the foreman and he had been a citizen of Cuba and fled Cuba when Castro took over and the revolution occurred and worked in Miami for the next five years for a CIA front group. Very rapidly anti-communist was the four person of the jury. There were also one jury who had been a next door neighbor of a Klan's person. So that trial was really not a full effort to prosecute. It became a forum to attack the victims, to make the issue one of their politics, did they hold unpopular beliefs, were they communist? In fact the prosecutors when they were selecting jurors would ask them this question, can you

be fair not only to the defendants in this trial, but can you be fair to the state of North Carolina, even though the alleged victims here were communists who stand opposed to everything we Americans hold dear? So they were stirring up that seed of hatred in the jury's minds even before the trial began. So it was really no surprise to people who watched it. The case was not fully and properly prosecuted and the most blatant example is that they didn't even call the undercover agent who was within the police department nor the federal agent who had been a part of the Nazi group and knew full well that they were planning to come to throw eggs and to try to attack these demonstrators. The obvious question becomes why was the prosecuting attorney allowed to try the case and why wasn't some other attorney brought in? Well, there was an effort by the victims to have a different prosecutor, a special prosecutor precisely because of the reasons that it seemed like the local power structure if you will.

The police department and the prosecutors that are so closely linked with them had so much to hide in terms of the role of the police department in being a part of this attack that you needed an independent person to come in and the very well-known prominent progressive attorney, William Consler, made a written motion and offered to come in at no charge to the state and helped with the prosecution. It was rejected out of hand by the trial judge and the local prosecutors who were more concerned with protecting the police department from the scrutiny of using agent provocateurs were allowed to be in charge of the trial and resulted directly in a men being acquitted. Another question that a number of people had had to do with the non-participation out in the first trial of the CWP, was that a strategic error? Well, I think you've got to sum up what Lewis just said about what that trial, the purpose of that trial and the way it actually played itself out.

The trial became one of the victims. It became the attacks rather than being on who was being held up as the criminals in the trial became the people who had been shot dead in the streets rather than the people who had been doing the shooting and that was because of the position of the prosecuting attorneys and the jury that was picked. One of the things that Lewis didn't mention was that at the same time that the six clansmen and Nazis were on trial for murder. Six other anti-cland demonstrators had been arrested and charged with felony riot charges and it was said by the prosecutor that any information that came out of that cland Nazi trial would be used against those people whose crime was that they were standing on the corner of Carver and Everett trying to demonstrate against the cland. What you had was a trial that was essentially a farce and a rear end from the moment the

jury was picked was obviously going to be that, a trial that was not interested in justice. You also had a real danger to people who were victims of if they testified within that trial, legal danger. So, it was a combination of a political statement and also a legal protection for those people who refused to participate. In fact, a few people who were anti-cland demonstrators did participate in the trial and when they did, they were asked questions by both prosecution and defense, McCarthy-like questions. What are your political views? Why did you participate in this, obviously, subversive thing, which was a statement against racism, a racist terrorist group, and was meant to be precisely that? So I think that many times people have done acts of civil disobedience in order to make

both a political and legal statement. That was what was done in Greensboro and that trial. And I think that looking back, I think that it certainly, the statement that was being made certainly was true, that that trial was a farce and was not interested in justice. Let me just say that I think we have to see the issue of whether or not the demonstrators refusing to testify affect the trial as really for what it is. It's a smokescreen. Just like the earlier questions about whether or not there was provocation, should you blame the victims, that's to redirect people's attention away from the real wrongdoing against the victims and have a discussion about communism and what they believe and whether it was right to say death of the clan or not, and not have a discussion about the most burning public interest questions, which are the use of government informants and agents within right-wing

paramilitary groups like the clan and Nazis to stir up and create violence against organizers, against housewives, doctors, children, that's what happened. A black community was terrorized and people murdered at the instigation of the federal government and the city government, and that's what we're now on top of and are going to be able to show when our trial comes up, this coming March. So I think now that there's been enough distance and enough facts that finally come out, you can not at all be claimed that the acquittals in the past had anything to do with the demonstrators. The new group that is working on this new trial is called the Greensboro Civil Rights Fund, isn't it true that initially most blacks or rights will kept that distance from the first trial and all that involvement? I think that a lot of civil rights groups expressed to us who are close to a whole lot of interest in it. I think that there was because of the misinformation and the media, a slander

that came out, which by the way really has its parallels in some of the international things that are going on, El Salvador is portrayed as left versus right in the government standing in the middle, isn't it too bad that this violence is going on? That same sort of scenario was placed in Greensboro, when in fact that isn't any more than it is happening in El Salvador, that is not what happened in Greensboro. People got mowed down in the streets and the government was involved in Greensboro. I think that that kind of misinformation, disinformation had its effect initially. A lot of people were very confused about who was right and who was wrong in this whole thing. It's only been through the years as we've been able to talk to people as many, many more facts about government involvement with the clan to shoot people down who are doing

