Why is Leonard Peltier still in prison? He committed no crime.

[shance]

The more I learn the less I know.

I've heard the name Leonard Peltier before, but I never knew who he was, and honestly, I never sought to find out.

Today I did.

Leonard's story is a heart breaking one, one that few of us can even conceive of happening to us.

It is past time for him to be released.

He committed NO CRIME.



Leonard Peltier, a citizen of the Anishinabe and Lakota Nations, is a father, a grandfather, an artist, a writer, and an Indigenous rights activist.

He has spent more than twenty-seven years in prison for a crime he did not commit.

Leonard Peltier is 58 years old and was born on the Anishinabe (Chippewa) Turtle Mountain Reservation in North Dakota.

He came from a large family of 13 brothers and sisters.

He grew up in poverty, and survived many traumatic experiences resulting from U.S. government policies aimed to assimilate Native Peoples.

At the age of eight he was taken from his family and sent to a residential boarding school for Native people run by the US Government.

There, the students were forbidden to speak their languages and they suffered both physical and psychological abuses.

As a teenager Leonard Peltier returned to live with his father at the Turtle Mountain Reservation in North Dakota.

It was one of three reservations, which the United States Government chose as the testing ground for its new termination policy.

The policy forced Native families off their reservations and into the cities. The resulting protests and demonstrations by tribal members introduced Leonard Peltier to Native resistance through activism and organizing.

During one particularly difficult winter on the Turtle Mountain Reservation Leonard Peltier recollects protests by his people to the Bureau of Indian Affairs about the desperate lack of food.

(The termination policy withdrew federal assistance, including food, from those who remained on their land).

Following these protests, B.I.A. social workers came to the reservation to investigate the situation. Leonard Peltier and one of the organizers on the reservation went from household to household before the arrival of the investigating party to tell the local people to hide what little food they had.

When he got to the first house, he found that there was no food to hide and the same story was repeated in each of the households that he went to.

This experience awakened him to the desperate situation for all people on his reservation.

As he grew older, he began traveling with his father as a migrant farm worker.

While following the harvests, they stayed at different reservations.

During this time, he came to learn that policies of relocation, poverty, and racism were endemic issues affecting tribes across the U.S.

In 1965, Leonard Peltier moved to Seattle, Washington, where he worked for several years as part owner of an auto body shop which he used to employ Native people and to provide low-cost automobile repairs for those who needed it.

During the same period, he was also active in the founding of a Native halfway house for ex-prisoners.

His community volunteer work included Native Land Claim issues, alcohol counseling, and participation in protests concerning the preservation of Native land within the city of Seattle.

In the late 1960's and early 1970's Leonard Peltier began traveling to different Native communities.

He spent a lot of time in Washington and Wisconsin and was working as a welder, carpenter, and community counselor for Native people.

In the course of his work he became involved with the American Indian Movement (AIM) and eventually joined the Denver Colorado chapter.

In Denver, he worked as a community counselor confronting unemployment, alcohol problems and poor housing. He became strongly involved in the spiritual and traditional programs of AIM.

Leonard Peltier's participation in the American Indian Movement led to his involvement in the 1972 Trail of broken Treaties which took him to Washington D.C., in the occupation of the Bureau of Indian Affairs building.

Eventually his AIM involvement would bring him to assist the Oglala Lakota People of the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation in South Dakota in the mid 1970's.

On Pine Ridge he participated in the planning of community activities, religious ceremonies, programs for self-sufficiency, and improved living conditions.

He also helped to organize security for the traditional people who were being targeted for violence by the pro-assimilation tribal chairman and his vigilantes.

It was here that the tragic shoot-out of June 26, 1975 occurred, leading to his wrongful conviction.

Despite the harsh conditions of imprisonment, Leonard Peltier has continued to lead an active life.

From behind bars, he has helped to establish scholarships for Native students and special programs for Indigenous youth.

He has served on the advisory board of the Rosenberg Fund for Children, and has sponsored children in Central America.

He has donated to battered women's shelters, organized the annual Christmas drive for the people of Pine Ridge Reservation, and promoted prisoner art programs.

He has also established himself as a talented artist, using oils to paint portraits of his people, portraying their cultures and histories. He has written poetry and prose from prison, and recently completed a moving biography titled Prison Writings: My Life Is My Sun Dance (St. Martin's Press, NY, 1999).

Leonard Peltier credits his ability to endure his circumstances to his spiritual practices and the love and support from his family and supporters.

http://www.leonardpeltier.net/

[Mutineer]

1. As BC was leaving office,

He was lobbied by a lot of Hollywood heavyweights, including billionaire David Geffen, to pardon Pelliter. He refused. Thus he pissed off Geffen who enacted his own revenge when he dissed HRC as a candidate and threw his support behind Obama.

[shance]

39. Kudos to David Geffen. I wonder why Clinton didnt pardon him.

Seems likely someone was 'persuading' him not to. I can't imagine a reason for him not to pardon him otherwise.

He isn't guilty!

Amazing what the FBI and cointelpro have done to destroy and divide the Native Americans and the AIM.

Heartbreaking to read.

Separate, bribe those in poverty, create dissention and mistrust between the groups, isolate the ones who are doing good and cripple them, and eventually kill what is remaining of their spirit.

[Bobbieo]

101. Clinton did not pardon Peltier because FBI Supporters Fought Back And Won!

[tomp]

187. fuck the fbi and fuck bill clinton.

count me among those who will never forgive clinton for that monumental failure.

[Sequoia]

209. Same here, he could've pardoned him.

[Adenoid_Hynkel]

141. Clinton didn't pardon peltier because he wasn't MARK RICH enough

thank you to the great Robbie Robbertson of the band for that line


all the more reason to refuse to vote for Hillary

[laruemtt]

2. and i'll never forgive b. clinton for

not pardoning him when he left office. just one more disgraceful travesty by the u.s. to the native people.

[AX10]

5. But Marc Rich got one.

:puke:

[northzax]

15. Marc Rich stole money

Leonard Peltier executed two federal agents. samed dif, I guess.

[Adenoid_Hynkel]

144. Rich was an undeniable guilty fugitive, Peltier was innocent

Rich shows no remorse. He just had a big checkbook and access to Bill and Hill.
Self-absorbed yuppies take care of their own

[northzax]

190. and, of course

by accepting the pardon, Rich (who had given away much more than he was reported to have stolen) accepted his guilt on te charges in front of him. Would Peltier be willing to do the same?

[ProudDad]

223. Peltier and others

defended themselves against the agents of a hostile foreign nation...



See, it just depends on your point of view and level of respect for the facts of the situation...

[G_j]

212. I probably called the WH 75 - 100 times

concerning Peltier during the Clinton presidency

now Leonard may well die in prison.

Clinton sold him out for sure!

[nashville_brook]

216. yet another example of DLC priorities!

[EFerrari]

3. In The Spirit of Crazy Horse. K&R

http://ec1.images-amazon.com/images/I/412XBQ59BTL._BO2,204,203,200_PIsitb-dp-500-arrow,TopRight,45,-64_OU01_AA240_SH20_.jpg

An excellent account of the injustice done to Leonard and, a work once censored in this country. The publisher was actually made to BURN THIS BOOK!

http://www.amazon.com/Spirit-Crazy-Horse-Peter-Matthiessen/dp/0140144560/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/002-6007803-2849646?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1187035574&sr=1-1


Thank you, shance.

:loveya:

[proud2BlibKansan]

124. A great book!

[puebloknot]

167. A marvelous book, and one of the first which served to wake me up...

...to Native American causes.

"American Holocaust" is another good one, of a general nature.

[EFerrari]

4. Please remember to rec the thread.

:)

[helderheid]

done!

[laruemtt]

8. and done! n/t

[EFerrari]

12. Thank you!

[EFerrari]

13. Thank you, my friend.

[Freddie Stubbs]

6. He is in jail because he was convicted of murdering two FBI agents

Apperently the jury thought that he committed a crime. Two of them.

[EFerrari]

17. And it isn't unusual, is it, for people to be convicted of crimes

they never committed. You are familiar with the Innocence Project?

Peltier's innocence has been established -- that's why the book that I cite in my post was banned in this country -- why an entire run was burned. Because the facts couldn't be allowed to embarrass the FBI.

[Freddie Stubbs]

19. Banned by whom?

:shrug:

[EFerrari]

24. I'd have to look up the exact agency somehow. But in the late 80s,

some federal agency did ban this book so, if you wanted to buy one as I did, you couldn't buy one in this country. I know, because I tried to order it for a class I was teaching. And I was informed that this was a banned book, that the last printing had been destroyed. And I remember a number of us passing a dogeared copy around. :shrug:

That was 15 years ago so my memory isn't helping me, Freddie. But, I'll try to dig up the details. Because I swear on my sons's heads, it happened. It was so shocking to me at the time.

[H2O Man]

26. Some of the

government officials mentioned in the book filed suit against the publisher; it made it impossible for the public to purchase the book.

[EFerrari]

31. Is that what happened? I'm sorry, I don't remember.

What I do remember was trying to order it for my class and being informed that the last run had been destroyed.

[H2O Man]

35. There is no

reason to be sorry; what happened was an attempt by people within the government to keep the American public from reading a book. This should be unacceptable. Even those books we find offensive should not be kept from the public.

[EFerrari]

148. Thank You. I don't remember the agency but do remember the effect. nt

[LostinVA]

33. You're correct

[northzax]

41. it wasn't a ban

two people mentioned in the book, former governor and congressman Bill Janklow (he of the latter manslaughter conviction for a driving incident) and FBI agent David Price both filed libel suits againt Matheisson and Viking when the book was published. both cases were appealed to the Supreme Court, which refused to hear them, and were settled.

[EFerrari]

44. But in effect, it was a ban. You couldn't buy a copy in this country. nt

[northzax]

48. but it wasn't a 'federal agency'

it was a civil lawsuit. Your post implies the Federal Government banned the book, which is simply not true, Viking refused to release it until the cases were finished, and bookstores refused to carry it for the same reason (because doing so would have exposed them to more liability if Janklow and/or Price had won their lawsuits) There was never even a court order banning publication, Viking obviously didn't think the risk was worth taking (since people publish things under the threat of libel all the time)

[EFerrari]

52. And I think I put enough caveats in my post to indicate

that I didn't remember the particulars.

