 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
 |
 |
|
The NPPA will respond to serious questions and challenges raised by Peltier supporters, as well as formal statements by Leonard Peltier and the Leonard Peltier Defense Committee.
In the Spirit of Coler and Williams Any material from outside sources is reprinted under the "Fair Use Doctrine" http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.html of international copyright law. Full copyright is retained by the original publication.
As appeared in IMdiversity.com
FBI Steps Over Their Line Should federal officers be allowed to not only disregard federal laws but also flaunt their actions in cyber-space? Note: The Congress shall have Power ... To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries (United States Constitution, Article I, Section 8) - The Constitutional Provision Respecting Copyright According to the various sections and subsections of "Copyright Law of the United States of America and Related Laws Contained in Title 17 of the United States Code Circular 92," it is deemed unacceptable and illegal to pilfer or steal the written works of another. It's law. One would expect federal officers, paid to uphold and enforce the law, to both abide by it and respect it. Apparently, that is not the case with FBI Agent Ed Wood. Agent Wood, in his pursuit to keep Leonard Peltier incarcerated, has crossed the line from provocateur to criminal. Thievery A most recent addition to Wood's misguided site, http://www.noparolepeltier.com, was not borrowed or on loan. It was a direct theft and accordingly in violation of copyright laws. The materials url (It has since been removed.) was < http://www.noparolepeltier.com/theinterview.html>. It was not paraphrased, quoted, cited or referenced. The article was instead lifted/stolen, code and all from Jordan Dill's First Nation site - in its entirety http://www.dickshovel.com/dino.html. Federal Copyright Law, Title 17, Section 106 recognizes the exclusive rights by the owner of a copyright. Though subsequent sections recognizes fair use, it also qualifies the use:
This section does not authorize or justify the reproduction of a work in its entirety. Agent Wood is not an educator but a man with a mission; a mission that directly conflicts with the philosophy of the man he is stealing from. Agent Wood is in accordance with federal guidelines guilty of infringement and most conspicuously so. What of the ethics in regards to an agent of the federal government, pursuing activities in conflict with the law? Agent Wood's site espouses integrity and so-called justice of its member officers: "The NPPA is made up of those who have a personal connection to the vicious death of two FBI Special Agents. Secondly, men and women who carry a badge and gun and are willing to place their lives on the line to protect the safety and rights of every citizen, the families of those who have made the ultimate sacrifice in the line of duty, Parents Of Murdered Children, those who believe in justice, and, finally, concerned people who are willing to consider all sides of an issue." Those that "believe in justice!" Was the theft personifying justice or truth, honesty and the law? FBI Director has well defined opinions regarding the ethics and actions of his agents. According to "A Report to the American People on the Work of the FBI, 1993 - 1998" by Louis J. Freeh, Director, from Chapter 1: "Nothing is more important to the present and future success of the Federal Bureau of Investigation than the ethics and integrity of its Special Agents and other employees." "If the rule of law is to prevail, law enforcement must be fully supported by the public--and the public will ultimately support only those law enforcement officers who are completely law-abiding." Director Freeh goes on to state that he has "placed a top priority on: "Development of a more effective ethics program through creation of an expanded Office of Professional Responsibility to investigate allegations of employee misconduct and provide appropriate sanctions against those who break FBI regulations." The report specifies the need to maintain core values, including uncompromising integrity. "The FBI rejects the false notion that an FBI Agent can have two sets of core moral values--one for on the job and another for his or her personal life." Mr. Freeh goes on to state, "I believe in the basic truth that lying, cheating, or stealing is wholly inconsistent with everything the FBI stands for and cannot be tolerated." Other essential points outlined in Mr. Freeh's report: "Clear procedures have been created to process complaints and FBI management officials will promptly investigate such incidents. Disciplinary action will be taken against such misconduct, and the discipline can range from an oral reprimand to dismissal." "Ethics is the golden thread which runs throughout our training. It often is the difference between correctly applying the awesome power of law enforcement and conduct that " "Compliance with the highest ethical standards is essential for all law enforcement officers because one of history's darkest lessons teaches us what happens when the law is subject to the most horrifying misuse by police. The place was Nazi Germany and the time was the 1930s. The Nazi terror began not by breaking the law but by using the law, as the Holocaust Memorial so graphically shows us." This seems an ironic comparison considering the history of the First People. Call For Investigation The site in question has already been noted in a previous ethics complaint - its owners must be called to accountability not only from an ethics standpoint but also from a criminal one. A man that preaches justice, paid to be unbiased and law-abiding, must be called when he loses perspective and is blinded by emotion and political motivation. A federal agent does not have the right to disregard the law. NPPA response LIBEL IN THE PUBLIC FORUM Our fundamental freedom of free speech is protected, but not necessarily absolute when it rises to the level of fighting words, dangerous words (like yelling "fire" in a crowded theater) or slander and libel without a factual basis. Ms. Yona's piece reaches that level by calling this writer a thief and unethical. But let's set that aside for the moment. noparolepeltier.com: This is stated in the NPPA website but it bears repeating here to make a point. Of course I remember when Agents Jack Coler and Ron Williams were murdered, but Peltier did not come back to my personal attention until I met Jack Coler's son who was only 1 1/2 when his father was murdered. Our meeting was almost coincidental and we never even talked about Peltier. As it turned out we have other common interests separate and apart from this issue. I did learn though that Peltier was coming up for a parole review. That evening, more out of curiosity than anything else, I logged onto a search engine and simply typed in the name "Leonard Peltier," and the rest, shall we say, is history. I couldn't believe the volume of sites calling for the parole, pardon or clemency of "political prisoner," Leonard Peltier. I reviewed each site, downloaded the central one, freepeltier.org, and began reading. It was apparent that if readers and researchers stopped there it was no wonder they came to the conclusion that Peltier may be innocent. But I wanted to learn more and took Peltier's and the LPDC's advice. The next day, I bought the book that "immortalized Leonard Peltier" (In the Spirit of Crazy Horse), rented the "documentary" (Incident at Oglala) and dove into the issue. It wasn't long before Peltier's and the LPDC's version of the incident didn't add. More research (locating Peltier's other public statements), and enlisting the assistance of a webmaster and other experts on Internet, website, and copyright issues, led to the creation of noparolepeltier.com and the No Parole Peltier Association (NPPA). One of the first things we learned after the site was launched was that Peltier supporters, many of whom hide behind aliases and Indian sounding names, have their own definition of racist; that being, anyone who thinks Leonard is guilty, and that if they don't like the message; kill the messenger. This is what angered Peltier, the LPDC, and his supporters the most: 1) That for many years, they were the only voice in town. They had their way within the public forum, this was the first time they were challenged, and they did not like it. 2) That the NPPA conclusions concerning Peltier's guilt were based on Peltier's own public statements as well as material touted by the LPDC. Peltier supporters did not like being reminded about what he has said. Instead of a healthy debate on the issues it became a mud-slinging contest that took us all away from the true history of the case and only served to widen the breach between the two camps. The NPPA provided an opportunity for discussion and debate. The Guest Book was closed after several months (though not as one rabid Peltier supporter claimed; who actually posted on a Native network that she was successful in hacking into the NPPA site and closing down the Guest Book; that is unlawful, and a silly thing to say in a public forum). But the truth is, that the debate-forum attempt was necessary, but futile, and it became obvious why the LPDC didn't have a guest book or forum either. It wasted time, accomplished nothing, and that time could be better spent in other more productive areas. And, the NPPA is not an FBI site, it was created on personal time and expense. There was no need to restate either what the FBI or the LPDC offered in the public forum, and that is exactly why links to those sites were provided on the home page with a repeated encouragement for the "concerned reader and researcher" to go further. Offering the legal history of Peltier's case: For this very reason, the NPPA early on provided the text of each and every legal decision. All ten judicial reviews are available to anyone who is concerned. The LPDC does not do this; they only offer isolated excerpts taken completely out of context. And why not? Because it is within those decisions that each and every allegation and assertion of wrongdoing made against the Government's case is reviewed and answered. The LPDC does not provide the entire story because it only hurts their cause. Taking things out of context is their primary approach to inflame and be disingenuous to their followers. Further, as a practical matter, it is OK to debate the facts and circumstances, but nothing can change the legal course of his case. Peltier had ten opportunities (twelve if you include the trial and subsequent 1984 ballistics hearing) to challenge and dismantle the case against him. He did not prevail and that's why we are now entrenched in parole and clemency issues. Thievery: Ms. Yona attempts to make an issue that the NPPA website somehow stole copyrighted material. In this regard she is fundamentally wrong and ignorant of the provisions of Title 17 United States Code, Chapter 4, § 401 and 107. She attempts to criminalize this issue when it is not a criminal issue, but a civil one. I invite her to do some serious research, no, better yet, consult with an attorney versed in copyright matters to see that I had a right to use that material in a public forum. When I was contacted by an attorney for the individual who felt aggrieved by my use of the Dino Butler interview (by E.K. Caldwell), my position was that I had a legal right to use those statements, sourced it within the NPPA site, and that it was both relevant and material to the issue at hand. I did agree, so as not to further anger that person, to remove the "mirrored" interview from the NPPA site, but not the specific quotes from Dino Butler, because this interview was also published in a book and available on other sites. Rather than create any further conflict I agreed to simply remove the "mirrored" reference. This was the end of the issue but it did not address the fact that there was no proof by the complainant that he had the legal right to "copyright" some else's copyrighted material. The Dino Butler interview is critical because it is so obvious: When one of the three main participants in the deaths of Agents' Coler and Williams calls Leonard Peltier a liar, in public, it is more than just significant. Peltier is shown as a liar on such a crucial and important issue: Who killed the agents? He said for years that it was "Mr. X" who killed them and drove off in the red pickup truck. Doesn't anyone remember this? Leonard lied to all his loyal supporters, and Dino Butler said so! If Peltier can lie for so long on such a basic issue, then why should those who are undecided believe his claims of innocence? It