|
Background
Historical Context
 To
better understand the Peltier case, it is important to put the
shoot-out on June 26, 1975, in its proper context and understand
that the incident at Oglala was part of a larger struggle—a
struggle that continues today.
Your Focus
 To
understand the gross injustice of the Peltier case, it is not at
all necessary that you agree with but understand the politics of
the American Indian Movement (AIM) and the struggle in which
Indigenous People were engaged in the 1970s.
We urge you not to focus on the reasonableness of the basis for the
investigation of AIM by the Federal Bureau of Investigation
(FBI) or the politics, rhetoric, or
actions of AIM. Instead, focus on the chief investigative branch of the
United States government (the FBI) and its counterintelligence program
through which the Bureau—according to the U.S. Senate Select Committee to Study Governmental
Operations with Respect to Intelligence Activities, or the
"Church Committee"—engaged in "lawless tactics" and responded to "deep-seated social problems by fomenting
violence and unrest." The fact is that, with regard to its
counterintelligence operations, the Church
Committee found the Bureau responsible for:
-
violating and ignoring the
law;
-
exceeding its powers with regard to domestic intelligence
activity;
-
using excessively intrusive techniques against United States
citizens;
-
using covert action to disrupt and discredit domestic groups;
-
abusing intelligence information for
political purposes; and
-
having inadequate controls, as well as no
accountability.
The FBI conducted more than 2,000
counterintelligence operations
before the programs were officially discontinued in April of 1971, after public exposure, in order to "afford additional security to
[its] sensitive techniques and operations." While the programs
themselves were discontinued, the practices that the Church Committee
found so objectionable were not. The FBI's intent was/is to continue
such practices as deemed necessary and completely at its own whim. That
intent was clearly stated by the FBI. It's a matter of
public record.
It is a fact (and one supported by the
government's own documents) that the FBI actively supported the
"Reign of Terror" on the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation; sought to disrupt
and "neutralize" AIM; and targeted AIM members, including human rights
activist Leonard Peltier. It also is fact that the FBI, supported by government prosecutors,
orchestrated
the wrongful conviction and illegal imprisonment of Leonard Peltier.
Numerous revelations of comparable FBI
misconduct have been made in recent years. Whether it is exposure by its
own forensic specialists of the fact that the Bureau's crime lab has
systematically fabricated physical evidence for purposes of obtaining the
convictions of thousands of possibly innocent people; or the frame-up (and
subsequent life imprisonment) of three men the FBI knew to be innocent so
as to protect a murderous mob informant—or other examples
too numerous to review here—the pattern remains consistent. Subverting law in pursuit of
"order," the
FBI continues today—bolstered by its investigative powers under the U.S. Patriot Act—to
employ the vast resources at its disposal in destroying those whose
viewpoints and activities it deems politically objectionable, and then to
hide the truth of what it has done from the public it supposedly serves.
Decide for Yourself
As you read about this case, ask yourself
these important questions.
-
How would you respond to
extreme danger, especially that posed by the FBI on June 26,
1975? Imagine living in the midst of the Pine Ridge "Reign of
Terror"—a
"war zone,"
in fact—and
being subjected to an unanticipated "home invasion" by unknown assailants (the plain
clothed agents drove unmarked cars and failed to identify
themselves as agents of the FBI). Having the means to
do so, wouldn't you defend yourself, family and friends—including women,
children and elders—against
bodily harm and possible death?
-
The jury in the
trial of Leonard's co-defendants—Dino
Butler and Bob Robideau—recognized that
the will to survive is instinctive and the right to self-defense
is fundamental. The Indians had a right to be on the Jumping
Bull property and they were not engaged in
unlawful activity. There was no evidence that they either
provoked an assault or were the aggressors in one. In light of the terror on
the Pine Ridge Reservation during the previous three years, the
history of official misconduct on the part of the FBI in its
war against AIM, and the reckless behavior of the
agents on June 26, 1975, the jury decided the Natives had a reasonable belief that their actions—meeting
force with force, even deadly force, as they admitted to have
done—were necessary to prevent
death or great bodily harm to themselves or others. The jury
acquitted Butler and Robideau on grounds of self-defense.
-
Had Leonard been tried with
his co-defendants, he also would have been acquitted of the crimes he was
alleged to have committed. However, Leonard was tried separately
and
Judge Paul Benson did not allow Peltier to argue self-defense
(even though his actions on June 26, 1975, were no different
than those of his co-defendants).
Leonard also was prevented from presenting critical evidence
as to the FBI's pattern of misconduct in AIM-related cases, as
well as the atmosphere of terror the FBI helped to create on the Pine
Ridge Reservation. Leonard Peltier was found guilty not because
he was guilty, but because crucial aspects of his trial were
manipulated to favor the prosecution and, consequently, cause a
conviction.
Click here to review a table
that briefly points out the differences between the two trials.
-
The
Butler/Robideau verdict indicates that the defendants' actions
on June 26, 1975, did not constitute a crime. Yet, Leonard is imprisoned, the government now claims, for
"aiding and abetting" a crime. What crime? Self defense? In its ruling on September 11, 1986, the
appellate court observed that all indications were that the
jurors had convicted Peltier of first degree murder on the
premise that he was the shooter. Also, as a matter of law, the
elements of "aiding and abetting" are well defined, i.e.,
"aiding and abetting" isn't merely a matter of the accused
having been present. It also is true that when the principals in
a crime have been found not guilty, as Butler and Robideau were,
there is no one who can be responsible for having "aided and
abetted."