But it was in effect a ban. No college teacher could order up copies of that book for a class. No citizen could buy one either.

Parse it anyway you like. The Feds got this book buried to CYA.

[northzax]

58. then maybe you should

the Feds did not sue anyone, it was two individuals who filed libel suits. Let me state that again. two individual American citizens exercised their right to file libel suits against a publisher they thought was defaming them. There was enough merit to their cases that they both won at trial, and it is not easy to win a libel suit (just ask the National Enquirer). Against a government offical, which both Janklow and Price were at the time, you have to prove not just that the accusations were false, but that the publisher acted with "actual malice" (Times v. Sullivan) the initial trial juries found for Janklow and Price in the suits. Both were eventually overturned on appeal on the grounds that actual malice was not successfully proven. While there was a libel judgement, won in jury trials, outstanding against Viking, the company chose to cease publication of the book to avoid further damages, while fighting it in court.


When Angelina Jolie sues US Magazine for libel (and wins, as she recently did when they published reports she was cheating on her husband) and the publisher stops repeating the allegations, is that the Feds burying the story? When Cynthia McKinney sues the Atlanta Journal Constitution for Libel, are the Feds burying the story?

[EFerrari]

61. That's just willful misreading.

Peltier is innocent and the best proof is there was a monumental effort to suppress any objective account of what happened that day.

How many book runs do you know that have been destroyed because a federal agency might be embarrassed or worse, prosecuted?

Sorry, no sale.

[northzax]

71. so destroyed that first print run was

that I have one sitting right on my bookshelf. would you like to buy it from me? going rate is about $25. so rare that a first edition, in dust jacket, is worth $15. wowza, that IS a rare book. in 24 years, it has appreciated from the cover price of $20.95 to a whopping $15.

look, you have admitted that you haven't reviewed the case in a long time. why not go read up on it a bit, and stop posting blatant falsehoods from faulty memory? Seriously, among other things, you can't actualy prosecute a Federal agency.

or is your arguement that the libel system should be dismantled? can you post a link documenting that print runs were destroyed? cause I have been looking and I can't find any evidence of this at all. Please, some back up?

[EFerrari]

74. What an amazing post to this thread.

I wish you well, northzax.

[northzax]

87. not sure what's amazing

the fact that I own a book? seriously, can you cite anything?

[EFerrari]

103. Seriously, do you read your own books?

:crazy:

[classof56]

205. Thank you--I feel better!

Thought maybe my memory was slipping, because I clearly recall a co-worker showing me "In the Spirit of Crazy Horse" maybe 15 or so years ago, which her mother had bought at a local book store. I didn't read it myself, but knew what it was about.

Good post!

Tired Old Cynic

[proud2BlibKansan]

127. Is US magazine not available to purchase because of the lawsuit?

Is the Atlanta Journal Constitution not available to the public?

You're talking apples and oranges.

[northzax]

192. that particular issue, yes

destroyed by the publisher, any that were unsold at the time. standard practice in libel suits that are successful. go find the article in the Journal-Constitution that McKinney sued over. it ain't there. McKinney successfully censored it, apparently. of course the difference between a perdiodical and a book is that a periodical comes out again the next issue, on schedule. a book that is held up doesn't have a new issue.

are you arguing, I must ask, that libel laws should not apply to books? or that Viking should have taken the chance, after losing a lawsuit at the lower levels, of continuing to multiply the potential damages by publishing more print runs a book they have been successfully (At that point) sued for libel on? Viking did the right thing, imho, they held the book and fought the suits to the Supreme Court. They could have dropped it, and settled, and cut portions of the book, lesser publishers certainly have, but they fought all the way to the supreme court to publish the book they wanted to publish. And they won (at no small expense)

[H2O Man]

56. For an accurate description

of what happened, I would suggest DUers read the "afterword" by Martin Garbus, the attorney who represented Peter and Viking in the case. The first sentences should give folks a clue as to if what you are saying is correct:

"The republication of In the Spirit of Crazy Horse marks a great victory against a new kind of censorship: the attempt by present and former public officials to suppress books that criticize them or disagree with their policies.

"Libel suits are the vehicle for this censorship, and they can be just as effective as government injunctions or physical threats. A libel suit stopped Peter Matthiessen and his publisher, Viking. After the initial hardcover publication of In the Spirit of Crazy Horse, lawsuits blocked all subsequent paperback and foreign editions. Matthiessen's story disappeared from the bookshelves for seven years.

"The printing of this new edition is thus a joyful occasion for those of us who care about the dissemination of ideas, no matter how controversial, and worry about any erosion of the rights guarenteed by the First Amendment."

[ProudDad]

224. Ok, you're right...

Federal agents on Federal business tried to commit genocide and a couple of them paid the price...

Two private "citizens" blocked the book...

[puebloknot]

169. It's been years since I read it, but I seem to recall that the author's preface...

...when it finally was available stated that it was a new form of censorship to throw roadblocks in the way of getting a book published and released. I wasn't aware that copies had been destroyed, in addition to making it impossible to obtain publication in the first instance.

Peltier is our Nelson Mandela and has served just about the same amount of time as Mandela did.

[northzax]

193. well, no one seems to be posting any evidence

that copies were destroyed, and no other books or websites seem to verify this fact, so I think we can discard it. Of course Matheissen's lawyer (in the preface, as you remembered) called it a 'new form of censorship', it was their cause celebre. they don't believe in the concept of libel (they were not, in fact, arguing in court that their facts were true, the best defense against libel, they were arguing that they did not rise to the level of 'deliberate malice' in publishing it.)

and yes, it is a very good book.

[EFerrari]

236. Why don't you just call Viking and ask? It was all over my University

at the time because there were more than several of us trying to get our hands on this work. Geezus.

[puebloknot]

252. Thanks for your comments. And yes, I only remember the author's comment...

...about censorship. Not being a lawyer, I can't address that. My impression of the "new censorship" was that a lawsuit was filed simply to stop publication. I didn't know then and don't know now whether that was something often done.

However, as a citizen who has delved deeply into the history of this country, and its treatment of Native Americans, I am perfectly open to the possibility of malfeasance in the Peltier case -- while not just assuming he was falsely accused.

I would simply like the see the case reopened and let the facts come out.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

179. AFAIK...

...the Innocence Project hasn't rendered any assistance to Peltier at all.

[peacebaby3]

204. The Innocence Project only gets involved in a case if there is DNA evidence.

Many cases don't have any DNA evidence.

[Laurier]

269. In Peltier's case, though,

the Innocence Project in Canada got involved and tried to get President Clinton to grant clemency to Peltier. They do cases other than just DNA cases.

Unfortunately, President Clinton refused.

[LostinVA]

32. The facts don't support his conviction

It's possible he did it, but not probable. And, that shouldn't be good enough for a conviction in this country, but it is SOP for minorities. I sure the Scottsboro Boys would understand that.

[Shakespeare]

69. Exactly right. That trial was a JOKE.

At the VERY least he deserves a new--FAIR--trial.

[LostinVA]

90. Agreed

[arikara]

157. Very true, a trial with all the evidence presented

The other people that were with him at the time and were charged with the fbi killing went to trial before him and they got off. Then the judge that tried Peltier disallowed evidence that would have cleared him. It was rigged because they wanted someone to pay for shooting the fbi's. They didn't care if it was the guilty party or not.

Nobody ever paid for any of the other deaths on Pine Ridge during that time. Annie Mae Aquash and many others were shot and killed during that time and the fbi should have investigated and did not. Either deliberately or through total incompetence.

[AnnieBW]

166. Bullets didn't match the gun

I understand that there was some problem with the ballistics in the Peltier case. But the FBI railroaded him anyway.

[northzax]

194. the shells didn't match the firing pin

but they did match all the other characteristics of the gun (scratches and the like) even I can change the firing pin in a hangun, it's not that tough.

[Richard Steele]

43. WRONGLY convicted, as the evidence clearly shows. The prosecution FALSIFIED evidence.

The FBI Crime Lab issued a report saying that shell casings
found at the scene didn't come from Peltier's rifle.

Someone on the Prosecution end ALTERED those documents to say
exactly the opposite, and they were entered into evidence against him.

The man was FRAMED for the murders. End of story.

[proud2BlibKansan]

126. Have you read much about this murder?

Peltier didn't kill anyone. He was an easy scapegoat for the feds. Read the book sfexpat recommended. Google more information. This is one of the greatest miscarriages of justice in our lifetime.

[Colorado Progressive]

7. what was BC's reason for not pardoning him?

[northzax]

11. well, no reason was given

as none is required, but I would think the strong protests of federal law enforcement officials and their families had something to do with it. Remember, accepting a pardon is accepting guilt for the offense in question, and if guilty of executing two federal agents, he shouldn't be free (remember, both were captured alive and then shot in the head, exceution-style, this wasn't a shootout, it was a cold blooded murder)

[EFerrari]

21. Problem is, no one has proved he did that.

Someone did it. But Leonard didn't or at very least, no one has proved he was at the scene.

It is terrible those two agents were killed, despite the fact that what they were doing that day was inciting violence. That was stupid on their part but certainly, they didn't deserve to be killed for their stupidity.

They have never shown that Leonard was there. They have shown that they believed he was a leader of the movement and that they were gunning for him.

[LostinVA]

34. They were also breaking the law by being in the Lakota's territory

[EFerrari]

40. and by shooting up the place. No kidding. n/t

[LostinVA]

42. Yup -- no different, per Federal law, than if they invaded Canada and did the same

[northzax]

77. can you cite that law?

because the FBI has jurisdiction for Federal Crimes on reservations.

[EFerrari]

80. What axe are you grinding? What "federal" crime was comitted

that day?

I'd really like to understand where you're coming from.

[northzax]

86. well, there was a warrant out for Peltier's arrest

for skipping bail in Milwaukee. Coley and Williams were looking for Jimmy Eagle, wanted for questioning in connection with an assault and theft. When they attempted to stop a vehicle matching Mr. Eagle's car's description, they were shot at. the Vehicle then proceeded to the Jumping Bull Ranch.

Are you denying that agents that came to back up Coley and Williams were fired upon from the Jumping Bull Ranch?

[EFerrari]

106. Go bait someone that is stupid enough to take it.

:hi:

[northzax]

110. so there wasn't a warrant out for Peltier's arrest?

seriously, that's not baiting. the question was asked, what federal crime was being enforced. I answered it. guess that's baiting.