just stands to simple reason and logic that if he were innocent his version of the facts surrounding that day should never have changed. They should have been crystal clear, unwavering, and consistent over the years. Instead, every time he opens his mouth and makes public statements, he either puts his foot in it, or changes (lies) about what happened. Remember, he said he was having a wonderful breakfast of pancakes when the shooting started. Yet in his own autobiography, he never mentions Mr. X or the red pickup but offers another totally outrageous and unsubstantiated excuse for what happened that day--a preplanned paramilitary assault on Pine Ridge. Ridiculous. And, why is it that Peltier supporters forget Robert Robideau? Robideau, one of the three main protagonists, with his whinny effeminate voice, pointing to an open field in "Incident" and describing (in great detail) where he last saw "Mr. X," (whom they all knew, he said), kill the Agents and drive off in the now infamous red pickup. Dino Butler called him a liar also. But Peltier supporters are too close to the issue to see what is so obvious. Clemency: As this is written, there are but days before January 20, 2001. And, as we all know, the sole Constitutional authority for granting "reprieves and pardons" rests with the President. Whichever he may choose to do. So be it. If Peltier remains at Leavenworth, the next issue will be the subsequent parole review. It will not be a day of celebration for either side. Leonard, his family, friends, and supporters will be very disappointed. The Coler and Williams families will not have their sons back either, but for those who understand Peltier's guilt, justice will continue. If Peltier is released, he will no doubt go on the speaking circuit proclaiming his innocence, no doubt changing his version of the events even more, and acting as a wonderful role model for young Native Americans. Another matter that the LPDC and Peltier supporters have to wrestle with is the overall reaction to the Clemency issue. They did not recognize that this is not just an FBI issue, but a law-enforcement one. An issue that affects every man and woman in this nation who carries a badge and a gun and is willing to place their lives in danger to protect the rights of all its citizens. Ethics, Free Speech: Ms. Yona liberally quotes from the FBI Director's guidelines and statements concerning ethics of Bureau employees. What she does, quite well, is show that FBI Agents are held to a higher standard than the average citizen. A standard that I accept and have personally followed, notwithstanding attacks over a strong belief in Peltier's guilt. Ms. Yona makes reference to a letter written by LPDC spokesperson, Ms. Jennifer Harbury, dated June 26, 2000, to U.S. Attorney General, Janet Reno. That letter is simply a rehash of the tired rhetoric she and Peltier supporters have been repeating for years. It adds nothing new. There are statements in that letter that are simply incorrect, for whatever reason, and offer what I consider only 10% of the truth while ignoring the entire legal history of Peltier's case. On December 15, 2000, Ms. Harbury was quoted repeatedly in the media concerning the gathering by FBI Agents in Washington, D. C. She turned a peaceful expression of solidarity on a very important issue into "armed forces marching on the White House." That kind of bias and spin only serves to create more and deeper division. She ignored the fact that each person there was a citizen, taxpayer (and that many were veterans), who were exercising their right to free speech. Ms. Yona and Ms. Harbury would exercise their First Amendment right to assembly and free speech but deny it to those who oppose them. Fundamental fairness and rights belong to everyone, not just Peltier supporters. Blinded by emotion and political motivation: No, what Ms. Yona fails to recognize is passion. Passion that she feels for Leonard Peltier and passion that she cannot see from those who know that he is guilty. The Myth of Leonard Peltier: Reviewing the entire history of this case and Peltier's public statements and everything written about him, points to one inescapable and obvious conclusion: The real Leonard Peltier was lost in the fray long ago. The person of Leonard Peltier is nowhere to be seen and has been replaced by what he, perhaps unwittingly, and others, perhaps blindly, have created; something that exits only in folklore and imagination. A Myth. 
Cincinnati Post, January 12, 2001 (It is noted that this letter was posted on the LPDC web site, but not the rebuttal that also appeared in the Cincinnati Post on January 15, 2001.)
No justice for Peltier Before he leaves office on Jan. 20, President Clinton faces one last controversy - one, this time, not of his own making. The controversy centers, instead, on Leonard Peltier, an American Indian who was convicted of the murder of two FBI agents in 1975. Clinton must decide whether or not to commute Peltier's sentence. Peltier's case has attracted national and international attention. An organization opposed to his release, the No Parole Peltier Association, is based here in Cincinnati. Depending on your viewpoint, Peltier is a cop-killer, or he is an American Nelson Mandela - a man whose conviction rests on, at best, dubious evidence. As it happens, Mandela is among those who have called for Peltier's release. Other supporters include actor Robert Redford, country singer Willie Nelson, and Archbishop Desmond Tutu. In Congress, Sen. Daniel Inouye of Hawaii has campaigned for a pardon for nearly 10 years. On the opposite side stands the FBI. In an unprecedented public display, nearly 500 current and former agents marched on the White House on Dec. 15 to protest Peltier's possible release. In a Dec. 5 letter to Clinton, FBI Director Louis Freeh described Peltier as a ''vicious murderer'' undeserving of mercy. The trouble with Freeh's letter is that the prosecutors of this case freely admit that they cannot prove that Peltier actually killed anyone. Everything about this case is disputed. On June 26, 1975, FBI agents Ronald Williams and Jack Coler drove onto the Pine Ridge Reservation in South Dakota to arrest an Indian teenager named Jimmy Eagle. Freeh claims that Eagle was a bank robbery suspect. But the FBI's Minneapolis office contradicts the director. According to Amnesty International, Eagle's alleged crime amounted to the theft of a pair of used cowboy boots. In any event, a gun battle ensued between Coler and Williams and more than 30 Indians. When the shooting stopped, both men and an Indian named Joe Stuntz lay dead. Such an incident can only be explained by the reservation's violent atmosphere. Between 1973 and 1976, at least 69 members of the American Indian Movement or their supporters were murdered in a dispute with tribal council chairman Richard Wilson and his private police force known as the ''GOON Squad.'' According to a U.S. Civil Rights Commission report at the time, people on the reservation lived in a state of ''fear and tension.'' Acts of violence were commonplace, and the commission received ''numerous complaints'' about FBI activities at Pine Ridge. These facts were crucial. Of the four Indians indicted for the deaths of Coler and Williams, two were found not guilty. An all-white jury agreed that they had acted in self-defense. Charges against the third defendant, Jimmy Eagle, were dropped so that, according to an FBI memorandum, ''the full weight of the Federal Government could be directed against Leonard Peltier.'' Evidence used to argue the self-defense claim was excluded from this trial, and Peltier was sentenced to two consecutive life terms in prison. However, the government's case against Peltier is anything but compelling.It hinges on the prosecution's claim that he shot Coler and Williams at close range with an AR-15 assault rifle. However, the FBI's own firearms expert reported that the alleged weapon was so badly damaged that it was impossible to link it with any of the bullet casings found by the agents' bodies. Nor, for that matter, has it been established that Peltier possessed the weapon. These discrepancies are themselves disputed by the No Parole Peltier Association. Speaking at the FBI agents' Dec. 15 march, Eddie Woods, a special agent from Cincinnati, said that this is ''an issue of murder, plain and simple.'' Were that true, Clinton's job would be easy. But the more you look at this case, the more uneasy you become. The government continues to withhold 6,000 documents in whole and another 5,000 in part dealing with this case. Officials say their disclosure would harm ''national security'' or might disrupt ongoing investigations, claims that are hard to credit given that this case is 25 years old. Ideally, Peltier would be given a new trial so that the truth could be established once and for all, and not just for Peltier's sake. A new trial, for instance, might discover why Coler and Williams were sent onto Pine Ridge with no back-up at a time when tensions were so high. For that matter, why were two FBI agents sent to arrest a teenager accused of stealing a pair of boots? Appeals courts, however, have repeatedly turned down this request. That leaves Clinton. In America, we are taught that there is ''justice for all.'' But for Peltier, those words have a hollow ring. Kevin Matthews teachers history at Northern Kentucky University.
Response: Cincinnati Post, January 15, 2001 PELTIER HAD HIS JUSTICE In response to Kevin Matthews' guest column (The Post, January 12, 2001, No Justice for Peltier: Mr. Matthews, a history teacher, regrettably only repeats what the public has been offered by Peltier and his supporters both in the media and over the Internet. Repeating the refrain that "the prosecutors of this case freely admit that they could not prove that Peltier actually killed anyone" is not only misleading, it is wrong. In 1993, the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals addressed this very issue and stated "Peltier's arguments fail because they are fatally flawed," and that, "The Government's statement at a prior oral argument, upon which Peltier relies, WAS NOT A CONCESSION." But Peltier supporters repeat this out-of-context remark as if it were a valid point. The legal history of this case states otherwise (all ten court decisions are available at www.noparolepeltier.com, but not on Peltier's site, freepeltier.org). Mr. Matthews does not offer the correct sequence of events when he states, "When the shooting stopped, both men (Coler and Williams) and an Indian named Joe Stuntz lay dead. Stuntz (who was armed and wearing the dead agents FBI raid jacket) was killed hours later by a BIA officer at a distance. FBI and other law enforcement agencies responded to the emergency radio calls from Agent Williams and were met by later gunfire as Peltier and others made their escape from Pine Ridge. The contention that the AR-15 assault rifle was not linked to Peltier as the murder weapon is also flawed; testimony established that Peltier was the only one in that group with such a weapon and who, along with Dino Butler and Robert Robideau, went down to the agent's vehicles where the fatal final shots were fired. And, In October 1984, Peltier attorneys had an additional three-day evidentiary hearing where all the ballistics evidence was reviewed, again, and upheld by the District, Appellate, and the U.S. Supreme Court. One key issue that Mr. Matthews' ignores is the simple observation that if Peltier were innocent of this horrible crime, his story should not have changed. Yet, over many years, his version of the facts have changed repeatedly. For many years he blamed the killings on "Mr. X" (whom they all claimed to know, who was allegedly "interviewed" in a book and "appeared" in a movie) which he now totally denounces, and along with his supporters, has tried to distance himself from this phantom person and obvious lie. Was the Peltier case perfect? Perhaps not. Did Peltier have competent counsel to argue his case before the courts? He certainly did. Did Peltier have ten opportunities to appeal his case (plus an additional three-day evidentiary hearing), three times reaching the U.S. Supreme Court, only to have his guilt upheld? Yes. Peltier should serve the remainder of his two life sentences, plus the seven additional consecutive years he received for an armed escape from Lompoc Penitentiary in 1979. Another fact that Peltier supporters choose to ignore. Even given the circumstances of the Agents' deaths, Peltier (during a CNN interview, 9/10/99), claimed that the agents were killed in self-defense. Peltier is a remorseless killer and should be shown as much compassion as he gave FBI Agents' Coler and Williams.
