He Killed Two FBI Agents. Or He Was Framed. After 40 Years, Will Obama Free Leonard Peltier?

[Algernon Moncrieff]

Mother Jones

Peltier's case has long been a flash point in the strained relations between federal law enforcement and Native Americans. The killings occurred on the the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation in South Dakota, about 18 miles from Wounded Knee, where 300 Sioux were massacred by the US military in 1890.

In 1973, about 200 Sioux, led by members of the American Indian Movement, occupied Wounded Knee for 71 days to protest injustices against Native Americans and what they perceived as the corrupt leadership of the reservation's president. By the end of the standoff, two Native Americans had been killed, 12 were wounded, and 12 were "missing" but suspected of having been killed by tribal leadership, according to Peltier's petition.

The three years after the Wounded Knee occupation became known within Native American circles as the "Reign of Terror," a period during which dozens of Native Americans were murdered and hundreds were assaulted by a private militia that was aligned with Oglala Lakota Souix chairman Dick Wilson and known as the "GOON squad." Two years after that, with the Reign of Terror fresh on the minds of everyone in the area, the deadly shootout with the FBI agents occurred.

Many of the facts about the deaths of FBI agents Jack Williams and Robert Coler are disputed. The FBI says the agents were on the reservation to arrest a different man wanted for robbery and that they were not looking for Peltier, who was wanted on a separate warrant related to an alleged attempted murder of an off-duty police officer in Milwaukee. When the agents came to the reservation that day, according to the FBI, they encountered a vehicle carrying Peltier and found themselves under fire. Williams and Coler each died as a result of point-blank shots to the head.

[haikugal]

1. Bernie would but Obama? I doubt it even though he should. Don Siegelman as well! nt

[Jeffersons Ghost]

2. Don Siegelman for sure

The crime Siegelman was first indicted on, is a common practice among elected officials in many states and Washington DC. The miscarriage of justice, which ensued later, is uncommon in ANY context.

Cruel Justice: The Case of Don Siegelman

Of all the egregious instances of misconduct by the Bush administration’s Department of Justice — its ruthless pursuit of voting rights cases and government corruption cases against Democrats and firing U.S. attorneys who resisted — no case epitomizes the abusive, vindictive, and politically-driven agenda as much as the prosecution of Don Siegelman. In 2002, Siegelman, a Democrat, was governor of the blood-red state of Alabama and was predicted to win re-election. But according to sworn and strongly-corroborated testimony before the House Judiciary Committee, Alabama’s top Republican operative Bill Canary contacted Karl Rove and instigated the Justice Department’s prosecution of Siegelman. Rove contacted the Public Integrity Section, and Canary declared confidentially that “his girls would take care of Siegelman.” When asked who “his girls” were, Canary replied Alice Martin, the United States Attorney for the Northern District of Alabama, and Leura Canary, the United States Attorney for the Middle District of Alabama. Leura Canary, by the way, is Bill Canary’s wife.

Rumblings about the Justice Department’s investigation of Siegelman permeated the media, and cost Siegelman the re-election, but by a hair; Republican Bob Riley prevailed by a few thousand votes, mysteriously discovered in a polling place in a rural county vacated by Democratic poll-watchers after polls closed. Siegelman, polls showed, was heavily favored to win a re-match against any Republican opponent. But that was before federal prosecutors revved up their hunt.

First, Alice Martin, one of Bill Canary’s “girls,” indicted Siegelman in 2004 for bid-rigging on state contracts. But that indictment was dismissed almost as quickly as it was brought by Federal District Judge U.W. Clemon, one of the most senior judges in Alabama. Judge Clemon, in throwing out the indictment for lack of evidence, wrote that the prosecution “was completely without legal merit” and in a further remarkable statement, said that the prosecution of Siegelman “was the most unfounded criminal case over which I presided in my entire judicial career.”

However, Bill Canary’s other “girl,” his wife Leura, had much better success. Her office indicted Siegelman for numerous RICO violations and a bribery count for accepting a large donation to a state lottery campaign to fund free tuition for high school graduates and appointing the donor to a seat on the state medical board, a position he had held under three previous administrations. The bribery charge appears to have been the first bribery case ever brought by the Justice Department that was predicated on an issue-advocacy campaign contribution in which the alleged beneficiary, Siegelman, received not one penny. There was another big difference in the two prosecutions - a different federal judge. Presiding over the Canary prosecution was Judge Mark Fuller, who according to sworn testimony before the House Judiciary Committee, was handpicked by the Justice Department to “hang Don Siegelman.” Fuller had been investigated by Siegelman for financial fraud when Siegelman previously was Alabama’s Attorney General.

The jury deliberated for 11 days, repeating several times that it was “hopelessly deadlocked,” before finding Siegelman guilty of the one bribery count, and acquitting him of the 22 RICO counts. Fuller had given the jury a questionable legal instruction by omitting one of the key legal requirements to convict of bribery — the need for an explicit promise of understanding. Indeed, under Fuller’s deficiently-worded instruction, every U.S. President who has ever appointed as an Ambassador a wealthy donor who has contributed heavily to the president’s campaign would be guilty of bribery. And the incendiary RICO corruption counts - all 22 of them? The jury acquitted because proof was non-existent. Indeed, it strongly appears the motive of the federal prosecutors in including the RICO counts in the indictment was for the inflammatory purpose of contaminating the jury by portraying Siegelman as part of a corrupt conspiracy and thereby improving their chances of getting a conviction on something. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bennett-l-gershman/cruel-justice-the-case-of_b_5434216.html

[haikugal]

3. Thanks! There are some here who don't know this history. nt