[News] Leonard Peltier - Media Manipulation

[News at freedomarchives.org]

===================================

INJUSTICE AGAINST LEONARD PELTIER:
THE ROLE OF MEDIA MANIPULATION

===================================

Background

Beginning in January 1975, the Senate Select Committee to Study
Governmental Operations with Respect to Intelligence Activities,
known as the "Church Committee" (named after its chairman Frank
Church), took public and private testimony from hundreds of
people, collected huge volumes of files from the Federal Bureau
of Investigation (FBI) and many other federal agencies, and
issued 14 reports.

Since the passage of the JFK Assassination Records Collection
Act in 1992, over 50,000 pages of Church Committee records
have been declassified and made available to the public.  These
files contain testimony and information on the FBI’s counter-
intelligence programs and related topics.

As discovered by the Church Committee and reported in 1976,
the goals of the COounterINTELligence PROgrams of the period from
1956 to the mid-1970s were to "expose, disrupt, misdirect,
discredit, or otherwise neutralize" those persons or organizations
that the FBI decided were "enemies of the State."

The COINTELPROs were designed to "disrupt" groups and
"neutralize" individuals deemed to be threats to domestic
security.  The law – in particular, the U.S. Constitution – was
simply ignored.  There was a general attitude that intelligence
needs were responsive to a higher law.  According to the Church
Committee:  "Whatever opinion one holds about the policies of
the targeted groups, many of the tactics employed by the FBI
were indisputably degrading to a free society."

One of the most effective tactics used, as documented by the
Church Committee, was the use by the Bureau of the media to
not only impact on the public image of the FBI, but also to
disrupt the public communication channels of targeted
individuals and dissident groups, as well as spread mis-
information about them so as to adversely affect public
perceptions and attitudes.

Examples:

+ Planting a series of derogatory articles about Martin Luther
King, Jr., and the Poor People's Campaign.  In anticipation of
the 1968 "Poor People's March on Washington, DC," Bureau
Headquarters granted authority to furnish "cooperative news
media sources" an article "designed to curtail success of
Martin Luther King's fund raising."  Another memorandum
illustrated how "photographs of demonstrators" could be
used in discrediting the civil rights movement.  Six
photographs of participants in the poor people's campaign in
Cleveland accompanied the memorandum with the following
note attached:  "These [photographs] show the militant
aggressive appearance of the participants and might be of
interest to a cooperative news source."  Information on the
Poor People's Campaign was provided by the FBI to friendly
reporters on the condition that "the Bureau must not be
revealed as the source."

+ Soliciting information from Field Offices "on a continuing
basis" for "prompt
 dissemination to the news media
 to
discredit the New Left movement and its adherents."  The
Headquarters directive requested, among other things, that
specific data should be furnished depicting "the scurrilous and
depraved nature, of many of the characters, activities, habits,
and living conditions representative of New Left adherents

Every avenue of possible embarrassment must be vigorously
and enthusiastically explored."

+ Ordering Field Offices to gather information which would
disprove allegations by the "liberal press, the bleeding hearts,
and the forces on the left" that the Chicago police used undue
force in dealing with demonstrators at the 1968 Democratic
Convention.

+ Taking advantage of a close relationship with the Chairman of
the Board – described in an FBI memorandum as "our good
friend" – of a magazine with national circulation to influence
articles that related to the FBI.  For example, through this
relationship, the Bureau: "squelched" an "unfavorable article
against the Bureau" written by a freelance writer about an FBI
investigation; "postponed publication" of an article on another
FBI case; "forestalled publication" of an article by Dr. Martin
Luther King, Jr.; and received information about proposed editing
of King's articles.

As these instances demonstrate, the FBI has covertly influenced
the public's perception of persons and organizations by
disseminating derogatory information to the press, either
anonymously or through "friendly" news contacts.  The impact of
those articles is generally difficult to measure, although in some
cases there are fairly direct connections to injury to the target.
Beginning immediately after the shoot-out at Oglala, in force
during his trial, and continuing into recent history, this is
particularly true in the case of Leonard Peltier.  Yes, this
tactic continues to be used against Peltier today.

Executive Clemency

In 1993, Leonard Peltier requested Executive Clemency from
then President Clinton.  Peltier’s petition was not seriously
investigated or considered until the year 2000.

In 1999-2000, an intensive campaign was launched – supported
by Native and human rights organizations, members of
Congress, community and church groups, labor organizations,
luminaries, and celebrities.  The Peltier case became a national
issue.

On November 7, 2000, during a live radio interview, Clinton
stated that he would seriously consider Peltier's request for
clemency and make a decision before leaving office on January
20, 2001.

In response, the FBI launched a major "disinformation" campaign
in the media, and among key government officials and members
of Congress.

Many citizens were highly disturbed by a number of public
statements and actions by various FBI officers in 1999-2000.
These officials, by the way, publicly announced that their
one and only goal was to block the release of Mr. Peltier,
whether through parole or clemency.

At the outset, the propriety of members of the Department of
Justice (DOJ) engaging in such a public campaign was questionable.
Parole and clemency decisions are largely determined at various
branches of the Justice Department and neutrality and fairness
in the handling of such matters must be above reproach.  Having
members of one branch of the Department engaged in vigorous
lobbying on these matters (to Congress and the American people)
certainly raised serious questions.

Many of the statements made by DOJ officials during the
Peltier clemency campaign (and since) were false, intentionally
misleading, or omitted highly relevant information with the
intent of deceiving the public.  Still other statements were
highly emotional and dramatic, if not near hysterical, in
nature. These constant declarations were clearly intended to
misinform the public and create an atmosphere of fear and
confusion, all with the goal of depriving Mr. Peltier of a
fair and reasoned consideration of his legal requests for parole
and clemency.

