<html>
<body>
<font size=3><br><br>
</font><font face="Arial, Helvetica" size=3>===================================
<br><br>
INJUSTICE AGAINST LEONARD PELTIER: <br>
THE ROLE OF MEDIA MANIPULATION <br>
<br>
=================================== <br><br>
Background <br>
<br>
Beginning in January 1975, the Senate Select Committee to Study <br>
Governmental Operations with Respect to Intelligence Activities, <br>
known as the "Church Committee" (named after its chairman Frank
<br>
Church), took public and private testimony from hundreds of <br>
people, collected huge volumes of files from the Federal Bureau <br>
of Investigation (FBI) and many other federal agencies, and <br>
issued 14 reports. <br>
<br>
Since the passage of the JFK Assassination Records Collection <br>
Act in 1992, over 50,000 pages of Church Committee records <br>
have been declassified and made available to the public. These
<br>
files contain testimony and information on the FBI’s counter- <br>
intelligence programs and related topics. <br>
<br>
As discovered by the Church Committee and reported in 1976, <br>
the goals of the COounterINTELligence PROgrams of the period from <br>
1956 to the mid-1970s were to "expose, disrupt, misdirect, <br>
discredit, or otherwise neutralize" those persons or organizations
<br>
that the FBI decided were "enemies of the State."
<br>
<br>
The COINTELPROs were designed to "disrupt" groups and <br>
"neutralize" individuals deemed to be threats to domestic
<br>
security. The law – in particular, the U.S. Constitution – was
<br>
simply ignored. There was a general attitude that intelligence
<br>
needs were responsive to a higher law. According to the Church
<br>
Committee: "Whatever opinion one holds about the policies of
<br>
the targeted groups, many of the tactics employed by the FBI <br>
were indisputably degrading to a free society." <br>
<br>
One of the most effective tactics used, as documented by the <br>
Church Committee, was the use by the Bureau of the media to <br>
not only impact on the public image of the FBI, but also to <br>
disrupt the public communication channels of targeted <br>
individuals and dissident groups, as well as spread mis- <br>
information about them so as to adversely affect public <br>
perceptions and attitudes. <br>
<br>
Examples: <br>
<br>
+ Planting a series of derogatory articles about Martin Luther <br>
King, Jr., and the Poor People's Campaign. In anticipation of
<br>
the 1968 "Poor People's March on Washington, DC," Bureau <br>
Headquarters granted authority to furnish "cooperative news <br>
media sources" an article "designed to curtail success of
<br>
Martin Luther King's fund raising." Another memorandum <br>
illustrated how "photographs of demonstrators" could be <br>
used in discrediting the civil rights movement. Six <br>
photographs of participants in the poor people's campaign in <br>
Cleveland accompanied the memorandum with the following <br>
note attached: "These [photographs] show the militant <br>
aggressive appearance of the participants and might be of <br>
interest to a cooperative news source." Information on the
<br>
Poor People's Campaign was provided by the FBI to friendly <br>
reporters on the condition that "the Bureau must not be <br>
revealed as the source." <br>
<br>
+ Soliciting information from Field Offices "on a continuing <br>
basis" for "prompt… dissemination to the news media… to <br>
discredit the New Left movement and its adherents." The <br>
Headquarters directive requested, among other things, that <br>
specific data should be furnished depicting "the scurrilous and
<br>
depraved nature, of many of the characters, activities, habits, <br>
and living conditions representative of New Left adherents… <br>
Every avenue of possible embarrassment must be vigorously <br>
and enthusiastically explored." <br>
<br>
+ Ordering Field Offices to gather information which would <br>
disprove allegations by the "liberal press, the bleeding hearts,
<br>
and the forces on the left" that the Chicago police used undue
<br>
force in dealing with demonstrators at the 1968 Democratic <br>
Convention. <br>
<br>
+ Taking advantage of a close relationship with the Chairman of <br>
the Board – described in an FBI memorandum as "our good <br>
friend" – of a magazine with national circulation to influence
<br>
articles that related to the FBI. For example, through this <br>
relationship, the Bureau: "squelched" an "unfavorable
article <br>
against the Bureau" written by a freelance writer about an FBI
<br>
investigation; "postponed publication" of an article on another
<br>
FBI case; "forestalled publication" of an article by Dr. Martin
<br>
Luther King, Jr.; and received information about proposed editing <br>
of King's articles. <br>
<br>
As these instances demonstrate, the FBI has covertly influenced <br>
the public's perception of persons and organizations by <br>
disseminating derogatory information to the press, either <br>
anonymously or through "friendly" news contacts. The
impact of <br>
those articles is generally difficult to measure, although in some <br>
cases there are fairly direct connections to injury to the target.
