> 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."
The piece can say anything clearly that it wants. That doesn't make it true. In this case, the New York Times is printing garbage and should be called on it. There is no evidence connecting Peltier to the murder of Anna Mae Aquash and there isn't any motive for AIM members to murder her. It's more likely that paramilitary terrorists associated with Dick Wilson's GOONs killed her or it could have been the Feds. These new allegations smell like they were cooked up at a joint meeting of the FBI FOP and some right wing "think" tank.
And you are wrong about the "former being proved." There is no smoking gun evidence that points to Peltier killing those two agents. In fact, the two agents were killed in a firefight that involved several AIM members. The only thing tying Peltier to the deaths of the agents is his presence on the property. Nobody in the FBI was ever punished for killing the AIM, nor were the agents fingered for their own blatant stupidity.
Another problem with the assumption that Peltier is "guilty" is that two other AIM members who were tried were acquitted. Peltier was convicted because his case was separated due to his extradition from Canada. The FBI was desperate to pin the blame on somebody for the stupidity of those two agents.
> Quite frankly, I do not believe that law enforcement officers use the
> criminal justice system for their own personal vendettas.
Really? Despite years of evidence to the contrary? Why has the FBI campaigned to keep Peltier in jail, long after any other person would have been paroled?
> 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.
It sounds like you know very little about Peltier's case. The only thing that Mumia Abu-Jamal and Leonard Peltier have in common is that they are political prisoners of a racist system. We know that Mumia Abu-Jamal was at the scene of the Faulkner shooting because he was shot by Officer Faulkner. The circumstances point to the liklihood that Jamal shot Faulkner. On the other hand, Peltier was one of several AIM members who defended themselves after stupid FBI agents drove onto the property where they were staying. Two FBI agents and one AIM member were killed in the gunfight. Pinning the blame on any one person is almost impossible in those circumstances.
In both cases, I can't see how Mumia Abu-Jamal or Leonard Peltier can be blamed for the circumstances that put them into conflict with the authorities. There is plenty of evidence that Abu-Jamal used self-defense to protect his borther who was being assaulted by Officer Faulkner. In Peltier's case, you had a camp full of wary AIM members who had experienced several years of terrorism from the American government and their tribal lackeys (GOONS). I can't see how it was a mistake to fight back against FBI agents who entered the property to provoke a violent confrontation.
> 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."
I don't give a shit about what the NYT and the corporate media hacks thinks about our campaigns for social justice. The American public already holds the NYT and corporate media in low regard, so we shouldn't pander or hide our politics to get good press from the NYT.
In any case, this is really about two American political prisoners who need to taste freedom as soon as possible!
Chuck0