Most notable, in November 1999, during efforts by a number of
Mr. Peltier's supporters to disseminate information and
increase public awareness about his case, the Federal Bureau
of Investigation Agents Association placed a large paid
advertisement in the Washington Post.  This ad intended to
mislead the public and obstruct full and fair consideration
of Peltier’s parole and clemency requests with statements that
were inappropriate, inaccurate, deceptive, and inflammatory.

Similar public statements were made by individual FBI agents,
as well as the organizers of a Web site dedicated to denying
a fair consideration of Mr. Peltier’s requests for parole.

But nothing was more bizarre than the event of December 15, 2000.
In an unprecedented event, over 500 FBI agents marched in front
of the White House to oppose clemency for Leonard Peltier.  The
agents claimed to be exercising their First Amendment rights and
argued they were acting as private citizens on their own time
despite the fact that this march took place during standard
business hours.  FBI agents are law enforcement officers, it
should be remembered.  As such, they are generally considered
to be always on duty.  They also are officers of the court and on
ethical grounds should have refrained from out-of-court
communication, verbal or otherwise.

The marchers risked disciplinary action (which never
materialized, despite the concerns of then Attorney General
Janet Reno) for one purpose, we believe, i.e., to garner media
attention.  Indeed, the media paid special attention to the staged
event, with segments airing on evening news programs of all the
major television networks.  There appeared to have been a news
blackout, however, with regard to the event five days earlier when
THOUSANDS of people marched in support of Leonard Peltier in front
of the United Nations building in New York City.

All of the above tactics proved successful.  Despite indications
from the White House that clemency was imminent, on January 20,
2001, the list of clemencies granted by Clinton was released to
the media.  Without explanation, Peltier's name had been excluded.

Continuing Media Manipulation

State ethics rules prohibit prejudicial statements by attorneys in a
case.  These rules apply in both state and federal court, and to
prosecutors and defense attorneys alike.  The Supreme Court in
Gentile v. State Bar of Nevada noted that "[f]ew interests under
the Constitution are more fundamental than the right to a fair trial
by impartial jurors," and such ethics rules are necessary to
uphold that right.

The American Bar Association’s Model Rule 3.6, on Trial
Publicity, sets the standard.  It prohibits an attorney who is
participating in a case investigation or litigation – as well as any
lawyer in the same firm or government agency – from making an
out-of-court statement that would have the substantial likelihood
of prejudicing "an adjudicative proceeding" in the matter.

In early February 2004, a murder trial was held in Rapid City,
South Dakota.  Arlo Looking Cloud was charged in the murder of
Anna Mae Pictou Aquash in 1976.

During the trial, it is true that the U.S. prosecutor refrained
from making out-of-court statements.  However, the majority of
the testimony presented by the U.S. prosecutor during the four-
day trial concerned the American Indian Movement (AIM), in
general, and Leonard Peltier, in particular, and had no relevance
to the government’s case.

There is no ethics rule to prevent in-court statements.
Reporters observing the trial were treated to a barrage of
prejudicial information that served to sensationalize the
proceedings.  This clearly had an effect on jurors, but we
believe the real target audience was the media and, by extension,
the American public.

The style and content of the articles published by the media
during the February trial of Arlo Looking Cloud were
alarmingly similar to those published by the media at the
request of particular FBI agents during Peltier supporters’
campaign for Executive Clemency in 1999-2001.

Since the Looking Cloud trial, the media mentions about
Peltier have increased, as well as highlighted and exaggerated
the testimony given during the trial, to the extent that now
it is claimed that Peltier may have ordered the murder of
Annie Mae.

What the media does not report is that Leonard Peltier simply did
not have the authority within AIM to order any such action.  At
the alleged time of the murder, Peltier was himself a prisoner
in a Canadian prison and mostly isolated from the happenings in
South Dakota.  Leonard did not learn many of the details
of Annie Mae's death until he was extradited to the United States
in December 1976, nearly one year after her murder occurred.
Leonard Peltier simply had nothing whatsoever to do with Anna Mae
Aquash's murder.

Conclusion

Nearly 30 years after the incident at Oglala, the FBI and
government prosecutors still engage in vengeful acts.  They
carefully avoided out-of-court statements this past year,
However, they did use actual court proceedings, primarily for
the benefit of the media, to intentionally provide as fact
false information to the public on AIM and Leonard Peltier.
This has the effect of rewriting history with regard to AIM,
in general, and Leonard Peltier, in particular, so as to
prejudice the public against them.  The sensational claims
of witnesses – some of them paid informants – were widely
reported in the press.  As other prosecutions with respect
to the Aquash murder are pending, such behavior has the
appearance of having been done for the purpose of prejudicing
the public against AIM in a state where anti-AIM sentiment
and racism against Native Americans already runs very high.
In our considered opinion, these actions have been taken to
influence the outcome of pending federal prosecutions by
potentially poisoning the jury pool, as well as destroy
support for Peltier and prevent his release on parole in 2008.

============================================================
============================================================

The "PeltierSupport" Mailing List is a service of the
Peltier Legal Team.


at <http://www.peltiersupport.org>http://www.peltiersupport.org



The Freedom Archives
522 Valencia Street
San Francisco, CA 94110
(415) 863-9977
www.freedomarchives.org 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://freedomarchives.org/pipermail/news_freedomarchives.org/attachments/20050225/d5190276/attachment.htm>