[EFerrari]

116. NIce strawman. Sorry. It's not a wash. n/t

[northzax]

119. last chance to test your factual knowledge

answer these four simple questions, and I will know if I should keep taking you in any way seriously:

1: was Jimmy Eagle wanted for questioning in an assault and robbery case off the reservation?
2: did Jimmy Eagle drive a red truck?
3: was a matching red truck found at Jumping Bull Ranch?
4: was there a warrant out for Leonard Peltier in Milwaukee for skipping bail?

simple yes or no questions. anyone with a modicum of knowledge in the matter should be able to answer them (all are answered by Mathiesson, by the way, or are you still waiting for the book to be published?)

[EFerrari]

132. And more cr@P. What a surprise. n/t

[northzax]

155. I will take that as an 'I don't know'

Thanks for clarifying that. I appreciate your snarky Comments, perhaps there is a Chavez thread you can spend some time on?

[EFerrari]

161. You expose yourself without any help from me.

Take responsiblity for you own behavior.

[northzax]

191. I am indeed

but when the response to facts and questions is insults, it's tough to get anywhere. These are key, integral issues to the events leading up to the shooting at Jumping Bull Ranch, and you cannot answer them, no wonder you are confused about other facts in the case. But as you said, it has been a while.

oh, and I thought later on of another thing, no publisher would ever 'burn' a print run, they get pulped and recycled into new books. And I can find no record in the relevant trade publications or on the internet that any print run was pulped. and you haven't posted any but your recollections. If your phd students did that, you would laugh them out of the building.

[Solo_in_MD]

264. I would not be so sure of that, after all, its Cal...

[Common Sense Party]

177. .

Your appeals to common sense, facts, and reality are a breath of fresh air in this thread.

[EFerrari]

239. So, the appeal to a trumped up case is attractive to you?

Don't you people ever do any of your own research? Or you do normally side with the FBI when they take political prisoners? Common sense, my granny. Facts? Reality? :wtf:



"Amnesty International considers Leonard Peltier to be a political prisoner whose avenues of redress have long been exhausted.... Amnesty International recognizes that a retrial is no longer a feasible option and believes that Leonard Peltier should be immediately and unconditionally released."

-- Amnesty International, April 6, 1999

"I have been reading in Leonard Peltier's book, and about an hour ago I spoke with him .... He is a remarkable person and the depth of his spirituality shows .... I would hope that the campaign to have him freed will succeed. I certainly support it very passionately .... Because it is a blot on the judicial system of this country that ought to be corrected as quickly as possible."

-- Archbishop Desmond Tutu, April 18, 1999

"(Regarding FBI use of falsified testimony) .... I have nothing on my conscience at all."

-- U.S. Prosecutor Lynn Crooks



http://www.freepeltier.org/story.htm

[RaleighNCDUer]

203. A warrant for Peltier. Someone else fires on federal agents.

What's the connection between Eagle and Peltier?

[LostinVA]

93. Oh boy

Do you hear those crickets?

[northzax]

97. see post 86

which is ahead of post 93.

[EFerrari]

105. I want to concentrate on supporting Leonard.

Not easy to do but let's make it happen. :hug:

[LostinVA]

122. Agreed!

:pals:

[Solo_in_MD]

151. Heck of a job you're doing there ExPaty

Seriously, your replies to honest inquiry are at best negative added value

[EFerrari]

159. Who gave you permission to call me by a diminutive?

Seriously, your reply is at best silly.

[Solo_in_MD]

160. I hope the obvious parody of Bush was clear...

But I was dead serious about your reponses not helping your position

[EFerrari]

162. I don't need help with my position.

But thanks for your concern.

[northzax]

195. brilliant!

normally I try to avoid the Bush comparison, but it's getting more and more obvious. the orthodoxy is remarkable.

and the only position I can determine is that I am wrong on everything, no matter what I say, no matter what the facts of history say. you can't win, but sometimes it's fun to bait the bear anyway.

[EFerrari]

237. A man's life has been stolen on a false pretext and you

find some kind of satisfaction in what? In dissing someone who is honestly reporting what is was like trying to get the facts of the case.

Well done.

On edit: Roxanne Dunbar Ortiz has a website. Email her. She knows what happened to that run and her credentials are unimpeachable as an activist for Native American property rights AND as a scholar. I worked with her at about the same time this book was being suppressed.

[Solo_in_MD]

259. While there is clearly some question about the LP trial its not nearly as birnary

as he is maintaining...a new trial may be the best approach at this point to satisfy all sides. Anything else will still have controversy.

ExPaty's diatribes including citing a Berkley PhD are hysterically funny. His unwillingness to engage in discourse is trashing his own position

[EFerrari]

263. That would be "her".

lol

[Solo_in_MD]

265. OK, *she* is making a mockery of the position *she* is espousing

Both sides have some points on this, its not a binary situation.

A new trial would be the best choice to clarify things, though most likely it will not happen. If Bill Clinton did not commutte or pardon LP, I doubt anyone else will, and LP will die in jail.

[EFerrari]

266. For the record, I agree with Amnesty, with the Dalai Lama,

with Human Rights Watch and not with you.

[Solo_in_MD]

267. Thats fine, my approach is the pragmatic one, and I think well justified

but your approach to dialog in this thread should have embarrrased you...

[CanSocDem]

262. This...

...is it exactly.

"They have shown that they believed he was a leader of the movement and that they were gunning for him."

.

[Joe Chi Minh]

242. Answer #43. and less of the pedantry. None of your waffle anticipated

the bottom line, as laid out so succinctly by dicksteele, nor have you deigned to respond to it since. Answer it, or just go back to sleep.

[Adenoid_Hynkel]

142. he couldn't write a check to the clintons-that was their reason

screw those crooks

[Botany]

186. many F.B.I. agents let it be known they would quit if he granted the pardon

Some law enforcement feel the case against L.P. is solid.

[tomp]

188. fuck 'em.

AT THE VERY LEAST, Peltier was illegally extradited from canada for the trial. they can "feel" the case is solid but it's not.

[ProudDad]

225. I know, I know!!!

He's a phony...

It's ok to pardon a corporate capitalist crook like mark rich but you'd get hammered at pardoning a railroaded "cop killer"...

It would have gotten in the way of his future earnings...

[northzax]

9. the FBI frowns on people killing their agents

and others have testified that Peltier confessed to them that he had committed the crime. The evidence is pretty strong, really.

[EFerrari]

14. The FBI can't even place him at the scene although

they can buy witnesses.

No, the evidence is not strong. In fact, the "evidence" stinks to heaven.

[northzax]

27. well, then no witnesses should ever be accepted

since every witness involved said he was there. Agent Coler's handgun was found under the seat of Peltier's car. a van matching the description of his van was at the scene. How about the Nichols sisters? Bob Ellison taking the fifth to avoid testifying? the Aquash affair? Dino Butler? Bob Robideau?

if what you are implying is that all eyewitnesses and secondard witnesses should be ignored in all cases, then that's one thing. But Butler and Robideau have basically said that all three of them were there at the time of the murders (you will recall that Butler and Robideau were found not guilty by reason of self defense in their case, while Peltier was fighting extradition in Canada) To claim self defense is to say "yes, we did it, but we had to to save our own lives" you can't claim self defense and then say you didn't do it. as Peltier claims. Everyone else involved in the case, including those protected by double-jeopardy and statute of limitations on civil cases, is a liar, except Peltier. Interesting, isn't it?

how did Peltier get Coler's gun? how did the other people at the scene get Agent Coler's rifle and Agent Williams' handgun? be nice to find out, wouldn't it? you'd think a man in prison for two life sentences would say "well, Steve gave me the gun" or something like that, wouldn't you?

[EFerrari]

The case has been layed out by someone much more

informed than I am, as I pointed out up thread. They couldn't place Leonard at the scene. :shrug:

[northzax]

45. again, the two people who claimed self defense

have said he was there. The only people who admit to being there, say he was there. What more do you want?

[EFerrari]

47. Evidence that shows that gun in his hand?

We normally call this "beyond a reasonable doubt."

[northzax]

51. sorry, under the seat of his car

that he was driving at the time. that was purchased two weeks after the incident. What more are you looking for here? HD video of the murders?

I guess maybe the Oregon State Police had the gun, and were waiting to frame him, that might be the case.

[EFerrari]

53. And what did the ballistic tests show?

Oh please.

They wanted to snatch this man. They did. And then, they suppressed what happened, up to and including Matthieson's book.

[northzax]

60. that it was Agent Coley's gun?

what did you expect the ballistics to show?

[EFerrari]

62. Since the results were FALSIFIED I have no expectation of accuracy. nt

[northzax]

73. so it wasn't Agent Coley's gun?

or it wasn't Peltier's RV? I can't keep up. what was falsified, and where is your documentation of that? I mean if you are going to call someone a liar when they have testified under oath, the least you can do is document it.

[EFerrari]

75. That's my point. The book that did try to sort all this out was

censored in the United States. As you would have understood had you any interest in understanding.

[northzax]

79. wow, are you just making this up, now?

i have a copy of that book, published in 1983. it says nothing about falsifying the evidence about the gun under the RV seat.

but please, cite away.

[EFerrari]

81. No, I'm not. :-)

[northzax]

94. how was the book censored?

was the 1991 edition markedly different from the 1983 one? (no) so since it is now available, you should be able to cite things, right?

[EFerrari]

100. Um, you mean those years when academics couldn't

get a copy? You mean those "things"?

You know, I don't have to convince you of anything. If you are intent on supporting censorship, good for you. That's certainly your privilege.

[shance]

54. I would imagine those who were being threatened by the FBI frown on their children and

loved ones being killed North.

Wouldn't you?

[tomp]

189. touche. nt

[Chemical Bill]

165. Wasn't there a trial witness who claimed she saw him shoot?

And wasn't she proven to be elsewhere at the time of the incident? And wasn't she the only "witness" who claimed that he was the assassin? Are you overlooking the other obvious malfeasance of the feds at the trial (like the ballistics report mentioned)? Are you suggesting he be convicted on hearsay? Just askin'.

Bill

[Common Sense Party]

176. Why let facts get in the way of a good story?

It's all about the OUTRAGE!!!