Ed Woods
As appeared in IMdiversity.com by Nokwisa Yona, NAV Contributing Editor Historian, Charles Austin Beard warned, "You need only reflect that one of the best ways to get yourself a reputation as a dangerous citizen these days is to go about repeating the very phrases which our founding fathers used in the struggle for independence. " That said: "...the people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented, in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions, it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. ...and what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance." ...Thomas Jefferson Disagreeing with government action is not anti-American, un-American or extremist. It is not only the right of the citizenry but their responsibility according to the "forefathers of this nation" to monitor the activities of the elected and appointed. And in turn, TO SPEAK OUT! "That the said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press or the rights of conscience" ...Samuel Adams The government was and is intended to be representative, not dictatorial or totalitarian. Neither it nor its members are to be considered above question, reproach or the law. If one is to believe the continued rhetoric (supposed-independent and personal opinion) of certain FBI agents and no-clemency-for-Peltier supporters, pro supporters err in judgement; they are un-American, anti-government and potential threats to the well-being of democracy and freedom. "If you want to free Peltier than you are an enemy of this nation," we are told. I believe that opinion and relevant action on behalf of one issue has no relationship to the totality of one's beliefs. Calling a government agency to task, asking for justice or responding to a plea for clemency has no relevance to anything more than that one issue. It doesn't relate to being anti-government or anti-law enforcement or anti-anything. Consider that Don Edwards, a retired Congressman and Former FBI agent, supports the cause of freedom for Peltier. Was his entire service then a farce? Has he in his older age been politically and morally corrupted? Many of the points raised by dissenters are critical of "certain" government activities or actions; pointedly, the actions of the FBI in relation to their participation in events leading up to and during Wounded Knee II and the shootings at Pine Ridge. Then there is the matter and manner of so-called evidence gathering and presentation during the trial of Peltier. These matters have been called into question by both national and international leaders. Are these figures, (Joe Kennedy, Daniel Inouye, etc.) then un-American or enemies of the state? For calling actions into question does not necessarily lead to a conclusion that all government is bad, nor its members (though some might consider the barrel and the bad apple!). It also doesn't lead one to conclude that all law enforcement agents, whether local, state or federal, are idiots that fail to act responsibly, take responsibility for their actions or are blind "followers." While some First Nation activists and supporters strongly support the sovereignty of the Nations, that too, in turn, does not indicate a total lack of respect for the laws of the U.S. Another point of contention from the anti-Peltier faction is that disagreement with the anti-Peltier agenda or opinion should be regarded as an infringement on freedom of speech. Every man woman and child in this country is entitled to the right to speak their opinion, even federal officers. But, when federal officers in a position of "authority" underline their "position" and take a public stand on a point, it can be construed as an official action, sanctioned by their superiors - that my friend is another ball-game. Many individuals in this country still look to "authority figures," expecting them to be a bit more upright and honorable than the rest of us. Lets face it: much of the citizenry still look to the enforcement-elite as potentate heroes. They're the guardians of right, right? For there have been many times, cases when the federal machine, the FBI in particular has offered just that image. Ask the victims present after some of the more major catastrophic incidents of this century past. Ask students from the University of Birmingham dorms that slept or prepared for class when an explosion outside a nearby women's clinic shattered their reverie the morning of January 29, 1998. What were their opinions of the care and treatment doled out by the local, state, ATF and FBI agents over the following weeks? Ask a family member of one of the patients at a nearby Children's Hospital one that was temporarily residing at the Ronald McDonald House, close to the milieu of that fateful day. Its doubtful a negative word could be found. But, would those individuals support or approve the use of doctored or exaggerated evidence? What would they think of agents protesting en masse to deny a man clemency in spite of overwhelming evidence and testimony indicating deliberate and calculated wrongdoing on part of the FBI? Being grateful for treatment or respecting the law isn't relative to the issue of granting clemency, except to perhaps support it. The enemies of the state are those that would corrupt the right and good of it. According to Abraham Lincoln, "We, the people are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts - not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow men who pervert the Constitution." It is the duty of every one that deems to support the Constitution or the Republic to not simply observe but to actively involve themselves in the carriage of justice - and to decry injustice at every turn. NPPA Response Ms. Yona offers a quote, without any attribution. The statement, "If you want to free Peltier then you are an enemy of this nation." This is not a tenet of the NPPA or ever suggested as such. If this statement was made by someone who opposed Peltier's release, it is akin to holding the Leonard Peltier Defense Committee (LPDC) responsible for every statement made by every Peltier supporter. The NPPA has stated, in comparing the tone and position of the LPDC to that of the NPPA, that the LPDC is more "anti-government than pro-Peltier," which is by no means suggesting that pro-Peltier supporters' opinions are any less valid, their passions less important, or that they do not have every right to voice their support for his cause. Never has it been the official position of the NPPA that "disagreement with the anti-Peltier agenda or opinion should be regarded as an infringement on freedom of speech." This could not be further from the truth. Ms. Yona implies that Federal Agents are held to a higher standard, expecting them to be "more upright and honorable than the rest of us." She proves this by quoting a "Former FBI agent," who, "supports the cause of freedom for Peltier." Had former Congressman Don Edwards been otherwise she would not have emphasized this particular aspect of his background. Perhaps a little research would put this into its proper perspective: Don Edwards served only a few months in the FBI in 1941. When he attempted to reapply after Pearl Harbor, his reinstatement was denied. Draw whatever inferences necessary from this, but essentially he is not qualified to speak with authority as a former FBI agent, and perhaps Ms. Yona is correct when she asks the rhetorical question: "Was his entire service then a farce." December 15, 2000, Washington, D.C. Ms. Yona makes a valid point suggesting that when federal officers take a public stance on an issue, it could be construed as an official action. Acknowledging, as she does, that even federal officers, as every man and woman and child in this country is entitled to the right to speak their opinion, she adds a "but." The agents who expressed their opinion on the Peltier issue did so in a dignified and meaningful manner. They were there on their own time and expense. There were no shouts, slogan or signs, except for a banner and photographs of Jack Coler and Ron Williams. The national media reported favorably on this event and saw it for what it was, an expression of solidarity on a very important issue and efforts to bring the public's attention to the Peltier case. Yet, many Peltier supporters do not acknowledge that each person there was also a U.S. citizen, they were all taxpayers, and many were veterans, expressing a right that some would deny them; the right to peaceful assembly and the concurrent right to speak freely. None of those present surrendered those rights when they accepted the responsibilities for their chosen profession. And nor should they have. Whether or not the Washington, D.C. rally can or should be considered a political event is one of perspective. By the very nature of the Constitutional authority of the President to grant pardons, he alone must be the person who is aware of the feelings of everyone on both sides of the debate. What the rally did was make the Peltier clemency issue a public matter, it brought a great deal of sunshine to the debate, and ensured that no matter how the President decided, he would hopefully consider the facts, irrespective of public opinion. That public opinion had been one sided for too many years and at least on that one day, voices from the other side were heard. It is disingenuous, as suggested by Ms. Yona, for Peltier supporters to exercise their own First Amendment right to free speech and in the very same breath deny it to anyone else who may oppose them. Everyone should be heard. Some Peltier supporters have suggested that the December 15, 2000, Washington, D.C. rally, somehow intimidated and coerced President Clinton into capitulating to the pressure and denying Peltier clemency. This position is absurd. Anyone who has been paying the least bit of attention over the past eight years has seen that President Clinton cannot be either bullied or intimidated. Just look at the firestorm created by some of the pardons he did grant, certainly adding Peltier to the list would not have bothered him in the least. Then, and Peltier supporters will certainly disagree with this conclusion, President Clinton must have made his decision on the merits and legal history of the Peltier case. After all, he has a law degree and was the President of the United States; he knows and understands the law and the application of this very singular Constitutional authority. President Clinton must have also believed that Peltier is factually guilty, remorseless, and should serve out the rest of his sentence. Fundamental Differences: There are but a very few differences when considering the case against Leonard Peltier. 1) Peltier supporters view the events of June 26, 1975 in the historical context, somehow imparting to FBI Agents Coler and Williams the historical guilt and culpability for broken treaties between American Indian tribes and the U.S. Government. Peltier detractors view this incident as an isolated and violent criminal act. After being critically wounded and unable to defend themselves, the agents were then brutally murdered. 2) The intent of the NPPA and its web site was not to restate the legal history of the Peltier case but to challenge the LPDC in the public forum by using their own recommended resources, public statements by its spokesperson, and Peltier's own statements as further evidence of his own culpability and actual guilt. Unlike the LPDC, the NPPA offered all the legal decisions and not just isolated statements taken completely out of context from the record. There was no valid reason not to offer the entire legal history of Peltier's conviction to the public. 3) That people can believe in Peltier's guilt and not be racist. Ms. Yona does well to quote Thomas Jefferson, a man among men, who possessed the wisdom and foresight to help create the greatest Democracy and Nation on Earth. "We make to [the Indians] this solemn declaration of our unalterable determination, that we wish them to live in peace with all nations as well as with us, and we have no intention ever to strike them or to do them an injury of any sort, unless first attacked or threatened." Thomas Jefferson to Henry Dearborn, 1807.