<br>
Beginning immediately after the shoot-out at Oglala, in force <br>
during his trial, and continuing into recent history, this is <br>
particularly true in the case of Leonard Peltier. Yes, this <br>
tactic continues to be used against Peltier today. <br>
<br>
Executive Clemency <br>
<br>
In 1993, Leonard Peltier requested Executive Clemency from <br>
then President Clinton. Peltier’s petition was not seriously <br>
investigated or considered until the year 2000. <br>
<br>
In 1999-2000, an intensive campaign was launched – supported <br>
by Native and human rights organizations, members of <br>
Congress, community and church groups, labor organizations, <br>
luminaries, and celebrities. The Peltier case became a national
<br>
issue. <br>
<br>
On November 7, 2000, during a live radio interview, Clinton <br>
stated that he would seriously consider Peltier's request for <br>
clemency and make a decision before leaving office on January <br>
20, 2001. <br>
<br>
In response, the FBI launched a major "disinformation" campaign
<br>
in the media, and among key government officials and members <br>
of Congress. <br>
<br>
Many citizens were highly disturbed by a number of public <br>
statements and actions by various FBI officers in 1999-2000. <br>
These officials, by the way, publicly announced that their <br>
one and only goal was to block the release of Mr. Peltier, <br>
whether through parole or clemency. <br>
<br>
At the outset, the propriety of members of the Department of <br>
Justice (DOJ) engaging in such a public campaign was questionable. <br>
Parole and clemency decisions are largely determined at various <br>
branches of the Justice Department and neutrality and fairness <br>
in the handling of such matters must be above reproach. Having
<br>
members of one branch of the Department engaged in vigorous <br>
lobbying on these matters (to Congress and the American people) <br>
certainly raised serious questions. <br>
<br>
Many of the statements made by DOJ officials during the <br>
Peltier clemency campaign (and since) were false, intentionally <br>
misleading, or omitted highly relevant information with the <br>
intent of deceiving the public. Still other statements were <br>
highly emotional and dramatic, if not near hysterical, in <br>
nature. These constant declarations were clearly intended to <br>
misinform the public and create an atmosphere of fear and <br>
confusion, all with the goal of depriving Mr. Peltier of a <br>
fair and reasoned consideration of his legal requests for parole <br>
and clemency. <br>
<br>
Most notable, in November 1999, during efforts by a number of <br>
Mr. Peltier's supporters to disseminate information and <br>
increase public awareness about his case, the Federal Bureau <br>
of Investigation Agents Association placed a large paid <br>
advertisement in the Washington Post. This ad intended to <br>
mislead the public and obstruct full and fair consideration <br>
of Peltier’s parole and clemency requests with statements that <br>
were inappropriate, inaccurate, deceptive, and inflammatory. <br>
<br>
Similar public statements were made by individual FBI agents, <br>
as well as the organizers of a Web site dedicated to denying <br>
a fair consideration of Mr. Peltier’s requests for parole. <br>
<br>
But nothing was more bizarre than the event of December 15, 2000. <br>
In an unprecedented event, over 500 FBI agents marched in front <br>
of the White House to oppose clemency for Leonard Peltier. The
<br>
agents claimed to be exercising their First Amendment rights and <br>
argued they were acting as private citizens on their own time <br>
despite the fact that this march took place during standard <br>
business hours. FBI agents are law enforcement officers, it <br>
should be remembered. As such, they are generally considered <br>
to be always on duty. They also are officers of the court and on
<br>
ethical grounds should have refrained from out-of-court <br>
communication, verbal or otherwise. <br>
<br>
The marchers risked disciplinary action (which never <br>
materialized, despite the concerns of then Attorney General <br>
Janet Reno) for one purpose, we believe, i.e., to garner media <br>
attention. Indeed, the media paid special attention to the staged
<br>
event, with segments airing on evening news programs of all the <br>
major television networks. There appeared to have been a news
<br>
blackout, however, with regard to the event five days earlier when <br>
THOUSANDS of people marched in support of Leonard Peltier in front <br>
of the United Nations building in New York City. <br>
<br>
All of the above tactics proved successful. Despite indications
<br>
from the White House that clemency was imminent, on January 20, <br>
2001, the list of clemencies granted by Clinton was released to <br>
the media. Without explanation, Peltier's name had been excluded.