-
Who did
Peltier aid and abet? Innocent men? Government prosecutors
now claim that
Peltier aided and abetted himself. They make this
claim despite the fact that they have repeatedly admitted that
they "did not and cannot prove" that Peltier caused the deaths of
their agents. But guess what? The government also claims it
doesn't have to prove Peltier's guilt. It would seem, at least
in the case of Leonard Peltier, that the "burden of proof" no
longer rests with the prosecution. And "guilt beyond a
reasonable doubt" is no longer the rule of criminal law?
-
As late as November
2003, the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals acknowledged that "…Much of the
government’s behavior at the Pine Ridge Reservation and its prosecution of
Leonard Peltier is to be condemned. The government withheld evidence. It
intimidated witnesses. These facts are not disputed." In a
system of equal justice, is it right that the Leonard
Peltier has been imprisoned for over 30
years when there is proof that he was convicted on the basis
of fabricated or suppressed evidence, as well as coerced testimony?
-
Further, it is a fact that the
U.S. Parole Commission has failed to comply with its own congressionally
mandated guidelines as regards its denials of Peltier's petitions for
parole. Others convicted of similar
crimes are released on parole after serving a fraction of the time already
served by Peltier. From the time of Peltier's
conviction in 1977 until the mid-1990s, according to the Bureau
of Justice Statistics (U.S. Department of Justice), the average
length of imprisonment served for homicide in the United States
ranged from 94 to 99.8 months. Even if you were
to take Peltier's two consecutive life sentences into
account at the higher end of this range, it is clear that
Peltier should have been released a very long time
ago. In a system of equal rights, is
it just that Peltier be repeatedly denied fair consideration for
parole?
-
The Parole Commission stated at one hearing
that the denial of parole was based upon Leonard Peltier’s participation in an
"ambush" and
the "premeditated and cold blooded execution of these two officers." Yet, there was never any evidence
that an "ambush" occurred. There also was no witness testimony that Leonard Peltier shot the two
FBI agents. There was no witness testimony that placed Leonard Peltier near
the agents' vehicles before their deaths and evidence shows
that those witnesses
placing Peltier, Robideau and Butler near the scene after the
killings were coerced and intimidated by the FBI. There was no forensic
evidence as to the exact type of rifle used to shoot the agents. Several
different weapons present in the area during the shoot-out—evidence now
shows that there were other AR-15 rifles in the area—could have caused
the fatal injuries. In addition, the AR-15 rifle claimed to be Leonard Peltier’s weapon was found to be incompatible with the bullet casing
allegedly found near Agent Coler’s car. Although other bullets were fired
on
the Jumping Bull property that day, no other casings or evidence about them were offered by
the prosecutor in this case. In short, there was/is no reasonable evidence
that Leonard Peltier was responsible for the deaths of the agents. Should the
Parole Commission be allowed to so completely ignore the court record?
-
More
recently, it also has been made clear by the Parole Commission that Mr.
Peltier will not receive parole until he "recognizes his crime." A simple
admission? What guilty man would pass up such an opportunity for freedom?
After 30 years of imprisonment, even an innocent man might be tempted to
make a false confession for the sake of freedom. But Peltier steadfastly
maintains his innocence. "I don't care if I have to spend the rest of my
life [in prison]. I won't confess to a crime I did not commit."
-
After all
that's been uncovered as to the misconduct in this case over the past 30
years, the government still hides from the truth and argues for the continued imprisonment of
Leonard Peltier. The FBI
claims that Leonard Peltier is a "mad dog killer." However, the record
clearly shows that Leonard Peltier is a nonviolent man and has never hurt
anyone... not before the shoot-out in 1975, certainly, but also not while
on the run, at the time of his arrest, or during his escape—very
desperate times, times when violence would have been expected were he the
brute the government claims him to be. Prison staff have attested
to his nonviolent nature and his overall prison record supports their
judgment in this regard. In light of this, should the government be
allowed to prevent Leonard's parole with such scurrilous claims?
-
The FBI and
government prosecutors
say Peltier should spend the rest of his life behind bars and that his release
from prison would be an affront to law enforcement.
However, the government "did not and cannot prove"
that Leonard Peltier shot their agents and Peltier's
sentence following his wrongful conviction—handed down by a court of law—did not
exclude parole. What is the
government's motive for circumventing the court's decision?
Justice?... Or an insatiable hunger for revenge? Or are some government officials
keeping Peltier behind bars merely because they've staked their
reputations on his case?
-
As regards the Peltier trial and his
subsequent appeals, how does this case match up with your
understanding of the U.S. Constitution? In its entirety, does
this case follow the precepts of
American justice? Should the U.S. government be allowed to use the
courts to "neutralize" those with differing political views? Or
to convict defendants by fabricating or withholding evidence and
presenting false testimony?
-
The U.S.
appellate courts, by their decisions, have recognized the
undisputed misconduct in Leonard Peltier's case, yet have
refused to take corrective action. If the courts can't defend Americans'
rights, who can?
-
The White House and the U.S. Congress also have refused to take corrective action
in this case. Shouldn't our elected officials act on behalf of
all
Americans?
-
And,
finally, as American citizens, isn't it our
civic duty to remain vigilant, challenge abuses of
power, and protect the ideals on which this country was founded?
Educate yourself. Arm yourself
with the truth. And demand freedom for Leonard Peltier.
More Information
 |
The Activist