LEONARD PELTIER DEFENSE COMMITTEE (LPDC): We were both shocked and saddened by President Clinton's decision to deny executive clemency to Leonard Peltier. During the last few days world support for the immediate and unconditional release of Mr. Peltier had reached remarkable levels, with calls and letters arriving from such renowned human rights and religious leaders as Coretta Scott King, the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, Amnesty International, Nobel Laureate Rigoberta Menchu and the Archbishop Desmond Tutu, amongst many others. Grassroots support from people across the country had swamped the White House phone and fax lines for months. Native nations and organizations made their support known again and again in powerful messages. Thousands of concerned citizens walked and prayed in the streets of New York on International Human Rights Day. Yet somehow none of this was enough. Why? The question remains for William Clinton to answer. The fact that so light a penalty attached to the perjury charge in the Monica Lewinsky case raises disturbing issues. We would like an explanation. For many weeks now President Clinton had called for national reconciliation and racial unity in this country. He has called for "One America" and emphasized the great racial disparity and discrimination so evident in our criminal justice system. He has called again and again for respect and equality for all races. He has stressed the need for righting historical injustices and healing long festering wounds inflicted upon people of color. He has insisted that the United States takes its place as a world leader of human rights affairs. He has personally visited Pine Ridge Reservation, the site of the tragic shoot out at Oglala a long and bitter quarter of a century ago, and called for greater respect and justice for our first citizens. Yet in this last and most critical test, President Clinton has betrayed his own goals and ideals. Again we must ask why? Leonard Peltier has been imprisoned for 25 years without ever receiving the benefit of a fair trial. The FBI forced Myrtle Poor Bear to sign a false affidavit, then committed fraud upon the Canadian government by presenting her statement to their courts of law. Three teenaged boys were terrorized and coerced into giving false testimonies to the grand jury and at his trial. A ballistics test reflecting his innocence was concealed from the defense and the FBI expert gave distorted testimony to the jury. No consequences for these illegal acts have ever attached. Today even the United States Attorneys admit that no one knows who fired the fatal shots. Yet Leonard Peltier was denied a new trial on a technicality, with the judge admitting that a strong doubt was cast on the prosecution's case. Even that judge now supports clemency. Meanwhile Mr. Peltier himself is long overdue for parole and receives human rights awards for the remarkable human rights work he carries out from behind bars. He is now in failing health. Most disturbing still is the fact that Leonard's highly controversial conviction is deeply rooted in one of the most grim chapters of recent American civil rights history, specifically the Pine Ridge Reign of Terror. Between 1973 and 1976, FBI backed vigilantes terrorized, battered and assaulted scores of Lakota traditionalists and AIM supporters throughout the reservation. Houses burned and entire families were wounded in drive by shootings. While the FBI stood by, some 64 AIM members and supporters were murdered, their deaths never properly investigated or vindicated. Civil rights organizations excoriated FBI abuses again and again. It can hardly be said that the history of our government's dealings with the first citizens of this country have been tragic at best, and oftentimes shameful. It is difficult to imagine a case more crucial to national reconciliation and healing than the case of Leonard Peltier. Yet a door, instead of opening, has been slammed and locked. Our society will pay the price. Today will be remembered as but another day of U.SS. government shame and betrayal of Native people. NPPA RESPONSE: Unethical Advocacy The Leonard Peltier Defense Committee (LPDC) offered a public statement entitled "Day of Shame" to describe President Clinton's denial of clemency to Leonard Peltier. The unsigned public statement apparently does not come from Peltier himself but is presumed to be authored by Ms. Jennifer Harbury, an attorney. It was the same Ms. Harbury who characterized the December 15, 2000, rally by FBI employees in Washington D.C. as "armed forces marching." Without question or qualification, Ms. Harbury is a selfless and untiring advocate for a person and cause she deeply believes in and is commended for the strength of her convictions. However, Ms. Harbury's campaign, under the banner of the LPDC, prevaricates a continuing fatal flaw; altering the truth of the matter to fit the ultimate goal, and offering only a portion of the facts in such a manner as to distort their proper context and meaning. Clemency: Ms. Harbury twice demands an explanation from the President. Neither Ms. Harbury nor Leonard Peltier are entitled, or in a position, to demand anything from the former President; they assume a stature to which they are not entitled. President Clinton was the LPDC's single focus for the past year and every effort was made to bring Peltier to the President's personal attention, and they were successful. President Clinton said in the weeks before the inauguration that he had the application and would make a decision one way or the other. And he did. As a lawyer and U.S. President, he knows the law very well and had access to the entire record. He apparently believed that Peltier was factually guilty, notwithstanding all the notoriety surrounding his case. Another important consideration was whether Peltier deserved the forgiveness that clemency implies. In that regard perhaps the President did not believe so when he heard that Peltier had publicly insulted him. Ms. Harbury goes even further. In a separate email on January 20, 2001, she stated that the LPDC's efforts to secure clemency were "…somehow…not enough to outweigh the outright terror the FBI was able to instill in our government leadership." Apparently, Ms. Harbury must have been too preoccupied over the last eight years and failed to notice that there was one aspect of President Clinton's personality that was consistent; nobody intimidates Bill Clinton. If Ms. Harbury paid the least bit of attention to the Clinton years she could have answered her own argument: If Bill Clinton was terrorized, or pushed around by anyone, he would have pushed back, and if that were the case, he probably (notwithstanding the facts of the Peltier case) would have made his decision out of spite, and freed Peltier. It was no secret that he was not happy with the FBI Director's challenge to the Attorney General regarding the special prosecutor issues, and clearly Bill Clinton is very well liked and favors the Hollywood crowd; two very real reasons why he would have granted clemency. But he did not. The logic is that he made his decision on the facts. Peltier is guilty, and the President saw it himself. Ten Percent of the Truth: If Ms. Harbury were simply repeating what her client told her, her public statements (through the LPDC and elsewhere) would at least be understandable. However, she repeatedly makes statements which she must intellectually understand are incorrect and offers not just a slanted recitation of this case, but by twisting the truth as she does, proffers inconsistent distortions which in some instances border on outright lies and unethical advocacy: "…then committed fraud on the Canadian Government…"
Ms. Harbury rehashes an argument that has been through the Canadian Courts as many times as the U.S. courts. Ms. Harbury is content to interject her experience and wisdom for that of the Canadian government and its Minister of Justice:
In a four page letter dated October 12, 1999 (not ancient history, but recent to the Peltier debate), from A. Anne McLellan, Canadian Minister of Justice to U.S. Attorney General, Janet Reno, she reviewed the entire Peltier extradition matter and concluded, once again:
"As I indicated above, I have concluded that Mr. Peltier was lawfully extradited to the United States."
"The record demonstrates that the case was fully considered by the courts and by the then Minister of Justice. There is no evidence that has come to light since then that would justify a conclusion that the decisions of the Canadian courts and Minister of Justice should be interfered with." "Three teenaged boys were terrorized and coerced into giving false testimony." But they were old enough to understand right from wrong and were following the orders of the older leaders of their small group. And they saw, and the jury heard, that it was Leonard Peltier, Dino Butler and Robert Robideau--the thirty-year olds--who went down to the Agents' vehicles where the final fatal shots were fired. One of those witnesses made public statements as recently as the October 17, 2000 in the A&E special, Murder on a Reservation. Norman Brown clearly stated that it was his own People who turned against him for giving any testimony against Peltier; this alone was enough motivation for him to recant his statements. "A ballistics test reflecting his innocence was concealed from the defense and the FBI expert gave distorted testimony to the jury."
Testimony to the JURY! Ms. Harbury refers to the 1977 jury trial and fails again to address that this issue was the subject of considerable later debate, and was resolved.
Peltier learned about the October 2, 1975 FBI teletype as a result of documents received through the Freedom of Information Act. As a result, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals ordered the District Court to conduct an evidentiary (ballistics) hearing, which occurred between October 1-3, 1984. Peltier appealed again, and the Eighth Circuit Court denied his motion for a new trial for the second of four times (1978, 1984, 1986, 1993). The arguments Ms. Harbury makes, offering only a fraction of the entire history of this case, are as deficient now as they were in the beginning, but Ms. Harbury fails to recognize or even acknowledge this. "Today even the United States Attorneys admit that no one knows who fired the fatal shots." That same argument made before the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals in their 1993 decision is as invalid today as it was then. That argument is based on a "fatally flawed" premise and Ms. Harbury, unless she is completely out of touch with the legal history of this case, knows this, yet she blindly repeats it as if it were true. Ms. Harbury can repeat this a million more times and it will still be wrong. She again alters the truth to fit her version of the facts. "While the FBI stood by, some 64 AIM members and supporters were murdered, their deaths never properly investigated or vindicated."
There is no doubt that life at Pine Ridge during this period was dangerous and difficult, but Ms. Harbury is wrong. This allegation of "murders" and FBI complicity is irresponsible and has been disproved. These "murders" Ms. Harbury claims, were addressed with a list released by the FBI in June, 2000, where it was shown that these deaths were all properly investigated:
Ten are not even named by Ms. Harbury or the LPDC; of the remaining, the deaths included: child abuse 3, domestic violence 4, alcohol related 5, robbery 2, fights/personal disputes 14, vehicular homicide 4, accidental shooting 2, health reasons 2, suicide 1, accidental 1, no record of death 1.
