It is important to note that Poor Bear later sought to recant her testimony (she claimed she was coerced and threatened by FBI agents) and appear as a defense witness at Peltier’s trial. The trial judge ruled she was mentally incompetent and could not be called as a witness. The fedgov today admits Poor Bear was not present at the Jumping Bull Ranch on the day of the shooting. They obviously fabricated evidence and suborned perjury to facilitate Peltier’s extradition.
In March of 1977, Leonard Peltier was found guilty of the murder of two FBI agents and given two life sentences. Peltier was found guilty without any witness testimony placing him as the shooter of the two agents. Exculpatory ballistics evidence was withheld and the new judge refused to allow testimony showing FBI tampering or witness intimidation. In short, Peltier was found guilty on the same testimony that set Butler and Robideau free. The difference was in the evidence that was allowed by the judge in Peltier’s trial.
Famed attorney, William Kunstler, would discover in 1982, in a telephone conversation with Judge Edward McManus, (who had presided over the Butler/Robideau trial) that McManus, not Benson, had been scheduled to try the Peltier case. Judge McManus had been astonished, he said, to find himself arbitrarily removed in favor of Judge Benson.
There exists zero evidence that Leonard Peltier was responsible in any way for the deaths of those two FBI agents. He has spent the last 33 years in confinement because the fedgov found it necessary to cover its crimes and malicious prosecution and to "get" someone for the deaths of two agents who were operating outside of the law and their oath to "uphold and defend" the constitution.
When President Reagan and Soviet Premier Gorbachev discussed human rights and political prisoners, Mikhail Gorbachev evoked a wave of protest from the U.S. press when he responded to Reagan's "human rights agenda" by suggesting the U.S. clean up its human rights violations, citing Indians in general and Leonard Peltier in particular.
I enthusiastically support the immediate release of Leonard Peltier and the prosecution of those who wrongfully caused his imprisonment. What I do vehemently oppose is the allegation by many American Indians that Leonard Peltier was convicted and imprisoned because of the color of his skin and that President Obama, himself a victim of racial prejudice, will move to pardon Peltier. Is it not absurd to claim the elected leader of the "free world" to be a victim of racial prejudice? Does his white half discriminate against his black half?
I would remind those who believe Leonard Peltier was targeted because of the color of his skin that Samuel Weaver, who was shot in the back by federal agents at the age of 14, was white. It was a federal agent (FBI agent Lon Horiuchi) who later shot his mother, Vicky, in the face, as she held Samuel’s younger sister; both were white. Although there were several minorities among the men, women and children incinerated or shot by federal agents at Waco, the majority of the 82 who died were white.
Indians, your fight is with the federal government, not a race of people. To allow your fight to be framed by those who profit from the polarization of the races is pure folly and plays into the federal government’s hands; it is possible Leonard Peltier will remain in prison as long as the race card is employed, because, to do so benefits those who put him there.
It is obviously hard for American Indians to challenge and lay at the feet of the federal government the blame for the above listed atrocities, considering a large number of American Indians are in the employ of the fedgov. The great majority of Indians employed by the fedgov have those jobs because of "Indian preference" hiring policies. Simply stated, many have these jobs, not because of their qualifications for the job, but because of the color of their skin. Has the fedgov purchased the right to wrongfully imprison Indians because they provide many of them with a paycheck?
Is it not racism when one reads the following in published employment ads: "We are an equal employment opportunity employer (EEO), Indian preference observed?" Does this mean a less qualified person should have the job if they are of the preferred skin tone? (Would Indians accept this practice in their brain surgeon; they accept it in those who teach their children.) It is impossible to claim racism when one claims preference in anything because of the color of their skin. Only the federal government could get away with claiming racism while practicing racism!
It is imperative all races stand together for justice and place the blame for corruption and criminality where it belongs. A thorough reading of the investigative articles in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette will show the victims of fedgov misconduct and criminal activity to be of all races; a large number of them white.
Cross-posted on www.lewrockwell.com
June 22, 2009
1 | 2