[Joe Chi Minh]

243. Why would he confess to the crime, even if he did it? Just one sensible reason will do.

You don't think round issues do you, if it's agin the establishment line? No wonder your judicial system, FBI and the whole panoply of state is in such a mess. Are you one of its stalwarts?

[Solo_in_MD]

10. Has he received a pardon or has his convictions been reversed?

[Colorado Progressive]

16. I read In the Spirit of Crazyhorse during the Clinton admin.

The overall story is sad, and wrong, but LP did shoot them didn't he? If I remember (I could remember wrong) the FBI started shooting into a house full of women and kids, was that it? And he was protecting them? I cant remember :banghead:

[EFerrari]

18. No. There was no evidence he was even there. n/t

[northzax]

29. except in the words of the other people there, of course

Bob Robideau and Dino Butler, specifically.

[H2O Man]

30. There is no question

that he was "there" in the sense of being at the general site of the gun fight. There are questions about his exact movements. However, the identity of the person who executed the two wounded FBI agaents is known, and it was not Leonard.

[EFerrari]

50. So, are we talking about the difference between being on

the property and being at the scene of the crime?

(Real question -- it's been years since I reviewed the facts of this case.)

[H2O Man]

57. I think

that is correct.

[EFerrari]

59. Why in the world would this book have been suppressed

if there was nothing to hide?

If I were being slandered, I'd let the book come out and THEN mount a lawsuit. :shrug:

We have a lot to learn from the tactics used against Leonard, imo.

[H2O Man]

63. Mr. Janklow

had reasons that went beyond the tragic shootings to want the book from being published. A 2006 book (Unquiet Grave, by Steve Hendricks) provides more details on an incident with Janklow and a teen-aged Lakota girl.

[EFerrari]

64. Oh no.

[H2O Man]

67. Regarding Mr. Price:

few objective people felt that his suit was separate from his profession.

[proud2BlibKansan]

128. And Janklow was convicted for running a stop sign and killing a motorcyclist

about 4 or 5 years ago?

We went to Sturgis that year for the annual biker fest. They were passing out bumper stickers that said SEND JANKLOW TO STURGIS.

[Sequoia]

210. Oh yes, I've read that book.

Janklow is morallly corrupt and I'm being nice. Seems to me he had a chip on his shoulder and wanted to avenge Custer, another piece of work.

[northzax]

66. the book did come out

I own a first edition, hardcover, date published: 1983. isbn=0670397024. After the first print run and distribution, no additional copies were printed until 1991.

what else you got?

[EFerrari]

70. Is this a game for you? I've already posted up thread.

I tried to order a lot for my class and was informed that the last run had been DESTROYED and that you couldn't buy a copy in the United States. I was teaching at Berkeley at the time.

I find your responses offensive and inappropriate. I'm not asking you to believe me, nor do I have any stake in misrepresenting my experience. That's what happened.

[northzax]

83. and I am telling you

THAT I OWN A COPY OF THE BOOK. the same one you are saying was destroyed. how is it offensive to point out that you are saying things that are factually incorrect?

you say the government banned a book. I point out it was a civil lawsuit.
you say the book was destroyed, I say I own a copy, and that any reasonable used book dealer can find you one.
you say evidence was falsified, I ask for a citiation, you cite a book that says nothing of the sort.

where is this offensive?

[EFerrari]

88. 1) The copy you own was the not the run that was destroyed.

It was the initial one.

2) I've already acknowledged that I didn't remember the details of the ban, but, that the ban in effect prevented me from ordering this work for my class at UCB ca. 1993.

3) The run of the book I tried to order that year was destroyed and you don't own a copy of that run.

4) Read the thread. And read the book you claim is in your library.

5) Mostly, I wonder why you'd be so balls to the wall in favor of an FBI case that has been condemned all over the world.

What is your stake? Are you FBI? DEA? Some other acronym?

[northzax]

104. the trials were over in 1991

and the book was back in publication. if someone told you it was unavailable in 1993, they were misleading you (to give you an idea, I first read it in high school, in 1992, so my high school teacher was able to order it then)

2: you said "if I was going to sue, I would wait for it to be published and then sue" which is what happened.

3: there never was a "ban" the publisher didn't reprint the book until after the cases were completed. there was never a court order, there was never a regulation, they did it because they weren't sure they were going to win. When they did, they reprinted the book.

4: I take a dim view of execution-style murders. if Peltier had claimed self defense, as Robideau and Dalton did, he probably would have won. but the fact that he says he knows nothing about it, when all the evidence points to the fact that he does know something about it makes me dubious of him.

[EFerrari]

107. What utter cr@p!

[northzax]

111. yup, facts are inconvenient, aren't they?

fact: In the Sprit of Crazy Horse resumed publication in the US in 1991. sorry that isn't convenient for you, but it is, according to the publisher, fact.

I don't know why you were unable to buy the book in 1993, but it was certainly available at the time.

[EFerrari]

114. What is your stake in defending this censorship?

[northzax]

117. the misuse of the word 'censorship' is a start

since that never actually happened. Censorship is when a government say, shuts down a television station on a technicality because it doesn't like the content of that station's news. A citizen pursuing a civil case is not censorship. No government entity, be it a court, an agency or the congress, ever told Viking that it could not publish In the Sprit of Crazy Horse.

words matter. choose them well, lest you be condemmed to play a duplicitous Cassandra.

[EFerrari]

121. This book was censored in the US.

Yes, as a someone who earned a PhD from Berkeley, I could't agree more.

And, call me a liar at your own risk. :)

[northzax]

123. I am not calling you a liar

I am saying you are (apparently deliberately) misusing a word.

no government told Viking not to publish, and you have yet to demonstrate that they did. Viking CHOSE not to publish. so it wasn't the government censoring Mathiesson, it was Viking, right? or is Viking now an arm of the Federal Government?

[EFerrari]

129. If Viking caves to government pressure, you tell me

what their status is.

All I know is, the year I tried to buy this book for my own use, let alone for my class, there wasn't one to be had.

And you know, it's funny. Because if I hadn't made the connections I made, I'd never have known about this work. In other words, I wasn't looking for this fight.

But, once you are faced with government censorship, you have a choice. You can walk away and teach something else or you can stand up for the Ist Amendment. It's not a fight that will win you points in your department. But, imho, it's a fight worth fighting.

/ack

[onenote]

131. so out of curiousity, I went to alibris.com -- a used book site

and they have available copies of the book with publication dates in 1983, 1991, 1993, etc. Just sayin'...

http://www.alibris.com/search/search.cfm

[EFerrari]

134. 1983, 1991, 1993.

Tell me how that sequence makes sense to you.

I'm no good at lying, onenote. :)

[H2O Man]

136. I think it

might be worth asking, "Who paid Mr. Price's legal fees?"

[EFerrari]

138. I don't mind being interrogated -- this was nearly 15 years ago.

I'm sorry I can't be more accurate but that's just life.

I have nothing to hide or to retract. This work was censored in this country. I know that I spent a lot of time trying to get that text for my students. It seemed very important to me at the time.

And I imagine it was censored because it was inconvenient for the FBI and/or other agencies.

I'm not familiar with Mr Price's contribution. Is there a link anywhere?

[EFerrari]

147. And that would be a great question. n/t

[H2O Man]

150. "Since Price has assured me

in our lengthy interview that he never made a move without the approval of his superiors, and since an FBI agent's salary could never pay for the very expensive attorneys he retained, it was assumed that the FBI itself had sponsored his suit in order to lend some credibility to the suit by Janklow (who was already suing Newsweek on related grounds), and that both suits were intended mainly as chastisement and harassment as well as a means of keeping this book out of circulation." -- Peter Matthiessen, page 565.

[onenote]

137. it suggests the following

the book was published in 1983 and available for sale to the public. Because of the libel action brought with respect to the book, the publisher apparently then ceased marketing the book for a number of years. Once the suit was resolved, the publisher resumed sales and the book, starting in 1991, was available again. Apparently sales were strong enough to publish another edition in 1993 and, I suspect, after that.

I'm not suggesting anyone is lying. By your own admission, you are relying on your memory in discussing this subject and it appears, at least insofar as you may have suggested that the book was not being sold in 1993, that you are mistaken. Maybe it was sold out, but it wasn't being "banned" at that time. As for whether it was "banned" during the pendency of the lawsuit, one can quibble about whether it was banned or censored; what one can't quibble with is that any such banning or censoring was the act of a private corporation, not the government and that had the publisher wanted to keep publishing the book during the pendency of the lawsuit, thereby increasing its risk of damages should the plaintiffs prevail, no court in this country would or could have stopped them.

[EFerrari]

140. Thank you. n/t

\

[northzax]

197. brilliant summation, onenote, thanks

this does seem to be borne out by the facts. I am sure we all appreciate the clarity of your response. :hi:

[northzax]

196. you do understand the difference, right?

between individual citizens and the government? they cover that in your Ph.D program?

Viking lost a lawsuit for libel, brought by two citizens of the United States. IF that is government pressure, then I guess the entire court system is. If Viking had continued to publish, after losing the lawsuit, they would have multiplied the financial damages against them. what is it you think happens after a libel suit?

an example. I publish my well researched tome "SFEXPAT2000 is a Pedophile" detailing interviews with over 50 children who report, in detail how you sexually abused them as a child. Quite reasonably, since this is all made up, you sue my publisher, right? and win in state court. I appeal. would you expect me, as I am appealing, to stop publication of the book? what if I said "hey, I got so much publicity, I am publishing 1,000,000 copies now!" would you demand I stop, because you won your lawsuit, or say "well, I won, but I wouldn't want to censor anything, I am glad he is still publishing and making money off this" or would you now go for triple damages?

[H2O Man]

201. Viking won.

The final result was a victory for Viking.

[northzax]

202. yes, indeed, and that is a good thing

but they won on appeal, to the 9th District Court of Appeals, and then had the Supreme Court refuse to hear the appeals of Price and Janklow. But they, I believe, lost at the entry level in both cases, so they had to suspend publication for fear of being exposed to increasing damages.

I could easily be wrong on that, I am going from memory here, but I believe that was the progression.

[H2O Man]

207. I am familiar

with the case.

[EFerrari]

230. I am so inured to personal attacks, if I were you I wouldn't waste my time. nt

[ProudDad]

226. You hit the nail on the head with this

"Is this a game for you"

It is a game for this individual.

Just ignore it...