good, honest, effective union work in the area, union and community work in the area. It's only as we've been able to put that stuff out and talk to people and say, hey, this is, let's not get taken a skew here, that people have realized that it is in everyone's interest, black, white, Hispanic, church, civil liberties, civil rights, all kinds of groups, have since then come on board to say that we have a direct, vested interest in this case. If they can kill people in the streets of Greensboro in front of TV cameras and get away with it, and the government can be involved and they can kill or maim or harass or terrorize anywhere in this country. We have got to take a stand on this. In fact, in our most recent demand to end discrimination in jury selection, and that's a crucial interest as everybody

knows in this case. To end discrimination in jury selection, the NAACP joined with Lewis and our other lawyers in the Greensboro Civil Rights Fund, and also the North Carolina Black Lawyers Association President joined with that motion and became a part of that legal effort and integral part of it. I think that people have, as the fear, the terror and the disinformation have begun to subside, people have realized this is right and this is wrong. Let's get moving. Well, your neutral will be taking place some five and a half years after the initial incident. Do you think that this is really a good time given the current political climate? What do you expect? Well, I agree, I think, with what you're implying about in the current, at least the current administration, that the Reagan administration has been anti-s civil rights for sure. But it is imperative that whenever it can occur, there has to be a full airing of everything that took place on November 3rd. And this

will be our trial will be the first time that independent lawyers, meaning not government lawyers who had an interest in concealing the role of other government employees, that independent lawyers have had a chance to present the comprehensive picture of what really happened that day. So even though it is belated, it's not our fault. We filed a suit in 1980, one year after it occurred, then the federal courts put a stay on the case. We were not allowed to proceed and do our investigation until just this past April. So it is unfortunate that there's been a delay, but it's not been a delay at our request and we must proceed. The one advantage of it is that over the course of time, as Marty was just saying, the fear has subsided and more people have been willing to come forward and talk frankly about what they know and realize the importance of this case and that we will get a chance to present

the entire picture. Now, I believe I read that the clansmen, Nazis, and government officials, that sounds sort of nebulous. It's just who are the defendants. That's great. I'm glad to answer that. We've sued by name the individual clan and Nazi members that we know were present on that day. How many of them? That's roughly 30 to 35. Then their individual Greensboro police officers, roughly 25, and then the city of Greensboro as an entity, as a governmental entity. Then we've sued three FBI agents and three alcohol tobacco and firearms agents. Then after we've had three or four months of discovery that began roughly in April of May, and we realized that there were other people involved. We've made a motion that's now pending before the court to add ten more defendants. Some of them are FBI, some of them are alcohol tobacco and firearms, and some of them are Greensboro police officers. Right now there's about 62 people and we've got

a motion pending to add ten more. These things tend to drag on. How long will you anticipate this trial that starts in March to the last? Do you have any feelings? Are you so sure of your case that you think that the outcome cannot be other than what you want? We expect the trial, it's hard to say for sure, but we expect this trial to last two to three months. We have no interest in drawing it out. We want to have a concise presentation of the evidence as we know it. Let me say that the investigation that we've been able to do since we began discovery in April absolutely confirms the allegations that we made three or four years ago that the government and its agents and informants were involved as agent provocateurs. So everything that we've discovered so far fully supports that. So yes, on one hand, we are fully confident. However, getting it through the maze of legalism and legalisms

and being able to present it to a cross-section of the community that is not biased is a different question. For example, the issues that Marty was referring to, it's clear in North Carolina that black people are underrepresented on federal juries. And we think that any jury that's supposed to be a cross-section of our community that's going to hear a case that talks about the clan and racist violence and repression from the government has to have black people involved. So the discussion is a legitimate discussion. The two trials prior to this have been all white juries. So the results of our trial depends on a lot of things. How much, how well we can present all the evidence to the jury and whether or not that jury is going to fully represent the citizens of North Carolina, including the black community. In the past, the CWP was a turn-off to some people. They seemed fanatical or far out, or those kinds of terms were applied. Have you undergone any imagery building

or are there other kinds of lessons that might have been learned since the first trial? Well, I think that the CWP has gone on its way and done what it needed to do. I think that what in the Greensboro Civil Rights Fund, what we have a lot of that fanatical, a lot of that stuff came from a media presentation of November 3rd and the victims of November 3rd. A lot of what we've done over the last five years or so has been to try to bring people back to reality and the thing. Who is who and what is what and what was done on November 3rd and what is murder and what are civil rights violations? Who are the clan? Is it correct? Is it proper? Is it something that we all agree to that you have to take a stand against the clan and against racist violence? We with the Greensboro Civil

