Racial Justice Campaign Members Optimistic After UN Meeting In Geneva

“Operation Meth Merchant” Named as an Example of Racial Profiling by Law Enforcement

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
July 25, 2006, 11:30 a.m.
Contact: Deepali Gokhale, 404-822-5090, stopomm@mindspring.com

GENEVA, SWITZERLAND – Racial Justice Campaign Against “Operation Meth Merchant” (RJC) members returned home after a meeting with the United Nations Human Rights Committee (UNHRC) in Geneva, where US delegates were questioned about human rights violations during a review of US compliance with international human rights law. The UNHRC will submit its final comments to the United States on Friday, July 28th, the same day that the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) will file their final response to the U.S. government regarding their selective enforcement motion.

“Operation Meth Merchant”, the recent sting operation that targeted South Asian merchants in Georgia for allegedly knowing they were selling products that would be used to make methamphetamine, was presented by a UNHRC member as an example of racial profiling. UNHRC members raised concerns about the widespread use of racial profiling by law enforcement and advised the US government to address the lack of accountability or tracking mechanisms in place to monitor the activities of regional task forces set up to wage the “war on drugs” and the “war on terror”. Both of these “wars” disproportionately impact people of color, and the regional task forces have been widely criticized for their role in perpetuating racial profiling.

Wan Kim, Assistant Attorney-General at the Civil Rights Division (CRD) of the US Department of Justice (DOJ), stated that the CRD will investigate any allegations of racial profiling by law enforcement and, if it finds the allegations to be true, drop all charges against those indicted, regardless of guilt or innocence. As increased evidence of racial profiling mounts in Georgia’s “Operation Meth Merchant”, RJC members are hopeful that the US government will honor its word and investigate the racial targeting undertaken by law enforcement officials.

“If what Mr. Kim says is true, we wonder why the Department of Justice has not yet investigated the obvious racial bias in Operation Meth Merchant. We look forward to the day the charges are dropped, and we hope that day comes soon,” said Naju Mavany, Grassroots Organizer of RJC. “Meanwhile, people’s lives continue to be destroyed by this unlawful racial profiling.”

In “Operation Meth Merchant,” a regional anti-drug task force employed convicted methamphetamine producers as “confidential informants” in order to target South Asian merchants, who comprise less than 2% of the population and only 19.3% of the convenience stores in northwest Georgia. As a result of the discriminatory practices, South Asian-owned stores were nearly 100 times as likely to be investigated than other similarly situated stores in the area.

In support of a selective enforcement motion filed by the ACLU, informants involved in the operation have stated that the agent in charge of the operation expressed antipathy toward South Asians and directed them to target only South Asian owned stores, even though these informants had identified multiple white-owned stores that had previously sold them the products in question.

“Equal treatment under the law is not only an internationally recognized human right, it is also written into our own Constitution,” said Deepali Gokhale, Campaign Organizer of RJC. “It is unfortunate that we had to go all the way to Switzerland to plead with our government to uphold its professed anti-discriminatory values, and we are astounded by the lengths we have to travel in order to bring about justice, when human and Constitutional rights have so clearly been violated.”

###

ACLU Selective Investigation Motion Hearing

The ACLU Motion was heard by Judge Murphy at the Rome Federal Court on June 19, 2006. The Motion contained sworn testimony by two confidential informants (CIs) stating that they bought ingredients to create methamphetamine from various stores, not limited to ones owned by South Asians, yet law enforcement agents steered them solely towards South Asian owned stores to conduct their controlled buys as part of "Operation Meth Merchant".
At the hearing today the CIs were to appear before a judge and testify. However, as of this morning, both of the CIs decided not to testify. Instead, the ACLU presented a different witness that would corroborate the statements made by the CIs. He is the cousin of one of the informants and was present when the prompting by law enforcement of the controlled buys took place, because he had to drive his cousin to each of the stores during the investigation. He is willing to testify in front of the judge. The prosecutors argued that they needed time to be prepare to cross examine the witness, and the judge has decided to hold the hearing on Thursday (June 22) at 10:00 a.m.
This is a pivotal point in the cases. We are watching how the court decides to proceed in the matter. Racial targeting is difficult to prove in the judicial system despite the fact that the statistics and all other evidence show that racial targeting took place on Operation Meth Merchant.

ACLU Hearing Part II

On June 22, 2006 Judge Murphy heard from John Ross, a witness to law enforcement agents’ inciting comments towards South Asian merchants. This hearing was the ACLU’s opportunity to present witness testimony supporting its Motion to dismiss charges against defendants of Operation Meth Merchant.

John Ross’s testimony actually went above and beyond the written affidavit of his cousin who worked as a confidential informant for law enforcement during the sting operation. Ross testified that law enforcement agents actually said that they wanted to “close down the Indian stores,” in addition to the comment about needing to make specific statements about making a cook because it was needed to trap the Indians whose “English wasn’t so good.” Ross was able to keep his cool throughout prosecutor, Lisa Tarvin’s intimidations.
Ross later told the ACLU team that he was moved by the show of thankfulness of the family members and supporters when he got off the stand and made eye contact with people in the gallery. Some of them put their palms together in a show of thankfulness and support for the witness taking a risk and testifying against the government.

Lisa Tarvin tried to have the motion thrown out saying that there was not sufficient evidence to warrant a motion to dismiss and that since so much time had elapsed since the sting operation occurred, it did not have merit. The Judge however, has mandated the government to respond to the motion, which they agreed to do by July 21st, 2006 and the ACLU will have a chance to counter respond two weeks after that.
Judge Murphy also made the point that since this was such a grave offense that the government was being accused of, he would have the patience to hear the evidence out. After the hearing, the judge specifically addressed the gallery and told us that the laws are there to protect everyone no matter his or her legal status in the US.
After the hearing the ACLU lawyers met with the defendants and told us that what today meant was that after the government had a chance to respond, the ACLU would ask for the evidence to be made transparent to the defense. Once the ACLU has more access to this evidence the case for racial targeting would become stronger. By understanding why the sting operation took place and how the government went about it, their tactics would become known.