And of those; 21 resulted in FEDERAL convictions, one was prosecuted locally, 22 were investigated but did not result in convictions for a number of valid reasons, at least one remains pending, and 11 were not even within the FBI's jurisdiction. That's the "64 Murders" to which Ms. Harbury refers. Her assertions are irresponsible, bordering on slander, and are unsubstantiated allegations coming from an Officer of the Court who is supposed to uphold the truth. Instead of perpetuating this baseless claim, Ms. Harbury should challenge the FBI's findings on these "64 Murders." But instead, Ms. Harbury is content to not just twist the facts, but completely destroy them. In this regard then she offers not the truth of the matter, but a distortion bordering on a lie. "Even that judge now supports clemency" Yes he does, and in retirement he is entitled to express his opinion. That is his right. But when shouldered with the responsibility of upholding the law, then Judge, Gerald Heaney, along with two other judges, unanimously, and even with Judge Heaney himself authoring the 1986 decision, denied Peltier a new trial. Why? Just as he stated in the film, "Incident at Oglala," his decision was based on the application of the law. He said that it was a difficult decision but he has never said that his decision was wrong! Nor have the other two Judges, Ross and Gibson come forward to speak on Peltier's behalf, further reaffirming the correctness of that decision. As an attorney, Ms. Harbury should understand that simple concept. Mr. X and actual guilt: If Peltier was indeed innocent as he has claimed, his statements of what happened that day at Pine Ridge should have been simple, straight forward and unchanged over these years. But instead he has altered his story as if searching for the scenario that most would accept, and along with Robert Robideau and others, created the phantom killer who drove off in the red pickup truck. Now that Peltier and the LPDC have distanced themselves from this obvious fabrication, all Ms. Harbury can say is, "Mr. X, has long been a controversial topic, by both supporters of Leonard Peltier and those who oppose his release." No kidding, Ms. Harbury? This is such an obvious lie, perpetuated for the better part of two decades, that the LPDC cannot sweep it away or ignore it. It is another glaring example of Peltier's guilt. Recommendation: Since the tactics of hate, confrontation and division have not worked so far, Ms. Harbury's and the LPDC's time and efforts would be better spent capitalizing on whatever it is that Leonard Peltier has accomplished. It is time to demonstrate that he is both repentant and rehabilitated and no longer a danger to society. They should show his real accomplishments, not just broad statements of alleged successes, but the specifics of what his time in prison has achieved for those he pledges to represent and those he acknowledges are most in need. Peltier should not be abandoned but it must be recognized that he is not the catalyst for altering any historical injustices to Native Americans. Without a fundamental change in the approach to the Peltier situation, he will only remain a cause for division.
STATEMENT BY LEONARD PELTIER: Greetings Friends and Supporters: January 20, 2001, was a sad day for all of us. I know that this denial of clemency has affected many of you as much as it has affected both my family and myself. It is a terrible feeling and disappointment knowing that this nightmare has not ended and will continue for many months to come. When I received the news, I felt my stomach curl and a feeling of nausea rolled over me. It took a while for me to refocus. For some reason I had thought I might be having dinner with my family that night. It was an especially disappointing day for all of us. What Bill Clinton did to us was cruel. For eight years he ignored my clemency petition despite the major campaign that was waged. Then, just months before leaving office he publicly promised to make a decision on my case, one way or the other. He said he was aware of its importance. The White House gave my attorneys indications that there was a good chance for my clemency to be granted. I had to prepare myself for being released because there was no sign that my petition would be denied. The LPDC bought me clothes, my grandson prepared his bedroom for me to sleep in and other preparations were made for my homecoming. My friends on Pine Ridge began plans to build me a house. We were literally forced to get our hopes up because we did not want to be unprepared if I was suddenly set free. January 19, came and still, they kept us in nervous anticipation saying the more difficult clemencies are still being worked on and would be announced the next morning. Then January 20 came and went! The White House never even told us what the decision was. We had to find out through the press that my name was not on the list of clemencies. To leave a person's life and so many peoples' hopes hanging in the balance like that is truly hardhearted. Since that dark Saturday, I have managed to get up and dust myself off, and begin to lift my spirits once more. I am just as determined now to fight for my freedom as I was on February 6, 1976 when I was first arrested. I will not give up. This is the second time in the span of my incarceration that I made it to the top of the hill and saw that freedom was in view, only to be kicked right back down to the bottom again. The first time was in 1985, when the evidence used to convict me was impeached and I was denied a new trial, despite Judge Heaney's finding that I might have been acquitted had the jury been presented this evidence. To be denied a new trial after such a finding shocked our network and me just as much as this denial of clemency has. However, we never lose a battle without making some major gains in the overall struggle. I want to compliment and thank my staff at the LPDC and all of you grassroots supporters who stood beside me and fought so tirelessly for my freedom. You put on one of the strongest and most memorable campaigns I have experienced. Years from now people will read about the accomplishments you made. People from every walk of life worked on this campaign. People from every denomination and belief prayed from every corner of the Earth. Although it feels like our sentiments were shooed away like an irritating fly by a president who did not want to face the consequences of his own mistakes, I believe we put up a serious challenge. We can see who was granted clemency and why. The big donors to the President's campaign were able to buy justice, something we just couldn't afford. Meanwhile, many political prisoners continue to languish unjustly, proof that this nation's talk about reconciliation is nothing but empty rhetoric. We now have a number of strategies to continue this struggle for my freedom. These ideas are in the early planning stages. I ask you to remain with us while we regroup and develop a thorough plan. We must carefully consider every option and make sure the strategies compliment each other in order to have the best effect. The LPDC will release strategies as they are developed. Some will be released this week. I also have my own personal plans. I will continue doing artwork and will be looking at ways to make it more available to the public. I will also be working with my friends, Fedelia and Bob Cross, to build a grade school in Oglala. Before my clemency was decided, I began to dream of the different projects I would like to work on in Pine Ridge if I were free. Now that I have been denied, Fedelia and Bob have said they will take the initiative to begin the projects themselves, with my input. Soon, we will be establishing a board and non-profit status. Bob and Fedelia are schoolteachers and lifetime Oglala residents, and they have the land on which to build the school. They have told me of the desperate need for an improved school in Oglala. The existing school is severely under funded and inadequate and does not provide the kids with the quality education they need and deserve . We have the highest drop out rate of all ethnic groups in the country and part of the reason is the lack of stimulating and challenging programs for the youth. Another idea I would like to develop is building a small recreation center for Oglala. As most of you know Native health conditions are also probably the worst in the country. We want to change that, beginning with this center. We want the center to have modern exercise equipment, a kitchenette, and card tables. As everyone gathers here to socialize, have coffee, gossip, and play cards, we can encourage them to try the equipment and to begin getting in the habit of exercising and eating healthy foods. I believe it would be a nice place for people to spend time and a good incentive for them to get into better physical condition and stop the trend of diabetes on the reservation. The reservation currently has no facility like this. If we are successful in establishing these two services, I believe that the community of Oglala will truly benefit. We will then be able to move on to other projects that will bring people together and raise the quality of life. For example, one day I would like to rebuild Jumping Bull Hall so that there will be a drug and alcohol free place where people, especially youth, can gather. We could set it up for a movie theatre and bring in video games. People can watch movies, hold meetings, have birthday celebrations, community meals and dances here. Right now, our youth have no place to go to socialize and I believe this facility could help prevent the hopelessness and despair too many of our young people feel. I would hope that word of these projects would spread to other reservations and others like Fedelia and Bob Cross will be inspired to take on similar ideas which we could help support. Your ideas, input, and support are welcomed. If you know people who would donate supplies (books, wood, cement, hardware, etc), make financial contributions, or donate their skills and labor, please get in touch with the Leonard Peltier Defense Committee. In closing, I want to thank you again for your support and ask that you stand with us in this struggle. I believe that one day in the near future we will succeed. But it can't be done without your support. In the Spirit of Crazy Horse, Leonard Peltier NPPA Response: Leonard Peltier appears again to speak for a much broader segment of the Native American population, casting himself as something he certainly is not, but yet offers several very important and significant observations and projects for those in need at Pine Ridge, S.D. Leonard Peltier responded to the denial of clemency from President Clinton by describing him as "...a president who did not want to face the consequences of his own mistakes," and then complaining that "...big donors...were able to buy justice." Peltier then again places this issue and himself in the category of a political prisoner. Clemency: There could have been any number of reasons why Peltier's clemency application was denied, but one of them certainly was not that President Clinton was afraid to face consequences for any of his decisions, no matter how they are perceived. Anyone, particularly Leonard Peltier, who has paid any attention at all to the past eight years, knows full well that no one either bullies or intimidates Bill Clinton. He makes his decisions, period. Then why no clemency? One reason could be that he did not believe that Peltier was innocent; Bill Clinton has a law degree, was a U.S. President, and certainly understands the law. He had access to the entire legal history of this case and made his decision on the facts, confirming once again that Peltier is guilty. The President could also have considered whether Peltier himself was worthy of pardon and forgiveness. But, perhaps the President also knew of Peltier's infamous "sleazebag" statement; with this, Peltier showed his disdain for the President and the political process, which was not a smart thing to do when you are asking for significant relief from the only person who could grant it. And whether President Clinton pardoned anyone else who may have also been a Native American is immaterial to this self-proclaimed political-prisoner. Political prisoner: Still confused about the legal history of his own case, this is where the man and Myth part company. Peltier continues to make his incarceration a political issue when only he, and those he has convinced to follow him, see it that way. Peltier maintains that he was arrested, tried and convicted because he was an Indian, and an activist: But he was convicted and continues to serve his sentences because he is a murderer who now remanufactures himself into something he never was. He forgets that he came late to the cause. Only Peltier-the-Myth could mischaracterize Judge Heaney as he does. Why doesn't Peltier criticize, instead of quote, Judge Heaney? He was one of the judges on the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals, who unanimously (along with Judges Ross and Gibson), made the decision to deny Peltier a new trial in the first place. Judge Heaney, who wrote the decision himself, came to this conclusion based on the law. Peltier cannot accept that this decision was made on the application of the law but instead tries to convince us that it was done because he was a political prisoner. If that were true, that makes retired Judge Heaney part of Peltier's grand and ongoing conspiracy. Peltier ties reconciliation to his freedom, apparently meaning that his release would somehow correct wrongs of the past, but fails to understand that he is only a lightning rod for emotions in both camps. And there are a number of Native Americans who do not believe in his or the LPDC's cause as evident by the recent meeting (January, 2001), of a dozen Native Nations in the Black Hills where none of the elders wanted to stand up for Peltier or even talk about him.