Rights Fund, we have tried to go out and talk to people about what reality is around the Greensboro Massacre. I think that that's had a lot of effect over the years. The Communist Workers' Party has done what it has done over the years too. All of these legal actions and indeed the fund itself implies a great bit of organization and will certainly require a lot of financing. How are you able to sustain this effort? For that I'd like to go back to what we were talking about earlier which is the question of support. We have gotten support literally from all over the world. People, the World Council of Churches has supported us financially. The National Council of Churches and various affiliates, the Presbyterian Church, the Unitarian Church, the Methodist Church have given us both paths on the back and good job and endorsed our suits as well as have supported

us financially. We have gotten several large foundation grants and we also, a huge amount of funding has come just from individual people donating when appealed to through the males. Everything has, our victims, the victims of November 3rd are poor. The plaintiffs in this lawsuit are poor. There is no way. It's a real lesson in the so-called justice system that we are engaging in right now to realize how many hundreds of thousands of dollars it takes to get justice in a matter which was televised by four TV cameras. I mean it, that's ludicrous to me sometimes and I think that it is to most people who understand the Greensboro Massacre, who you have people murdered in the streets in front of TV cameras and it takes literally hundreds of thousands of dollars to try to get anything done about it. There's something incredibly unjust about that. But in fact, because people have seen their vested interest in injustice in the Greensboro Massacre, we have gotten tremendous

support from all over the country and literally from all over the world. This matter of justice is quite an interesting question. One obviously must include you feel it was not served before. Do you think that it can be served? Do you think that we will ever find justice? Just what are you defining it as justice in this trial? To my mind, the primary interest in this case is the truth. We want justice and we are going to prosecute it all the way through to the end. Hopefully what we are asking, the only thing we can ask for now, those clansmen will never go to jail. The only thing that we can ask through the courts now is monetary damages. That's what you get through a civil rights suit. We will prosecute it all the way to the end and hopefully we'll gain that and that will be a deterrent to government. The Bureau of Alcohol to Back on Firearms, the FBI and the Greensboro Police and other

police departments, other agencies doing this kind of thing again. But I'll tell you the most important thing that I personally see and in many of us close to it, see coming out of this trial is the truth. We know that there's a long history of government involvement in harassment, neutralization and disruption of people in people's movements, either fighting against racism or for unions or for economic justice. There's a long history through something called Coentel Pro on the part of the FBI to get rid of those kind of people, progressive people who are at their leading struggles. Martin Luther King is probably the most widely known example. The FBI tried for years to get rid of him and may have gotten rid of him. Nobody knows for sure. That was Coentel Pro. We believe that what was going on in Greensboro on November 3rd was something like that. The involvement of agents throughout

this whole Klan Nazi endeavor, sometimes encouraging, definitely allowing the way the Greensboro Police and FBI paving the way, allowing it to happen, having no protection for those demonstrators there that day. We believe that if people know that this kind of thing is going on and will go on, the kind of political movements that we see coming up right now in opposition to the Reagan administration and opposition to the new right and to the plans for a World War and intervention in Central America and making people poor, we believe that movement will really benefit by knowing what happened in Greensboro. It will be able to protect itself. It will be able to try to stop it politically and new FBI guidelines and make Greensboro's easier stop anti-terrorist so-called legislation. There are many, many things that can be learned and used by people in the coming years from

the Greensboro massacre and from the trial that's coming up. I fully support what Marty said. I would just comment that the Coentel Pro that she mentioned stands for counterintelligence program and it's a clearly documented FBI program that was directed to, quote, neutralize discredit and disrupt people's organizations. And that kind of government conduct is the antithesis of what our government and its principles are supposed to stand for. That is the people's right to organize and better themselves. So I agree that the educational component of this trial is very important and the way that we knew at the very beginning how to sort of anticipate or draw the outlines of what we thought happened that now has been confirmed after our investigation was based on the prior knowledge that has been developed in other similar cases, whether it's the Fred Hampton case in Chicago where the Black Panther Party leader in Illinois was murdered in

his sleep, the Karen Silkwood case, many other cases have documented this Coentel Pro and we hope at some point that the American public will realize how this repression is occurring. Right now in the news is the issue about the CIA manual that trains the Nicaraguan counter revolutionaries how to go out and literally kill public officials and our government hasn't endorsed that. And the sooner people realize that that's a reality and not some made up conspiratorial theory, the better they can exercise their right to vote and vote in officials who won't tolerate that and will put behind bars the people who do those kinds of things. There is one aspect and a legal point is that in this civil suit, as Marty mentioned, we don't have the ability to send the defendants to jail. That should have been done by the state prosecutors and the federal prosecutors. They didn't do it. We were not involved in that. So we don't feel blame for the fact that they're off. But

we can get injunctions or court orders against these agencies for doing this kind of work. So that would be one benefit to the public at large is if we can get injunctions that prohibit the police and the federal agencies from carrying out these kinds of counterintelligence operations. Well, I'm sure discussions of cases like this could be endless, but I'm afraid this one has to come to a conclusion right now. I'd like to thank our guests who are Dr. Marty Nathan, who is a survivor of the number 31979 confrontation between the Communist Workers' Party and the Ku Klux Klan and American Nazis. She's part of the Greensboro Civil Rights Fund as it's attorney Lewis Pitts. I'm Faye Mitchell-Henderson for WUNC.