Some "people" just like to argue...

They don't want to contribute to the conversation but will pick out one tiny, usually irrelevant "factoid" out of a post and keep the inane sub thread going...

There's a group of names for such persons but I can't post it here...


Peltier WAS railroaded by a racist Federal Government... He was among the many thousands of victims of CoIntelPro...

He's in jail still for the same reason that there's still an embargo on Cuba...This fascist capitalist tool of a government can't stand any resistance and punishes it severely.

[EFerrari]

241. The facts are on the net for anyone who wants to find them.

Good advice, ProudDad. Thanks. Sometimes I forget that some people are more interested in tearing down than in thinking through.

[Chemical Bill]

168. The book was printed and some copies were sold.

Many more were recalled and destroyed by the publisher when the lawsuits were filed. It wouldn't be covered by your copy, it was in the afterword to later editions cited above. In the late 1980s I could not find a copy for twice the cover price. The poster who said that the government banned the book was not technically correct. The government didn't have to ban it to make it unavailable.

Bill

[northzax]

199. and that is the major difference

a private company chose not to take the risk of publication, as opposed to the 'government' banning or censoring a book. a much different kettle of fish.

[Chemical Bill]

268. I disagree. n/t

[OldTymeDem]

219. Censored?

Gee how can you have a copy, it was CENSORED! LOL! htey probably destroyed the last lot because they couldnt sell any.

Amazing how some people dont let the facts get in the way of their outrage...

Peltier is guilty, but Im sure he would like to team up with OJ and find the "real killers"..

[scarletwoman]

133. "the identity of the person who executed the 2 wounded FBI agents is known, and it was not Leonard"

But Leonard has been protecting the shooter's identity all this time, yes? At least, that's been my take on it. It has seemed to me that Peltier himself has always focused on the government's lack of real evidence to pin the crime on him, and the clear rigging of his trial.

Which, in an actually fair and impartial justice system, ought to suffice to at least grant him a new trial.

But it has long seemed to me, even if that completely reasonable and defensible tack has utterly failed, he will never go the next step and name the true perpetrator to save his own skin.

sw

[H2O Man]

139. It seems fair

to say that he is not willing to point fingers at others, in order to try to win his freedom. People may view that in a variety of ways. I think that it would be well to put it in the context of information from the Sept 1991 segment on 60 Minutes.

[scarletwoman]

146. Thanks for replying. As for the Sept 1991 60 Minutes segment, I'm not sure if I would have seen it,

I'm trying to remember whether it was a flood or an earthquake or a volcanic eruption -- or just a personal crisis -- that was going on in that particular September while I was trying to survive in rural Alaska as a single mom with two kids. :P

If you have a link to a transcript or synopsis, that would be great. A video link won't work for me, what with my antique windows98 OS and slow rural dial-up.

Otherwise, care to give a bit of a summary yourself?

Back in the late 70s, I made some peripheral connections to some of the Mpls. AIM people. It was post Wounded Knee II by then, but I had already been paying attention since the takeover of Alcatraz. I was a 60s hippie, one of things we did back then was pay attention to what the Indians were doing.

Anyway, by chance or fate or whatever, it's turned out that I've had many opportunities to hang out with lots of American Indian folks throughout my life -- an enrichment and a pleasure for which I am infinitely grateful.

Therefore, I pay attention. It's the very least I can do.

sw

[H2O Man]

149. I will just say

that the identity of the person who executed the FBI agents -- which was cold-blooded -- is not really a secret. Though he has spoken from behind a mask, the person admits to the killings.

There are some anti-Leonard people who believe that if one supports the effort to get him a retrial, that it follows that you take an anti-FBI stance, or do not think the killing of those two men was a crime. That isn't accurate, of course. It was a tragic episode, where two men were sent on a mission that led to violence and death. Three men died there that day, and many people's lives were damaged severely. The entire episode is tragic, and only increased the bitterness and suffering for everyone involved.

[scarletwoman]

152. Oh, man. Do I EVER know what you're talking about! (re: new trial=anti-FBI)

Long before DU I was posting in a forum -- actually run by FBI people -- where people were endlessly arguing and attacking each other over the Peltier case, during the height of the push to get Clinton to issue a pardon or commutation for Peltier. It was the very first online activism I got involved in, having just gotten a pc in December 1999.

Anyway, seeking justice for Peltier has nothing to do with minimizing the murders of the 2 FBI agents. It has only to do with holding our justice system to a certain standard of integrity. Those who protest the loudest are those who have no interest in justice -- their interest is in POWER, pure and simple.

sw

[Joe Chi Minh]

244. Your last point was very incisive. It's why his nibs, northrax, engages in all those

peripheral issues, irrelevant to the central issue of the man's trial. They're so dumb, they can't see how transparent their evasions are.

[Solo_in_MD]

22. Two FBI agents were executed after being captured...the issue is who did it

Depending who you believe and when LP has at times denied doing it, denied being there, and has claimed credit.

I tend to believe if there was credible evidence supporting his innocence BC would have pardoned or commuted his sentence.

[EFerrari]

25. Do you have a reference for LP claiming "credit"?

That just sounds so unlike him and in all the reading I've done on this case, I've never come across this. Did I miss something?

[LostinVA]

38. You didn't miss anything

He's never said he killed the agents.

[Solo_in_MD]

153. I spaced a comma...let me clarify

Depending who you believe and when <missing comma> LP has at times denied doing it, denied being there, and has claimed credit.

Meaning that there are those who claim that LP has:
- denied doing it
- admitted doing it
- claimed he was there
- claimed he was not there

My point was is that lots of people have made a lot of conflicting claims, and short of a time machine, I don't think this is ever going to be known. I've read just about everthing on the topic some time ago, including the *banned* book, after which I was still not what was the truth. Its not nearly as binary as some (on both sides) would have the rest of us believe.

There are some factual matters that in your zeal you seem to be ignoring/side stepping, your credibility on this issue would be enhanced if you addressed them. Waving around a PhD doen't help either

[LostinVA]

37. There is no evidence he was there, let alone shooting at the agents

Maybe he was, but there's no real proof to support it.

[EFerrari]

76. It's sort of frightening the way this propaganda just gets

accepted and then, defended.

:shrug:

[LostinVA]

96. I know -- this isn't even a "He Said, They Said" type of thing

There's PROOF evidence was falsified.

I was very disappointed Clinton didn't pardon him.

[EFerrari]

102. That's right. It's a "whore media said and whore media said".

Clinton was always about courting the moneyed. Can't blame him but do.

[NaturalHigh]

182. Just as it is frightening that propaganda like...

Peltier is innocent and was screwed over by the government gets accepted and then defended.

[EFerrari]

235. If you research the case, I think you'd have to reconsider your position. n/t

[NaturalHigh]

184. He was convicted by a jury of twelve...

and that conviction has been upheld through every stage of the appeals process. I'd say there's some proof.

[RaleighNCDUer]

206. The same could be said about every death row convict who has

been released on DNA evidence.

Juries are not infallible, and the weight of government prosecution strongly slants any trial, even those without blatantly falsified evidence.

[NaturalHigh]

211. Peltier isn't on death row.

If you want to talk about a moratorium on the death penalty because of possible innocents on death row, I'm willing to discuss the subject. Chances are that I would even agree to you. However, I'm not willing to turn lose a prisoner (whom I personally believe to be guilty) who has a following that proclaims his innocence. If we did that, then we might as well open all the prison gates and let them all out, as all prisoners will proclaim their innocence.

As I wrote in another thread, Peltier has been convicted, and all his appeals have ended with the conviction being upheld. It is now incumbent on him to prove his innocence. That's the way the justice system works.

[RaleighNCDUer]

214. I was not talking about the death penalty.

I was talking about the assumption that conviction = guilt. Particularly when the government has a vested interest, outside of "justice", in ensuring conviction.

[NaturalHigh]

215. You could make that argument for anyone who is in prison.

Again, what should we do, turn loose all the prisoners? Just for the record, I don't believe that everyone in prison is innocent (although I do believe that some are), and I certainly don't believe that Peltier is innocent.

[RaleighNCDUer]

218. Just making the point that by the time they get to death row they've

been through numerous trials, appeals, hearings, etc., any of which could have brought out the truth but didn't. In the general population there is undoubtedly an even higher percentage of prisoners held unjustly, because they pleaded out to escape the death penalty or other heavier penalties for a guilty plea (like the kids in the Central Park case who all pleaded guilty, despite being innocent, because they knew what justice they could expect).

The known facts of perjured testimony and inconclusive circumstantial evidence makes the case against Peltier fall way short of "beyond a reasonable doubt". Not saying he is innocent, but the government did not PROVE guilt.

[NaturalHigh]

221. Apparently, the government did prove guilt...

to the twelve people on the jury. That, along with the appeals process (to which Peltier has had full access), is the standard upon which our justice system is based.

[EFerrari]

234. The Innocence Project provides a counter argument to our system

of "justice".

[RaleighNCDUer]

250. Wasn't it Scalia who said that factual innocence is not sufficient

grounds to overturn a correctly arrived at conviction?

I guess there are those on DU who agree with him.

[EFerrari]

251. For reasons unfathomable to me, anyway. n/t

[NaturalHigh]

261. Yes, the Innocence Project does good work.

I'm grateful that we have such a group. However, they haven't proved Peltier's innocence, and now that he has been convicted and been through the appeals process, it is incumbent on him to prove his innocence to gain his freedom. The burden is no longer on the state. If it were, we would have endless trials and appeals, and the court system would grind to a halt.

As I stated previously, I believe Peltier to be guilty.

[Joe Chi Minh]

245. He thinks they could have been the twelve Apostles. You've got to admit,

that might not be binding, but it would be very persuasive.

[ProudDad]

227. Gee, that's always been 100% reliable

Prosecutors, juries and appeals courts NEVER make mistakes or have a hidden political agenda...

:sarcasm:

http://www.innocenceproject.org/understand/

Educate yourself on the REAL way the criminal-injustice system in this fucking country works!!!!


On Edit: Of course, we already know your unimpeachable information, you said: "and I certainly don't believe that Peltier is innocent." <-- that says it all.

[Benhurst]

20. Recommended #7

[JuniperLea]

23. And #8

God save him.

[Homer Wells]

28. Kicked and Recommended n/t

[IndianaJones]

36. why in the world should I question the governments case against and conviction of this man? nt.