What next?:
Is Leonard Peltier repentant? By his own admission, certainly not.
But he has finally capitalized on whatever good can come of his incarceration. His initiatives for his adoptive Pine Ridge are laudable; improving health and educational standards and providing outlets for the energies of the young people, are not just commendable, they are crucial. For the sake of everyone in need at Pine Ridge, for the futures that successful lives may generate and uplift later generations, the NPPA, and I, wish him success.
Ed Woods
Analysis and Refutation of the FBI's "Accounting" for AIM Fatalities on Pine Ridge, 1973-76, by Ward Churchill (referred to below as, "Analysis and Refutation," as appeared in the Leonard Peltier Defense Committee web site)
NPPA Response to Ward Churchill Background For a number of years there has been a list of names of people who died on the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation, South Dakota. The number of people on the list varied, usually ranging between approximately 56 to 70 or more, depending on which entity was arguing the validity of the listed names. The implication by those who offered the list was that the FBI was somehow culpable of contributing support to the elected tribal government and a group known as the Guardians of the Oglala Nation, or Goons. The period of approximately 1973 to 1976 was referred to as the "Reign of Terror." In July, 2000, Douglas J. Domin, the Special Agent in Charge of the FBI's Minneapolis Division (which also covers Pine Ridge) released a booklet entitled "Accounting for Native American Deaths, Pine Ridge Indian Reservation, South Dakota." (Referred to below as "Accounting.") Mr. Ward Churchill is certainly qualified to address this important issue. As a "person of indigenous descent," a published author and a professor of American Indian Studies at the University of Colorado at Boulder, he is both personally and professionally qualified to speak on matters concerning the government's history and relationship with Native Americans and Indian Nations. Mr. Churchill's passion and experience are self-evident, but he also believes, among other things, that "We are and have been a police state since at least 1950…" (Interview, 1995). Clearly unmistakable in his writings is a deep-seated and all consuming hatred of the FBI, although, his cynicism and mistrust provide no allowance for whatever positive accomplishments and successes have been made by federal law-enforcement, particularly the FBI. His focus on this issue has only one side. In his most recent review, Mr. Churchill makes some valid and defensible observations while dismissing "Accounting" as "hogwash." Instead of searching for a solution he begins and ends with acrimony and confrontation and then neglects to mention, and lays no blame or even shared responsibility, at the feet of the militant American Indian Movement (AIM) faction as a root cause for the conflict, tension, and violence at Pine Ridge. He views AIM, the Black Panther Party and the Puerto Rican terrorist's organization (FALN), as legitimate political groups exercising their basic freedoms. Mr. Churchill berates even the timing of the FBI's "Accounting" as no more than a continuing campaign against Leonard Peltier. Reign of Terror No one, who has even a minimal understanding of the circumstances surrounding this period at Pine Ridge would conclude that life there was anything less than tense and horrible. Conflict and violence was commonplace as the two factions, traditional and non-traditional, vied for control; on the one side, control of their heritage and as well as their future, and for the other, control of the present. By most accounts, the tribal leader, Dick Wilson and the Goons, created some of the conflicts they sought to solve. Whether Wilson was lawfully elected is also problematic. AIM factions, taking an obviously militant approach to their problems, were seen as a threat to established law enforcement. Caught in the middle were those who just wanted peace. "Accounting" The FBI's booklet responding to the list of Pine Ridge deaths does not provide all the documentation and information available on each individual. It makes no claims other than to answer the basic question (or, allegation) as to weather an investigation was conducted, whether perpetrators were identified, and if there were any convictions. It also does not assert that either the FBI exclusively, or jointly with other agencies (local police and the Bureau of Indian Affairs-BIA), conducted the particular investigations. This document is a brief summary designed only to respond to the list of deaths at Pine Ridge. Apparently, in his fervor, Mr. Churchill missed this very basic and obvious point. "Analysis and Refutation" Mr. Churchill's premise is that Pine Ridge consisted of essentially two classifications of people, AIM members and supporters, and Goons, and that in each instance this division was at the heart of the "murders." He also contends that the FBI was assisting the Goons in their vigilante activities (either directly or by omission of action) and finally, that no matter what the FBI claimed, it is either covering up or wrong in its conclusions. No matter how aggressive his review, Mr. Churchill inadvertently supports the "Accounting" by repeating and verifying that investigations were conducted and many of the perpetrators were brought to justice. Mr. Churchill can complain and argue about the sentencing of many of the perpetrators, but until he compares those sentences, on average, to other areas across the country, his complaints are shallow; because, there would be little difference in comparable crimes and sentences. But, that issue lies with the courts. Mr. Churchill criticizes the FBI for not responding sooner since he himself produced the "list" of deaths in "1988, 1989, 1994 and 1996." Although, it should be noted, for instance, in Churchill's 1988, Agents of Repression (1990, "Corrected Edition") he offers a handful of incidents related to crimes allegedly caused by Goons and details of only a few deaths. Within Mr. Churchill's 1990 publication, The Cointelpro Papers the "list" is relegated to a footnote (p. 393) which consists of no more than names and dates. But it is also within footnotes that Mr. Churchill carries on his most egregious editorial comments and personal attacks. For example: It is within footnotes that Mr. Churchill makes his most outrageous claims, based on nothing more than fantasy and conjecture; specifically, his idea of a preplanned paramilitary assault on Pine Ridge. This allegation is so outlandish that it must be the topic of a separate response at a later date. Mr. Churchill viciously attacks one of the agents who was very much involved in the Resmurs investigation, J. Gary Adams. Although his comments are disjointed in the book, Mr. Churchill offers the following to spell out his brutally personal attack in The Cointelpro Papers:
"Using .22 caliber squirrel rifles, the youngsters shot out the tires of the first two backup cars-driven by SA J. Gary Adams and Fred Two Bulls, a BIA policeman and known GOON. Confronted with these meager potshots, Adams and Two Bulls promptly retreated, abandoning Coler and Williams.(p.265)" "(Adams)…spent a considerable period of time hiding in a ditch once his tire had been shot out." "…Adams and his colleagues simply turned tail and ran for cover, refusing to move for several hours. It was perhaps a personal sense of guilt over his own conduct on the morning Williams and Coler died which motivated Adams to behave with brutality during his subsequent interrogations of the AIM teenagers mentioned above, as well as Norman Brown, another 16 year old." (p.396, footnote 141)" (Emphasis Added) Mr. Churchill, although he mentions the name, fails to quote (albeit deliberately), one of the main witnesses from that fateful day, Norman Brown. If Mr. Churchill paid any attention, he would have heard Norman Brown describe, in the Robert Redford film "Incident at Oglala" that he did have the opportunity to kill the responding agents, but chose not to.
