> I dont know where you came up with such a definitive
> judgement from reading this piece. Nowhere is anything
> like guilt proven.
The piece says quite clearly that he was guilty of the lesser charges of abetting the killing of two agents (of which he was convicted in the court of law) and suggests that he may be guilty of actually killing the agents and possibly ordering the killing of a witness. Of course the two latter are not proved, but the former is. That is enough to justify the statement "another leftist martyr turns out to be guilty."
Quite frankly, I do not believe that law enforcement officers use the criminal justice system for their own personal vendettas. This is simply not a very good way to settle personal scores, especially for those who have access to other means of coercion or violence. The US legal system is generally pretty fair - occasional cases of corruption or wild accusations of such corruption notwithstanding. Personal vendetta or not, the cops must have a pretty good case to use this venue. If they wanted to merely settle a personal score without having a good court case - it would be much simpler to arrange for the guy's death (e.g. by blackmailing a criminal to do it for them) instead of going to the trouble of fabricating evidence and risking that it may not go as planned in court.
In that light, it seems quite probable that the likes of Mr. Peltier or Mr. Abu-Jamal are guilty as charged. Of course, that should be separated from the causes they espoused - which are worthwhile even if their supporters err in the selection of means of fighting for them.
I know that I am opening an old can of worms, but the Robin Hood scheme of turning villains into folk and civil rights heroes seems to be quite stale and not very effective in achieving political goals anymore. It does not even convincingly preach to the choir anymore. All it does is creating an opportunity for the NYT and assorted corporate media hacks to lecture how the "left was wrong again."
Wojtek