[laruemtt]

46. did you forget your sarcasm smilie? n/t

[Richard Steele]

49. Because the government ALTERED the FBI report that said the shell casings weren't fired by his rifle

Altered it to say exactly the opposite, then entered
it as evidence in a Court of Law.

That's grounds to do a lot more than "question".

[EFerrari]

55. I'm a little sorry I gave my copy away. Except in those days,

that was the only way to spread the word. Thanks for pitching in.

[northzax]

92. not quite

the firing pin didn't match the casings, but all other markings did. So you can think that either the firing pin was replaced, or the entire ejection mechanism was taken out of another, matching gun, and put in the one found.

[EFerrari]

99. What is your stake in this? n/t

[northzax]

108. facts?

i kind of like them.

[EFerrari]

109. As far as I can tell, you need them. n/t

[northzax]

113. i understand

it must be very difficult to work so hard to ignore provable facts.

[EFerrari]

115. I could't agree more. n/t

[proud2BlibKansan]

130. Read up on it

It's a tragic case.

[formercia]

65. Read: Agents of Repression

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/formercia/58

http://books.google.com/books?id=WMRRzpCdOzwC&dq=agents+repression&printsec=frontcover&source=web&ots=Y0Z1F46cZ1&sig=69m2jIsos5m-06oepbc6cjMCwRE

[H2O Man]

68. Good book. n/t

[formercia]

91. The references alone are worth the price

Same bad actors that are involved today.

[EFerrari]

72. Thank you. n/t

[formercia]

78. Tonight's trivia question:

Alexander Haig and Frank 'Carlyle' Carlucci were lead negotiators for the 'Government' at Pine Ridge.

What do these men have in common with J Edgar Hoover?

Answer this questions and connect 3 more of the 'dots'.

[EFerrari]

82. I'll take "Felony" for $100, Alex. nt

[formercia]

85. They are all Knights of Malta.

:evilgrin:

I know,but if I say it often enough, people might finally get a clue as to who was behind it.

[EFerrari]

112. These idiots were going after AIM and Leonard was only

very peripherally involved with them.

It's like the way they kidnapped that Canadian and sent him to Syria to be tortured.

They have no fine tools, didn't have to have them because our government gives them a blank check.

[formercia]

135. A one trick pony.

Governance a la Mafia.

[EFerrari]

163. Exactly.

[formercia]

84. Go to this link for more references:

http://www.google.com/search?q=trial+leonard+peltier+south+end+press

Save the page, it may disappear.

[Geezoh]

89. Why?

Why is Leonard still in prison? Why is Marty Tankleff still in prison? Why is it that of those cleared of their criminal convictions by DNA evidence, 25% of them had CONFESSED?

Why, you say? Because this country has a legal system, controlled by politician/lawyers of both colors, for the benefit of politician/lawyers of both colors, when what we were supposed to have was a justice system.<\b>

[EFerrari]

95. Welcome to DU, Geezoh.

:)

[shance]

120. Thank you Geezoh for your post. Welcome aboard!

Yes indeed.

A justice system that is color, race and religion and ECONOMICALLY blind.

When one person is wrongly accused, we all are vulnerable to the same injustice.

[ProudDad]

228. In the criminal courtrooms I've been in

There's a sharp demarcation between the black and brown faces awaiting the attention of the court, in the seats on one side of the "bar" and the nearly uniformly white faces of the cops, lawyers, clerks and judges on the business end of the "bar"...

It's astounding and a rather accurate measure of the criminal-injustice system...

[Joe Chi Minh]

249. Very occasionally, it's in their political interests to fess up to a miscarriage of

justice. As in the case of the Guildford Four:

http://www.contactmusic.com/new/xmlfeed.nsf/mndwebpages/postlethwaite%20blairs%20guildford%20four%20apology%20came%20too%20late

The thing is, the miscarriage wasn't a mistake, to their way of thinking, it was a notable success. And, of course, they'd do it again in a thrice. The powers-that-be almost certainly achieved their object of discouraging Irish terrorist attacks on the British mainland for a long time, while digging their heels in about the Catholics' fate in NI.

Later, it happened that, what with Canary Wharf, etc, they thought it would be a good idea to review the case of the Guildford 4 yet again. And, surprise, surprise... a different outcome. Money and Bidness are the Blue Suede Shoes, the geat No-Nos, of Establishments everywhere - unless it's themselves selling their country down the river, which they've long been happy to do it in spades, here in the UK.

[iverglas]

98. and now a replay? - John Graham

I have to admit to knowing nothing about this new case, having just run across it while googling for the Canadian element of the Peltier case. Graham is apparently a Canadian citizen.

http://www.thecourt.ca/2007/08/08/graham-american-extradition-on-trial/

Graham: American Extradition on Trial
August 8th, 2007
by Eric Baum

On June 26 the Court of Appeal for British Columbia unanimously upheld a lower court decision committing Yukon resident John Graham for extradition to the United States, where he is to be tried for the three decade old South Dakota murder of Anna Mae Aquash. The United States alleges that Graham, a former American Indian Movement (A.I.M.) activist, had been ordered to kill Ms. Aquash, also a member of A.I.M., because she was suspected by the movement of being a F.B.I. informant.

In 1973 Graham and Aquash participated in the violent stand-off between U.S. law enforcement and A.I.M. activists at the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation in South Dakota. U.S. officials allege that two years later, Graham and another man, Fritz Arlo Looking Cloud, received orders from the American Indian Movement to track down Aquash in Colorado, bring her back to South Dakota, interrogate her and kill her.

While Aquash’s body was discovered by U.S. police in 1976, the investigation stalled until the mid-1990s, when police began focusing upon Looking Cloud. In 2004 Looking Cloud was tried separately and convicted before a Federal Court in South Dakota. Looking Cloud’s appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit was dismissed in August of 2005.

For his part, Graham contends that he had nothing to do with the murder of Aquash and that the U.S. government holds little more than hearsay evidence to suggest otherwise. ...

... Indeed, within both the newsmedia and the popular imagination, the case of John Graham has evoked compelling parallels to the case of another well-known extradited Canadian First Nations activist, Leonard Peltier. That Graham’s counsel has whole-heartedly encouraged such parallels should come as little surprise.

Early this month Graham applied to the Supreme Court of Canada for leave to appeal.

There's a brief YouTube video at that link with John Graham's daughter talking about his case.


The issue in Canada is a little obscure to people not familiar with extradition law. It involves the nature of the evidence that a court can/should require before granting extradition.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20070803.BCEXTRADITION03/TPStory/National

STEVE MERTL
Canadian Press
August 3, 2007

VANCOUVER -- A lawyer for a Canadian facing extradition to the United States on a decades-old murder charge hopes the Supreme Court of Canada will see his case as a chance to examine the way evidence is handled at extradition hearings.

... Extradition requires that the charge an accused is facing would be an indictable crime in Canada and that the evidence presented could lead a properly instructed jury to convict, he said.

Both the B.C. Supreme Court extradition judge and the B.C. appeal court ruled there were deficiencies in the record of the case given to the courts by U.S. officials. But in its unanimous ruling, the appeal court backed the extradition judge's acceptance of evidence from a witness who was told by Mr. Looking Cloud that Mr. Graham pulled the trigger.

Mr. La Liberté said the points of evidence he has examined so far are full of holes.

One witness the United States says it will rely on is dead and another's testimony before a U.S. grand jury appears at odds with what U.S. officials say is his evidence, he said.

[shance]

118. Thank you Iverglas. As so much happens across the Atlantic, so much is being neglected here.

Thank you for this information and your post.

As the saying goes, timing is everything.

[scarletwoman]

125. Very interesting -- thanks for posting. Peltier should never have been extradited from Canada.

The testimony that the Feds presented to Canada was coerced out of a mentally ill woman who was picked up and held for days in a motel room by the FBI -- she feared for her life.

It was easily proven that she had never been present at the crime scene, and she afterwards recanted all her "testimony", which had been made under duress. It is to Canada's enduring shame that they allowed the extradition of Peltier on such demonstabely false evidence.

sw

[Donald Ian Rankin]

143. I think Peltier's supporters are massively overstating their case.

A lot of people on this thread appear to be claiming thatthere is no evidence at all of his guilt - some are even claiming that he's provably innocent. My knowledge of the case is very limited, but it appears from what I can tell that neither of those is true - the evidence against him may not be sufficient, but it's non-negligable.

The claim "There is reasonable doubt of his guilt" is sufficient to justify freeing him, and much, much more defencible.

[EFerrari]

145. The standard in this country is "reasonable doubt".

And I wonder why someone would make such an uninformed and reckless assertion.

[NaturalHigh]

208. After he has been convicted, it is his burden to prove innocence.

That's the way the justice system works. He had a trial where twelve jurors found him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. He's had umpteen appeals. Unless some new evidence is presented that clears him, he's considered guilty, which I believe him to be.

[Xithras]

154. I tend to agree with you.

Contrary to some of the assertions made here, there is evidence indicating he did it. There is also evidence that says he didn't do it, and that the evidence against him was tampered with. Does that discount all of the evidence against him? No, but it does throw a lot of it into question. Even factoring that evidence out, there's a decent chance he did commit the murder.

But it's all about reasonable doubt. There's a decent chance that OJ killed Ron & Nicole too, but OJ's lawyers correctly pointed out that doubt+evidence tampering = no fair conviction. Even if Peltier DID commit the murders, the FBI tampering, intimidation, and corruption related to the case have made a fair trial and judgment impossible. The FBI so tainted this case that there is now no way to realistically tell WHAT happened that day, and whether Peltier actually had any role in the murders. The doubt in this case far exceeds the "reasonable" limit, and Peltier should be freed.

If that pisses off the FBI, they should take it as a learning lesson...you don't fake and manipulate evidence in cases you actually want to win, even if you're sure the accused is actually guilty.

[Solo_in_MD]

158. I too am good with a new trial

More evidence as well as possible tampering has come out since the first trial, another trial would be the most practical way to get the facts examined

[flying rabbit]

156. OT - check out his artwork on the link

some good stuff there.

[sofa king]

164. "Incident at Oglala" is now online

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5790917753412875220
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8089944787131579351

I still don't know what to make of Peltier's guilt or innocence. But I do know that while Peltier sits in jail, the murderers of the following people are free:

AIM Casualties on Pine Ridge, 1973-1976

4.17.73-Frank Clearwater-AIM member killed by heavy machine gun round at Wounded Knee. No investigation.