"I had him in my sights, you know. I had the figure of his head. Basically I was aiming right at him, you know. But I couldn't do that. I couldn't shoot him. So, I shot his front tire out." (Norman Brown) Another important aspect of what Norman Brown has said about the shootout concerned his recanted testimony at Peltier's trial. During the October 17, 2000 Arts and Entertainment (A&E) special entitled "Murder on a Reservation," this is what Brown said when he was brought in to testify against Peltier:
They marched me in. This whole crowd of native people. As I was walking down the isle there, I heard words spoken to me. "There's that sell out." "There's that pig, there's that little asshole, " and you know, "That's him." "Hey asshole," like little whisper. It is clear from this comment that Norman Brown, although he blamed his change of testimony on his interrogation by the FBI, was clearly in fear for his safety, and perhaps even his life, from his own People, particularly AIM members and supporters. Although he claims to have "…spent a year in Southeast Asia in combat," (Agents of Repression, footnote, p.438), Mr. Churchill offers some strong language, for an academic, from the safety and security of a warm classroom or snuggly behind a computer screen. It would be easy to predict his reactions under similar circumstances. He would run, as did Leonard Peltier--the coward of Pine Ridge--who bravely murdered two defenseless and wounded human beings and then ran for the hills, all the while whining his oft repeated phrase, "We got to get out of here. We got to get out of here." It was Peltier, and the two other thirty-year-old-Indians, who left the younger ones momentarily behind, as he, Dino Butler and Robert Robideau, went down to the Agents' vehicles to finish them off. Mr. Churchill does not understand, since he is so enamored with the likes of the former Black Panther Party, FALN and AIM, that a sixteen year old (like Norman Brown) or a twenty-one year old (like "Little Joe" Stuntz) can kill you just as dead with a .22, as with any other weapon. Mr. Churchill would be the last one to volunteer to stand up and take a .22 for his cause; his integrity, character and bravery are called into question. Apparently he does not share these same qualities as his namesake. For example: Since Mr. Churchill is obviously very passionate about this issue, and if his intent had been focused, what he should have done was publish all he knew about these deaths. Instead, by his own admission, he produced a flawed list of names. As a former leader of AIM (which he now denounces as "…an appendage of the liberal aspects of the federal government of the U.S." [Interview, 1995]), he should have been more precise, but now goes even further to contaminate his own thesis. He provides instance after instance of unnamed phantom witnesses who, being conveniently dramatic, saw exactly what he claims in many of the deaths. This information should have been specific, and an integral part of his assertions in 1988 and beyond. He should have compiled the information and published it all for scrutiny instead of hiding behind vague and unproven allegations. Even when he does provide names, these witness-accounts are still based on conjecture, opinion, and rumor. Supplying the same flawed logic, wrong information and awkward and faulty conclusions as he does IN MOST OF THE DEATHS ON THE LIST, Mr. Chruchill said the following regarding "Joe Stuntz Killsright:"
The report states that Killsright was killed during the FBI's RESMURS investigation. He was in fact killed during the June 26, 1975, firefight which also resulted in the deaths of RESMURS. Cause of death is indicated as being a single long range gunshot to the head, fired either by an FBI or BIA police sniper. There is no proof to support these claims and even, for the moment, setting aside the autopsy results describing a single gunshot wound to the head, Mr. Churchill grossly misses the mark as he engages in previously discredited accounts and rumors. As will be shown, these witnesses, who were wrong in their conclusions, did not even say what Mr. Churchill attributed to them, but has added his own skewed conclusions to the mix: Mr. Churchill cannot even get the name right: Joseph Charles, a Coeur d'Alene Indian, born in 1954 was adopted by a wealthy white family. "Little Joe" Stuntz, as he was called, was given the name Killsright, posthumously, by Leonard Peltier as he and others made their escape from Pine Ridge after the Agents' had been murdered. (Peltier, "Prison Writings" p.129.) Mr. Churchill tries to convince us that Stuntz and "also" Agents' Coler and Williams, were killed in the same skirmish. This is not the case and any competent review of the timing of those deaths belies and exposes his claim. Stuntz, after visiting the dead Agents' bodies and raiding their possessions, engaged the responding law-enforcement officers with sporadic gunfire and was killed (while wearing Agent Coler's FBI jacket) much later (and at a distance), by BIA Officer Hill: But, "The Indians do not believe that Hill killed Joe; they believe he was killed by SA Gerard Waring, drilled through the forehead by the only man in Hughes squad with a sniper scope, and that the FBI gave Hill credit for the kill-he boasted of it to Gary Adams-because, from a public-relations point of view, it looked better to have that Indian killed by an Indian." ("In The Spirit of Crazy Horse" p. 552). But again, even as Leonard Peltier himself knew; "…Joe Killsright Stuntz, a twenty-one-year-old dedicated AIMster, (was) shot in the forehead by a bullet from an unknown assailant's gun…" (Prison Writings" p.129.) Numerous witnesses all gave the same account of Stuntz's death and head wound, yet Mr. Churchill bases his argument on rumor and speculation from those who have already been discredited and seems almost to mimic someone he also liberally quotes, Peter Matthiessen. But Mr. Churchill fails to offer Matthiessen's own characterization of Stuntz' death and conveniently fails to tell the readers; "The epidemic inaccuracy of most of the accounts is exemplified in those that concerned Joe Killsright's body." ("Spirit" p.197). Matthiessen totally dismissed the multiple shots issue for what it was, pure speculation. Even the web site link to Kevin McKiernan's name (provided by the LPDC in Churchill's essay) adds no validity to the claim because it does not even address the condition of Stuntz's body. In his recent letter concerning the Peltier situation, McKiernan only states, "…whose body I photographed afterward." Had this been a real issue, McKiernan would certainly have mentioned it in his very recent, May 17, 2000 letter. Peltier's co-conspirator, Dino Butler had this to say about Joe Stuntz's wound: "Joe was laying there, he was shot. There was a bullet right through his forehead, like that (gestures with a single finger to the middle of his forehead). ("Incident at Oglala"). Adding further to Mr. Churchill's degradation of the truth, in his book The Cointelpro Papers, he further quotes McKiernan; "blood was leaking from the jacket sleeve-and added that the corpse was wearing an FBI field jacket." But then Mr. Churchill plugs in this editorial, and erroneous comment: "(suggesting the possibility that agents had covered their handiwork by adding the field jacket after the fact)." (p.397, footnote 144.) So sure is Mr. Churchill of his "facts" and logic, that he embarrassingly failed to consult the one and best source to dispel such a flagrantly inaccurate accusation. The truth of how and where Stuntz came to be wearing Agent Coler's field jacket comes from none other than Leonard Peltier himself; "I seen Joe when he pulled it out of the trunk and I looked at him when he put it on, and he gave me a smile," Leonard remembers. "I didn't think nothing of it at the time; all I could think of was, We got to get out of here!"" (Spirit, p.552) Mr. Churchill, the academic, engages is such notoriously inaccurate polemic (to use one of his favorite words), knowing full-well that there is no avenue for misunderstanding what the real truth is; yet, he offers skewed and sophomoric conclusions anyway. His own hateful motivations and paranoia aside, he becomes but an obvious dupe and no more than a lap-dog for Jennifer Harbury, and a mouth-piece for the LPDC. Mr. Churchill casually dismisses his own mistakes as "…there's bound to be a margin of error," but then goes on to thank the FBI for providing corrected information in almost a dozen of the deaths. Mr. Churchill admits his mistakes, but by claiming, for instance, that Michelle Tobacco (age 9 months), Yvette Loraine Lone Hill (age 7), and Floyd Bianis (age 16 months), (who were all tragic victims of child abuse), were AIM supporters killed by "unknown persons" in the heat of the "Reign of Terror," is not only disingenuous, but fraudulent. Mr. Churchill's approach to the problem has not changed but only worsened with added convenient claims and outrageous additional facts. Facts, given his academic background, he must make up, and twist, as he goes along. Mr. Churchill adds nothing to the discourse except more convoluted and unsubstantiated rumors and provides Peltier supporters with only an essay of hate peppered with anti-government rhetoric. Shamefully, he destroys any meaningful efforts for dialogue or common ground. Nothing of what he has now added validates the "list." But perhaps this is where we can return to Leonard Peltier. It was the idea of the Reign of Terror that prompted Peltier to claim that Agents' Coler and Williams were killed in self-defense by Mr. "X", who then drove off in the infamous red pickup truck. Perhaps these phantom witnesses can also provide Mr. Churchill with the identity of "Mr. X." No, they can't do that either, Peltier already said he lied about that as well. To illustrate the depths to which conspiracy theorists can descend, Mr. Churchill links the murders of agents' Coler and Williams with the defeat of General George Armstrong Custer at the Little Big Horn, ninety-nine years earlier. FBI personnel (including stenographer Linda Price) in the Rapid City Office overheard Agent Williams's call for help and assistance. "The statements she (Linda Price) attributes to Williams correspond very well to the frantic appeals for help addressed by Major Marcus Reno to Captain Frederick Benteen during the battle of the Little Big Horn almost exactly a century earlier". (Agents of Repression, footnote 30, p. 437). "Reno is quoted as sending the frantic message, "For God's sake, Benteen, help me. I've lost half my men". (Agents of Repression, footnote 34, p. 414). Just what does Mr. Churchill imply with a connection like this? Perhaps the pre-planned attack scenario again? Or maybe this is where fantasy comes close to the truth; it goes to motivation. It can be asked, what was Peltier thinking at that moment? Seeing both agents mortally wounded but knowing that they have also seen him (and Butler and Robideau) up close. It could be that Peltier had regressed to his ancient native roots and saw this as the Little Big Horn revisited; Custer and the 7th Calvary, and he, now for his People, was killing the dreaded "yellow hair" again, and maybe for the last time. But giving Peltier this much credit is flawed. Peltier saw exactly what the situation was and came to the only conclusion his cowardly persona could muster - that dead men make poor witnesses - and then killed them both. But there is more; Peltier, Butler and Robideau were then joined by the younger Indians who raided the dead agents' bodies and possessions. And later, responding law enforcement personnel found Agents' Coler and Williams lying face down in the mud. Touching the vanquished, counting coup, turning their enemy to face the ground rather than the sky so they would not be able to face their maker, could have been thoughts and actions by Peltier and the others. But probably not; the motive is simpler and less of a conspiracy; they couldn't look at the faces of the men they had just murdered.
Compliments to Leonard Peltier:
STATEMENT FROM LEONARD PELTIER (As appeared in the LPDC website.) Dear Brothers and Sisters, I want to begin by thanking the Dine' Club for including my case in the agenda for tonight's event. I am always happy to see Native youth take the initiative to reach out to their peers and inspire them to be socially conscious and active. Each and every one of you should understand and embrace your ability to make a difference for our people. You have already begun, just by taking the important step of getting your college education. I want to encourage you to stay in school and graduate so that you can use the skills you gain for bettering your communities and your own lives. I also want to encourage you to learn about the struggles of our recent history, which have brought about some positive changes for our people. When I was your age, having pride in your culture, in being Indian, was not popular at all. Nor was the teaching of our history in schools, available or documented. Many of the positive social programs that exist today, including those that help Native youth attain higher education, were virtually non-existent. These changes were not handed to us. Of course, we still have a very long way to go before justice for First Nations is truly achieved. The fact that I have written you this statement from a prison cell is evidence of that. However, it is important that as young people, you not take for granted the progress we have made. This progress was made by the sacrifice and struggle of our people in the late 1960's through the 1970's. The American Indian Movement and other Native groups of that era, were made up of ordinary people like your mothers and fathers, aunts and uncles; people who committed themselves to making life better for you, the future generations. If you learn about this recent history, both from the obstacles we faced, and the positive accomplishments that we achieved, you will be better prepared to work for social change. Lastly, I want to encourage you to write to me about the realities that you are facing today. Your perceptions and ideas are important to the future of our people. Also, communicating with those on the outside is an important way for me to stay in touch with the current state of affairs in Indian Country, and see if there are ways that I can help. In closing, I want to tell you how proud I am of each of you. Whether you choose to study business, social work, teaching, ecology, art, or history, I believe you will be a gift to our people.