<br>
<br>
Continuing Media Manipulation <br>
<br>
State ethics rules prohibit prejudicial statements by attorneys in a
<br>
case. These rules apply in both state and federal court, and to
<br>
prosecutors and defense attorneys alike. The Supreme Court in
<br>
Gentile v. State Bar of Nevada noted that "[f]ew interests under
<br>
the Constitution are more fundamental than the right to a fair trial
<br>
by impartial jurors," and such ethics rules are necessary to <br>
uphold that right. <br>
<br>
The American Bar Association’s Model Rule 3.6, on Trial <br>
Publicity, sets the standard. It prohibits an attorney who is
<br>
participating in a case investigation or litigation – as well as any
<br>
lawyer in the same firm or government agency – from making an <br>
out-of-court statement that would have the substantial likelihood <br>
of prejudicing "an adjudicative proceeding" in the
matter. <br>
<br>
In early February 2004, a murder trial was held in Rapid City, <br>
South Dakota. Arlo Looking Cloud was charged in the murder of
<br>
Anna Mae Pictou Aquash in 1976. <br>
<br>
During the trial, it is true that the U.S. prosecutor refrained <br>
from making out-of-court statements. However, the majority of
<br>
the testimony presented by the U.S. prosecutor during the four- <br>
day trial concerned the American Indian Movement (AIM), in <br>
general, and Leonard Peltier, in particular, and had no relevance <br>
to the government’s case. <br>
<br>
There is no ethics rule to prevent in-court statements. <br>
Reporters observing the trial were treated to a barrage of <br>
prejudicial information that served to sensationalize the <br>
proceedings. This clearly had an effect on jurors, but we <br>
believe the real target audience was the media and, by extension, <br>
the American public. <br>
<br>
The style and content of the articles published by the media <br>
during the February trial of Arlo Looking Cloud were <br>
alarmingly similar to those published by the media at the <br>
request of particular FBI agents during Peltier supporters’ <br>
campaign for Executive Clemency in 1999-2001. <br>
<br>
Since the Looking Cloud trial, the media mentions about <br>
Peltier have increased, as well as highlighted and exaggerated <br>
the testimony given during the trial, to the extent that now <br>
it is claimed that Peltier may have ordered the murder of <br>
Annie Mae. <br>
<br>
What the media does not report is that Leonard Peltier simply did <br>
not have the authority within AIM to order any such action. At
<br>
the alleged time of the murder, Peltier was himself a prisoner <br>
in a Canadian prison and mostly isolated from the happenings in <br>
South Dakota. Leonard did not learn many of the details <br>
of Annie Mae's death until he was extradited to the United States <br>
in December 1976, nearly one year after her murder occurred. <br>
Leonard Peltier simply had nothing whatsoever to do with Anna Mae <br>
Aquash's murder. <br>
<br>
Conclusion <br>
<br>
Nearly 30 years after the incident at Oglala, the FBI and <br>
government prosecutors still engage in vengeful acts. They <br>
carefully avoided out-of-court statements this past year, <br>
However, they did use actual court proceedings, primarily for <br>
the benefit of the media, to intentionally provide as fact <br>
false information to the public on AIM and Leonard Peltier. <br>
This has the effect of rewriting history with regard to AIM, <br>
in general, and Leonard Peltier, in particular, so as to <br>
prejudice the public against them. The sensational claims <br>
of witnesses – some of them paid informants – were widely <br>
reported in the press. As other prosecutions with respect <br>
to the Aquash murder are pending, such behavior has the <br>
appearance of having been done for the purpose of prejudicing <br>
the public against AIM in a state where anti-AIM sentiment <br>
and racism against Native Americans already runs very high. <br>
In our considered opinion, these actions have been taken to <br>
influence the outcome of pending federal prosecutions by <br>
potentially poisoning the jury pool, as well as destroy <br>
support for Peltier and prevent his release on parole in 2008. <br>
<br>
============================================================ <br>
============================================================ <br>
<br>
</font><font face="Arial, Helvetica" size=2>The
"PeltierSupport" Mailing List is a service of the <br>
Peltier Legal Team. <br>
<br><br>
at
<a href="http://www.peltiersupport.org">http://www.peltiersupport.org</a><br><br>
</font><font face="Arial, Helvetica" size=3> </font> <br>
<x-sigsep><p></x-sigsep>
<font size=3 color="#FF0000">The Freedom Archives<br>
522 Valencia Street<br>
San Francisco, CA 94110<br>
(415) 863-9977<br>
</font><font size=3><a href="http://www.freedomarchives.org/" eudora="autourl">www.freedomarchives.org</a></font></body>
</html>