4.23.73-Between eight and twelve individuals (names unknown) packing supplies into wounded Knee were intercepted by Goons and vigilantes. None were ever heard from again. Former Rosebud Tribal President Robert Burnette and U.S. Justice Department Solicitor General Kent Frizzell conducted unsuccessful search for a mass grave after Wounded Knee siege. No further investigation.

4.27.73-Buddy Lamont-AIM member hit by M16 fire at Wounded Knee, Bled to death while pinned down by fire. No investigation.

6.19.73-Clarence Cross-AIM supporter shot to death in ambush by Goons. Although assailants were identified by eyewitnesses, brother Vernal Cross-wounded in ambush-was briefly charged with crime. No further investigation.

4.14.73-Priscilla White Plume-AIM supporter killed at Manderson by Goons. No investigation.

7.30.73-Julius Bad Heart Bull-AIM supporter killed at Oglala AIM supporter killed at Oglala by "person or persons unknown." No investigation.

9.22.73-Melvin Spider-AIM member killed Porcupine, South Dakota. No investigation.

9.23.73-Philip Black Elk-AIM supporter killed when his house exploded. No investigation.

10.5.73-Aloysius Long Soldier-AIM member killed at Kyle, S.D. by Goons.No investigation.

10.10.73-Phillip Little Crow-AIM supporter beaten to death by Goons at Pine Ridge. No investigation.

10.17.73-Pedro Bissonette-Oglala Sioux Civil Rights Organization (OSCRO) organizer and AIM supporter assassinated by BIA Police/Goons. Body removed from Pine Ridge jurisdiction prior to autopsy by government contract coroner. No investigation.

11.20.73-Allison Fast Horse-AIM supporter shot to death near Pine Ridge by "unknown assailants." No investigation.

1.17.74-Edward Means, Jr.-AIM member found dead in Pine Ridge alley, beaten. No investigation.

2.27.74-Edward Standing Soldier-AIM member killed near Pine Ridge by "party r parties unknown." No investigation.

4.19.74-Roxeine Roark-AIM supporter killed at Porcupine by "unknown assailants." Investigation open, still "pending."

9.7.74-Dennis LeCompte-AIM member killed at Pine Ridge by Goons. No investigation.

9.11.74-Jackson Washinton Cutt-AIM member killed at Parmalee by "unknown individuals." Investigation still "ongoing."

9.16.74-Robert Reddy-AIM member killed at Kyle by gunshot. No investigation.

11.16.74-Delphine Crow Dog-sister of AIM spiritual leader Leonard Crow Dog. Beaten by BIA police and left lying in a field. Died from "exposure." No investigation.

11.20.74-Elaine Wagner-AIM supporter killed at Pine Ridge by "person or persons unknown." No investigation.

12.25.75-Floyd S. Binais-AIM supporter killed at Pine Ridge by Goons. No investigation.

12.28.74-Yvette Loraine Lone Hill-AIM supporter killed at Kyle by "unknown party or parties." No investigation.

1.5.75-Leon L. Swift Bird-AIM member killed at Pine Ridge by Goons. Investigation still "ongoing."

3.1.75-Martin Montileaux-killed in a Scenic, S.D. bar. AIM leader Richard Marshall later framed for his murder. Russell Means also charged and acquitted.

3.20.75-Stacy Cotter-shot to death in an ambush at Manderson. No investigation.

3.21.75-Edith Eagle Hawk and her two children-AIM supporter killed in an automobile accident after being run off the run by a white vigilante, Albert Coomes. Coomes was also killed in the accident. Goon Mark Clifford identified as having also been in the Coomes car, escaped. Investigation closed without questioning Clifford.

3.27.75-Jeanette Bissonette-AIM supporter killed by sniper at Pine Ridge. Unsuccessful attempt to link AIM members to murder; no other investigation.

3.30.75-Richard Eagle-grandson of AIM supporter Gladys Bissonette killed while playing with loaded gun kept in the house as protection from Goon attacks.

4.4.75-Hilda R. Good Buffalo-AIM supporter stabbed to death at Pine Ridge by Goons. No investigation.

4.4.75-Jancita Eagle Deer-AIM member beaten and run over with automobile. Last seen in the company of provocateur Douglass Durham. No investigation.

5.20.75-Ben Sitting Up-AIM member killed at Wanblee by "unknown assailants." No investigation.

6.1.75-Kenneth Little-AIM supporter killed at Pine Ridge by Goons. Investigation still "pending."

6.15.75-Leah Spotted Elk-AIM supporter at Pine Ridge by Goons. No investigation.

6.26.75-Joseph Stuntz Killsright-AIM member killed by FBI sniper during Oglala firefight. No investigation.

7.12.75-James Briggs Yellow-heart attack caused by FBI air assault on his home. No investigation.

7.25.75-Andrew Paul Stewart-nephew of AIM spiritual leader Leonard Crow Dog, killed by Goons on Pine Ridge. No investigation.

8.25.75-Randy Hunter-AIM supporter killed at Kyle by "party or parties unknown." Investigation still "ongoing."

9.9.75-Howard Blue Bird-AIM supporter killed at Pine Ridge by Goons. No investigation.

9.10.75-Jim Little-AIM stomped to death by Goons in Oglala. No investigation.

10.26.75-Olivia Binais-AIM supporter killed in Porcupine by "person or persons unknown." Investigation still "open."

10.26.75-Janice Black Bear-AIM supporter killed at Manderson by Goons. No investigation.

10.27.75-Michelle Tobacco-AIM supporter killed at Pine Ridge by "unknown persons." No investigation.

12.6.75-Carl Plenty Arrows,Sr.-AIM supporter killed at Pine Ridge by "unknown persons." No investigation.

12.6.75-Frank LaPointe-AIM supporter killed at Pine Ridge by Goons. No investigation.

2.76-Anna Mae Pictou Aquash-AIM organizer assassinated on Pine Ridge.. FBI involved in attempt to conceal cause of death. Ongoing attempt to establish "AIM involvement" in murder. Key FBI personnel never deposed. Coroner never deposed.

1.5.76-Lydia Cut Grass-AIM member killed at Wounded Knee by Goons. No investigation.

1.30.76-Byron DeSersa-OSCRO organizer and AIM supporter assassinated by Goons in Wanblee. Arrests by local authorities resulted in two Goons-Dale Janis and Charlie Winters-serving two years of five year sentences for "manslaughter." Charges dropped against two Goon leaders, Manny Wilson and Chuck Richards, on the basis of "self-defense" despite DeSersa having been unarmed when shot to death.

2.6.76-Lena R. Slow Bear-AIM supporter killed at Oglala by Goons. No investigation.

3.1.76-Hobart Horse-AIM member beaten, shot, and repeatedly run over with automobile at Sharp's Corners. No investigation.

3.26.76-Cleveland Reddest-AIM member killed at Kyle by "person or persons unknown." No investigation.

4.28.76-Betty Jo Dubray-AIM supporter beaten to death at Martin, S.D. No investigation.

5.6.76-Marvin Two Two-Aim supporter shot to death at Pine Ridge. No investigation.

5.9.76-Juia Pretty Hips-AIM supporter killed at Pine Ridge by "unknown assailants." No investigation.

5.24.76-Sam Afraid of Bear-AIM supporter shot to death at Pine Ridge. Investigation "ongoing."

6.4.76-Kevin Hill-AIM supporter killed at Oglala by "party or parties unknown." Investigation "still open."

7.3.76-Betty Means-AIM member killed at Pine Ridge by Goons. No investigation.

7.31.76-Sandra Wounded Foot-AIM supporter killed at Sharp's Corners by "unknown assailants." No investigation.

http://www.dickshovel.com/Aim.Pine.html

[EFerrari]

171. I went into one of my teachers' office hours and asked about

Leonard.

My teacher became someone else before my eyes. I didn't know what I was watching. He said, "We don't know what happened to Leonard."

And his body language screamed somthing else.

:shrug:

I know what happened to Leonard. I recognize a scapegoat and a warning when I see one.

[shance]

172. Heart breaking. Why no investigations into these murders?

n/t

[EFerrari]

173. No justice to date.

We can do better than this.

[sofa king]

247. One possible answer could be,

"because they were murdered by or at the direction of the FBI."

But that of course is speculation... because the FBI wants to keep it that way.

[ConsAreLiars]

170. I, like many others, wrote Clinton in favor of a pardon. His final chance to

show some basic decency and interest in justice. Instead he listened to the Libby AIPAC crowd and again sided with the powers that be. One last chance, and yet again he showed his true colors.

(edit a few words)

[EFerrari]

174. kick

[Wetzelbill]

175. It's reasonable doubt

You cannot say that beyond a reasonable doubt Leonard Peltier killed those FBI Agents. There is some evidence against him. There is some evidence for him. We do know that their also has been evidence tampering in this case, that was tampered to make him look guilty. So in light of that, you can't conclusively convict him. It's a miscarriage of justice to do so.

Did he do it? Hell I don't know. I can't say for sure one way or another. Maybe a few people can. He can, I suppose. And there is somebody who has claimed to have committed the murders. I guess that person's identity is out there and all. But the bottom line here is that the waters of this case are so muddied that his conviction is dubious at best, if not an outright farce. He should be pardoned. Flat out.

[formercia]

178. The Scarecrow

During the Holy Inquisition, many Jews who would not renounce their faith and 'heretics' were often crucified and left to rot at the approaches to cities as a warning to others what waited for them within, thus the origin of the garden scarecrow.

It would have been very simple for those in power to dispose of Leonard Peltier in some unmarked grave, disappeared. There are dozens of such graves on or near Pine Ridge, of Native Americans and non tribal members who tried to help those besieged at Wounded Knee.

Leonard Peltier rots in prison as a warning to others as to what awaits them if they cross the boys. No one dares pardon him because they know what fate awaits anyone who does.

[cgrindley]

180. Didn't he murder two FBI agents?

I thought they had a trial and appeals and everything.

[formercia]

183. No. n/t

[cgrindley]

185. There really doesn't seem to be much room for reasonable doubt there

He certainly did it. The only argument, I think, that could be mustered for pardon would be the same sort of thing that occasionally gets used for the IRA and other organizations that are in some condition of war against an occupying power. I guess Clinton was going to do that but the FBI argued against it.