In the Spirit of Crazy Horse, NPPA RESPONSE A compliment is offered to Leonard Peltier for the above letter. By reaching out to the young, extolling them to become educated, wise to their history and involved now and for the future, he offers a most significant message. Leonard's tone and delivery are measured and sincere and he had no doubt weighed his words carefully to meaningfully support his message. He avoids any hateful rhetoric and makes only passing reference to his situation, saying that he is pleased that his case was selected for discussion but that he writes from prison. Although Leonard mentions the American Indian Movement, there was one element he could have added in his call to the young: To use restraint and act within responsible and established bounds. It is understandable that young, educated and informed activists, politically astute and capable of organizing into meaningful movements can accomplish much, with harmony and nonviolence. It is hopeful that many will follow Leonard's advice, and that those who do research his case will at least take the time to explore both sides of the Incident at Oglala. Understanding all the facts concerning his conviction could be the basis of greater understanding and a mechanism for change and progress. Leonard Peltier is correct, that this generation, informed and educated, and properly motivated, "…will be a gift to our people." What can also be added is that they will be a gift to all people.
Rebuttal Statement from Congressman Don Edwards, Former FBI Agent [Rebuttal statement given Friday, 14 December 2000 at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C. by former Rep. Don Edwards of California to the FBI's statements against clemency for Peltier. Rep. Edwards served 16 terms in the House of Representatives, is a former FBI agent himself, and was the longtime chairman of the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Civil and Constitutional Rights which oversaw the Bureau.] (As appeared on the LPDC website)
12/14/00 As a former Congressman from California for over thirty years, a former FBI agent and a citizen committed to justice, I wish to speak out strongly against the FBI's efforts in opposing the clemency appeal of Leonard Peltier. I served as Chairman of the Subcommittee on Civil and Constitutional Rights in the U.S. House of Representatives. I took a personal interest in Mr. Peltier's case and became convinced that he never received a fair trial. Even the government now admits that the theory it presented against Mr. Peltier at trial was not true. After 24 years in prison, Leonard Peltier has served an inordinate amount of time and deserves the right to consideration of his clemency request on the facts and the merits. The FBI continues to deny its improper conduct on Pine Ridge during the 1970's and in the trial of Leonard Peltier. The FBI used Mr. Peltier as a scapegoat and they continue to do so today. At every step of the way, FBI agents and leadership have opposed any admission of wrongdoing by the government, and they have sought to misrepresent and politicize the meaning of clemency for Leonard Peltier. The killing of FBI agents at Pine Ridge was reprehensible, but the government now admits that it cannot prove that Mr. Peltier killed the agents. Granting clemency to Mr. Peltier should not be viewed as expressing any disrespect for the current agents or leadership of the FBI, nor would it represent any condoning of the killings that took place on Pine Ridge. Instead, clemency for Mr. Peltier would recognize past wrongdoing and the undermining of the government's case since trial. Finally, it would serve as a crucial step in the reconciliation and healing between the U.S. Government and Native Americans, on the Pine Ridge Reservation and throughout the country. [signature]
NPPA RESPONSE: THE VALUE OF BEING A FORMER FBI AGENT
Nothing the Leonard Peltier Defense Committee (LPDC) does is accidental or haphazard. Their position and approach to the Peltier issue is consistently aggressive and grounded in a deep-seated distrust of any government actions. Prominent on the home page of the freepeltier website is a link to a January 12, 2001 Cincinnati Enquirer article. With many newspapers carrying articles about Peltier, and especially during the flurry of activity concerning their efforts to convince former President Clinton to grant Peltier clemency, the LPDC chose to display this particular article. The question is why? And the answer should be obvious: One strong voice in opposition to the slanted presentation they have offered in the public forum originated, and continues, in Cincinnati, Ohio. Another conspicuous element on the LPDC homepage concerns the value they attach to being a former FBI agent. Either they recognize the additional credibility that service in the FBI brings, or they are being disingenuous by using this for their own anti-government agenda. Former U.S. Congressman Don Edwards has been a champion of social change. He is an intelligent, well educated, successful businessman, self-described as a liberal first and a Democrat second, who admirably represented his Northern California constituents for three decades, so much so that in 1986 he garnered 71% of the vote. While in Washington he continued his support for civil rights legislation enhancing the rights of death row inmates and opposing efforts for a constitutional amendment to prohibit flag burning. As a self-appointed guardian of civil rights and chairman of the Civil and Constitutional Rights Subcommittee, he carefully plotted a course to oversee one of his favorite targets in civil rights matters, the FBI. He chaired a lengthy subcommittee investigation into the FBI's premiere undercover public-corruption case, Abscam, claiming that he found, "widespread deviation from avowed standards, (resulting in) substantial harm to individuals and public institutions." (Congressional Directory). Later, though, several appellate courts and the U.S. Supreme Court upheld those techniques and convictions. Edwards apparently took every opportunity to scrutinize FBI activities while calling for greater congressional oversight of their investigations. A question that can be asked is why Mr. Edwards was so aggressive and vehement in his pursuit of the FBI? Was it his long-standing dedication to liberal causes or something else? Mr. Edwards, at almost every turn in his political career, emphasized a key aspect of his background and within a mere ten words into his "Rebuttal Statement" mentions the fact that he was "a former FBI agent," signifying for the reader that this credential alone provides him with additional credibility, and insiders view, to emphasize the points he makes concerning the Peltier matter. Yet, even given his own experiences in this area, he blatantly offers statements that are simply not true. He echoes the LPDC line that, "...the government now admits that it cannot prove that Mr. Peltier killed the agents." This is not true now, nor was it when the federal prosecutor made an unartful statement during oral arguments before an appeals court. Everyone, except perhaps the LPDC and Mr. Edwards, can read for themselves that this is not what the prosecutor meant, so much so that every single court review, especially the one that labeled this argument as "flawed," clearly stated that this was not a concession by the government. Whether Peltier pulled the trigger himself, or if the final fatal three shots were made collectively by Peltier, Robideau and Butler, it was firmly established from the very beginning; Peltier was indicted, charged, tried, convicted, and appealed on the issue of Aiding and Abetting in the murders of Agents' Coler and Williams. But Mr. Edwards wants the reader to believe that Peltier was somehow altogether innocent. Peltier's lies alone can prove his guilt to any reasonable person. To Mr. Edwards, freeing Peltier would "...serve as a crucial step..." toward reconciliation between the government and Native Americans. This fails to address that there are many more Native Americans who see Peltier not as a cause for healing but as a catalyst for dissent and festering hatred. He is not a unifying force. A free Peltier would do nothing to correct historical injustices. And even among Native Americans the concept of reconciliation has diverse and varied meaning. A December 19, 2000 NPPA letter to Mr. Edwards challenging the accuracy of his statements went unanswered. What causes Mr. Edwards to fight so openly for Peltier? A love of Peltier himself? Perhaps, but Leonard Peltier is not an altogether lovable character. A continued commitment to civil rights causes, again, perhaps, based on his long career in this area, but maybe also, a little retribution. What was it in Mr. Edwards FBI experience that soured him so early in a very brief career. Mr. Edward's resume lists his FBI service as 1940-41, and service in the U.S. Navy, 1942-1945. Curious dates indeed considering the world stage at that point in history. Rumors aside, contact with a number of people who were also in the FBI during those periods brings with it some additional factors concerning Mr. Edward's FBI service. He may have entered in 1940 but was out in 1941. Why? Some suggest that it was poor timing on his part; leaving what was a military-deferred occupation prior to December 7, 1941 left him open for the draft as the U.S. entered WWII. Some also say that Mr. Edwards did try to re-enter the Bureau after Pearl Harbor; the FBI certainly could have used the talents of a young Stanford educated lawyer who had been a former agent, but turned him down anyway. Mr. Edwards then entered the U.S. Navy in 1942 and until the end of the war served in "Naval Intelligence and as a gunnery officer." But whether his tour was stateside or not, is missing from his resume. So what was it in his early years and brief months of service in the FBI that helped create his life-long crusade against the Bureau? Perhaps, given the timing of these events, he just could not cut it as an agent and was forever embittered by not being able to continue with the FBI. On February 7, 2001, by simply calling directory information, I was able to obtain Mr. Edwards' home telephone number. He was very pleasant as I politely challenged some of the statements he has made in support of Peltier. His incredible reply was to refer me to the Leonard Peltier Defense Committee! "They have everything," he said. I also asked, "I understand you were an FBI Agent, when was that?" His answer, with a sound of pride in his voice, "I served from 1940 to 41." So here it comes full circle; a retired liberal Congressman, who's major claim to fame was that he was a former FBI agent for a few months (barely enough time to even learn what the job is all about), who vociferously challenged and attacked the FBI at every opportunity, leans on the LPDC for his own credibility. Mr. Edwards is no more qualified to speak as a former FBI Agent than, let's say, the LPDC's Jennifer Harbury. If Mr. Edwards relies on the LPDC for his incorrect facts, then certainly someone is being used. The LPDC is exploiting Mr. Edwards for one purpose, a not-so-subtle inference to further malign the FBI, which appears to be their central agenda. |