[EFerrari]

231. Leonard did not kill those agents. Hence the worldwide effort

to see him freed.

[cgrindley]

253. Naw, he did it

I think that an argument might be made to free him for political reasons, but the US just isn't the sort of country to do that at this point in time.

[EFerrari]

254. Amnesty International -- those pinkos -- disagrees. n/t

[cgrindley]

255. An unfair trial could still result in the conviction of a guilty man

and that's if you buy Amnesty Interational's claims that both the extradition and trial were unfair. But I don't buy that to start with.

I really see no reason at all to release this guy. He had his appeals. Even if he had a new trial, he'd probably get convicted again. Although nowadays for killing federal agents, he'd probably get the death penalty.

Personally, I think that there's some weird subtext here that people just aren't willing to say... something about whether it's ever right to take direct action against the government. Personally, I don't think it's ever a just action in a functional democracy governed by the rule of law, but perhaps some people disagree but just aren't willing to say so out loud.

Maybe he'll get paroled in 2008. He's been in for a long time, although I doubt that his supporters are going to make paroling him an easy process. Contrition and full and proper allocution would probably help his case more than continued protests.

[EFerrari]

256. There is no reason to be contrite for a crime you didn't commit. n/t

[cgrindley]

257. Well

looks like the parole hearing next year isn't going to be much of a success then, doesn't it?

[EFerrari]

258. Probably not. And that's a reflection on our corrupt system

not on this innocent man.

[NaturalHigh]

181. He has been tried and convicted of murdering two FBI agents.

He is no longer presumed to be innocent now that he has been convicted. Frankly, I think he's guilty, or at the very least complicit in the murders. I was pissed that Clinton even considered pardoning this guy.

Peltier has had full access to the court system for thirty years, and he has never presented anything compelling enough to outweigh his original conviction. He should serve the remainder of his sentence.

[Help me help Earth]

198. Someone post a summary of pro-LP evidence.

So far this thread, which has managed to be very funny despite it's serious subject matter, has been northzax running circles around sfexpat2000 while he avoids answering questions. If there is a case for freeing Peltier, someone make it already.

Yes, I know there is a link in the OP. I'd rather someone type it here.

[Bushfire]

200. Bill Clinton lost any respect from me for not pardoning him.

All he had to do was watch the Robert Redford documentary to know it was self defense. Screw the FBI too.

[CaptJasHook]

213. Leanord Peltier is a POW

A bigger issue that I do not see on this thread is why the incident occured in the first place. The injustice of this case is that the Federal government had spent over a hundred years creating a climate of war, genocide and oppression versus the Native nations. In the sixties and seventies (all the way through the Salmon Rights campaigns in my beloved Northwest) the FBI, in particular, and the Federal government in general made a heavy-handed attempt to quell native rights. The fear was that AIM was going to become as big a threat as the Black Panthers or other Afro-America Civil rights groups.

The Native American question has always had a weaker legal grounding than the Slavery issue. Sad to say, at least those plantation owners had a immoral, but legal claim to "property". The same case cannot be made for the hundreds of broken treaties and the millions of acres of stolen property.

We all need to pay attention to what happened to Leonard and the entire AIM movement. They were acting as warriors in a new movement to return native rights, hold the government accountable to its treaties and return their lands.

Leonard Peltier is a POW in the struggle for native rights. He was arrested in native lands that he and others felt had been invaded by the federal government. That was the climate of the time.

People who argue about this case from a legal perspective will always fail, because the FBI created a strong case against Peltier and they hold the cards (falisfied or not). This case is not about the courts, it is about injustice heaped upon an entire race. It is about government complicity in genocide and terrorism. Guilty or not, Leonard is prisoner of the war on Native America and should be given the same rights (modified perhaps) as the Geneva Conventions dictate. His case is another stain on America's soul.

This nation will never be whole, complete or moral until we truly address the evils of Slavery, The Mexican War, and our greedy murders of Native peoples, the destruction of their culture and the theft of their lands.

As for Bill Clinton, I hate what the right was allowed to do to him, I truly admire his accomplishments. However, in the end, he was a disappointment; a selfish, self absorbed man.

Free Leonard Peltier

[scarletwoman]

229. Beautiful post! Well said! I hope more folks read it. (nt)

[EFerrari]

233. Exactly and very well put. n/t

[CaptJasHook]

217. The irony is thick

Please forgive me, but I haven't thought about Leonard Peltier for a long time. I just looked over my records and found the petition for his release that I mailed in 1999 to Bill Clinton for his pardon. At the time there were 322,198 petitions for his pardon and release.

I haven't drawn connections to the irony of this to our present circumstances. Wounded knee, The Sohappy's, Peltier, and the hundred years of small pox blankets, broken treaties, hangings, massacres and invasions. America wasn't the first practitioner of state sponsored terrorism, we weren't even the best (see the Inquisition or the Nazis for that prize). However, we have been in the top ten within the last two hundred years. We have also the unfortunate distinction of being a nation that has never paid the full price for our crimes.

So when this administration speaks of terrorism, maybe we should listen. After all we have a solid history of being professional terrorists.

[DinahMoeHum]

220. Outside Magazine had an article in 1995 that casts serious doubt

over whether Peltier really is a "martyr":

http://outside.away.com/outside/magazine/0795/7f_leo1.html

http://outside.away.com/outside/magazine/0995/letters.html

http://outside.away.com/outside/magazine/1095/10c_mean.html

http://outside.away.com/outside/magazine/0995/letters.html

Dear fellow DUers, make of it what you will.

:shrug:

[ProudDad]

222. Peltier is one of MANY political prisoners

here in the belly of the beast...

Clinton showed amazing cowardice but did show his real true colors by not pardoning him...

[EFerrari]

232. Yes, he did. And I take no pleasure in that conclusion. n

[MsMagnificent]

238. Beyond a reasonable doubt,

I'm not 100% convinced of his innocence,
but there are highly questionable aspects of the investigation and trial:
lies by omission, faulty logic, dubious "evidence", probable witnesss and evidence tampering, and so many questionable activities that simply just don't quite add up.
Leonard Peltier definitely deserves another trial to straighten out these many anomalies;
a FAIR one this time at the very least!


OT but in a similar vein; as for Waco ...Arrgghhh!
We will NEVER see the whole truth come out from that!
Ruby Ridge at least does not need to be re-adjudicated... it was proved at trial to be a very deadly and very fantastical farce on the part of certain departments of our government.


These last two horrific miscarriages of justice are among the very worst sins, bar none, of the Clinton administration.
There is no way Bill Clinton & Janet Reno were 'in on it', but as attorneys they should have known better -- they were way too trusting and gullible to take the ATF & FBI's blatant. blanket, and biased condemnations of these poor, paranoid citizens without question or requests for proof.
But then again, perhaps they were simply too naive and trusting as to the lengths of lying and cheating these departments would go to.
To the ATF & FBI, who appear to have held too much arbitrary power for much too long, their victims were instantly and automatically 'Guilty in the worst way' and were treated in such a manner, forget the presumption of innocence and their contentions needing to be proved in a court of law!

Beyond the horrific, aggressive, testosterone soaked tactics used against these American citizens, --not to mention the violation of Posse Comitatus) act in Waco coupled with the bringing in of agents already embroiled in the Ruby Ridge incident!-- was the denial of these men, women and children's constitutional rights and the meretricious accusations from the beginning of they being 'evildoers' (is that chillingly familiar?); pure propaganda spoon fed to the citizenry of this country!

It's still difficult to believe...


These were definitely the low points of the Clinton administration; it breaks my heart to say.
No person, no one administration is perfect... but these 'incidents' were especially egregious, even while unintentional :cry:


In no way do I condone Timothy McVeigh's response to what happened in Waco, but I DO understand his outrage;
and add a young man's testosterone, military training, coupled with Militia 'morality', paranoia and their own propaganda to that outrage... well, just look what happened :(

--I will never forget, in a similar case following these horrific miscarriages of justice (cannot recall off the top of my head, memory is getting worse every day :( The Freemen, maybe?) how the headlines read to the effect of:
'Stand-off Finally Resolved, No Deaths'
--That, sadly for our country, was news!

Sorry, didn't mean to go off -- these cases have (obviously) bothered me for a very long time
Both were very, very sad states of affairs :(

[EFerrari]

240. I posted this up thread but, the thread is long. From the Free Leonard site:

"Amnesty International considers Leonard Peltier to be a political prisoner whose avenues of redress have long been exhausted.... Amnesty International recognizes that a retrial is no longer a feasible option and believes that Leonard Peltier should be immediately and unconditionally released."

-- Amnesty International, April 6, 1999

"I have been reading in Leonard Peltier's book, and about an hour ago I spoke with him .... He is a remarkable person and the depth of his spirituality shows .... I would hope that the campaign to have him freed will succeed. I certainly support it very passionately .... Because it is a blot on the judicial system of this country that ought to be corrected as quickly as possible."

-- Archbishop Desmond Tutu, April 18, 1999

"(Regarding FBI use of falsified testimony) .... I have nothing on my conscience at all."

-- U.S. Prosecutor Lynn Crooks

[MsMagnificent]

246. Oh I'm sorry! :(

I missed that post completely.
Having a migraine, which loosens the normal bonds of staying on topic, I'll admit I 'scanned' instead of truly ingested -- for my migraines, cognitive ability is much fuzzier than normal (in an already sad state) & the eye strain of reading can make it worse...
but yah, I admit that's really no excuse :/

For me, if Desmond Tutu is for something; then I have to say I will be; never having disagreed but rather admired his thoughts, feelings and opinions.
That is one man I completely TRUST...
about the only living one in this world!
...can't say I've ever disagreed with the Dalai Lama either :D

I haven't read up on the Peltier case in quite a few years... I recall some things bothering me upon reading it long ago but it seems there is much more information out there now. Do you have a reading list of the latest & 'greatest', links or books?

[EFerrari]

248. I, too, haven't been up to speed, ashamed to say.

But here's the site: http://www.freepeltier.org/index.htm

Good luck with the migraine. :(

[Jamastiene]

260. Same reason Eddie Hatcher is still in prison.

Political prisoners from the American Indian movement. The US government doesn't like for the truth to come out about how the AI are still being treated in this day and age. Simple as that.