Casados in his pickup (a "red and white vehicle") is tailed by FBI, leads them/drives to the camp, where he has either previously informed people there that he is being tailed or they discover it after he arrives. Persons in the pickup stop, get out and engage in firefight with FBI, others possibly joining, possibly including Peltier. Agents are shot, Casados kills them with *his* AR-15 (original analysis indicated Peltiers AR-15 and several others around had been cleared), and steals William's revolver. Stuntz ("guy in the white shirt") takes an FBI vest. Everybody runs away. People see somebody, possibly Peltier, with a shoulder weapon fleeing the seen. Sure, Peltier may have participated, or possibly even instigated, but no one can say for sure who shot the fatal shots.
You have a man who may or may not have been at the scene (Poor Bear is flaky, and there is evidence other witnesses were coerced), firing a weapon which may or may not have been Peltier's (Leroy Casados also had an AR-15, was in possession of agent Williams' revolver, and owned a vehicle which possibly could have looked like Peltier's and was suspected to be involved), which may or may not have killed the agents (Stuntz was supposedly firing a.44 magnum, which was the type of the one bullet retrieved from one agent's body. The bullet the prosecution claimed to be the.223 that killed one agent tested negative for blood residue which is highly strange).
Add to that the failure of the FBI to follow up other leads (Casados, Sky), in favor of a big AIM member, very strange documents suggesting agent Adams had been on the scene *before* the firefight, apparent suppression of Poor Bear's earliest and contradictory affidavit, weird removals of information from FOIA availability, contradictory statements from the ballistics analyst which indicate the analysis of a supposedly fatal shell occurred at various times, which could lead one to believe said shell may have been replaced in the time period from submission to analysis, and alleged evidence tampering...and you have at *least* an very large shadow of doubt.
Just as I shouldn't take everything I read on activist websites at face value, you should neither take everything you read by Outside magazine or the FBI at face value.
Canada at least thinks there is a large enough shadow of doubt in the whole process to continually submit formal requests that Leonard Peltier be returned to Canada where his position, and requests for clemency may be supported.
It is also stated that the van was shared by many people. I don't see what line of reasoning he uses to conclude that the van was in fact at that moment being driven by Peltier, besides the fact that it had a fingerprint on the mirror (which would be totally possible since it was being shared).
In any case, if we are unsure of the innocence of Peltier, the fact that the FBI falsified evidence, that the only eye witness was a mentally disturbed woman, and that there were 24 other fingerprints on the bag containing the gun, and that the FBI has never released the prints on the actual gun itself should themselves be mitigating circumstances. Which leads one to wonder why he has never had an appeal heard. If anything there is one big black honking shadow of doubt. But it doesn't matter. They got their man in jail.
By the way, that link took about three seconds to find. One of the worst enemies of justice are those who fabricate plausible and rational, though entirely incorrect, counter-arguments to make the opposition look like fools. Of course this "rational" alternative is much more appealing then the vehemence of those seeking justice, and people looking for answers blindly accept it and go on peacefully.
And this would differ from the Democrat primary how?
It doesn't and I never said it did, which is why I bristle when you imply I don't believe the Democrats are due the same.
However, you still seem to feel that Republicans are less deserving of freedom of speech than the general populus, so my previous comment still stands. Sorry, but it is far more important to support the freedom of speech of those you disagree with than to support the freedom of speech of those you agree with.
No, obviously both, and all, certainly can have their say. But protesters exposing their lies have just as much right to a voice. I support freedom of speech, but the mass propaganda and crimes of omission they let flood is pushing it a bit. Protesters should be allowed to pull the wool back from people's eyes.
It's not a conspiracy. An Indian had to answer for the deaths of two officers and the one they picked was Leonard. The FBI didn't like the fact that a paramilitary group was protecting its own land, which was not under FBI jurisdiction in the first place, and presenting a threat to the US placed puppet government ("Tribal Government") there. Leonard Peltier was one of four people originally accussed, and after three of them were acquitted, the government fixed on Leonard, and through "government misconduct and investigative abuse", by the words of the judge who admitted the government shared equal responsibility for the deaths of the agents, fabricated a weapon which evidence would later show could not have fired the shots that killed the agents, and convicted him. His appeals have been refused. Of course there is no conspiracy. As you aptly show, nobody gives a fuck about a red man rotting in jail for a crime he didn't commit.
I'm not a Democrat you myopic asshole, and I expect that there will be a few demonstrations at the Democratic convention.
The Republican convention is nothing about freedom of speech. It is an orgy of big business pouring money into the political system, buying politicians, and creating a fabricated and imaginary hope for the people. People have the freedom to speak out against them just as much as they have the freedom to spread lies.
Granted there are a lot of bad apples that spoil the peacable assembly and legal protestation.
Leonard peltier has been rotting in jail for 24 years because FBI agents chased somebody who supposedly stole *a pair of used cowboy boots* into the encampment he was in. They needed a fall guy to "resolve the deaths" of the FBI agents. Sucks to be a Native American don't it?
The point is to make a Republican convention something that no city wants. Harassing police is part of that. Sure, he should have expected what happened to happen. But the police should also be trained to act as police officers, not as authority figures annoyed that some little bastard is evading them. The police provide a public service. They should be scrutinized. I wonder what would have happened if there was no camera.
Yes, but the point of fact is that while you vehemently oppose aborting technically "alive" fetuses you have no qualms about murder of innocent people who perform operations you yourself have deemed acceptable (pre-"life" abortions). And apparently "Thou shalt not murder" has "no meaning" to you, murder no inherent "wrong" associated with it, besides your anti-abortion stance.
That just boggles me.
I consider this thread pretty much beaten to death.
Well, than I can't remove my disgust for the hypocrisy of the conservative right you embody. I suppose it is ok for you to support the christian foundation of republican morals, yet not be phased by "thou shalt not kill". Apparently to you two wrongs make a right. Well, I'm satisfied that you, like Keyes, reach you're conclusions through a series of rational observations, trumped at the very end by your hypocrisy and unwillingness to believe that what goes for you, goes for everybody.
Agreed, so why is it that all the tax breaks go to the folks with the most money?
Because the system is corrupt.
As for the wealthy being 'responsible' for helping the poor, no way. It'd be NICE, certainly, but to say that because I have more cash than the average Joe I am also obligated to give some of it to the lady who lived in a shoe? That's ridiculous. At what point does someone become wealthy enough to have to donate, and who decides who gets the money?
You are "responsible" to the country insofar as the country has enabled you to prosper. That's why 18% tax takes a larger chunk out of wealthy people than poor people. I'm not arguing for an *unfair* tax. I'm saying taxes should proportionally represent the amount you have prospered in the country that hosts you. If you don't like it you can always go to a different country which allows you to prosper more freely without any responsibility to the society that hosts you.
I'm not so fatalistic. I don't think government is always going to be "corrupt" or has to be "corrupt". What makes government corrupt today are corporations and big money exerting their influence. I believe if these factors are taken away, that there is no reason government can't work correctly. In any case, no government, is hardly a solution to curropt government.
assimilist...as in one who assimilates? I suppose I should say assimilator, since there is no word for someone who propagates assimilation.
I would call being trapped like an animal, tied up, brought accross the Atlantic in a ship packed like a sardine tin, sold at an auction block into slavery, treated like cattle, eventually gain the privelage of "indenture servitued", and through very hard work under extremely difficult circumstances finally break through to the rights and privelages granted any other human being in this country, to turn and accept the ideology and dogma of your previous oppressors, and to then also promulgate that ideology, as being "assimilist".
...ergo I can legislate my morality on you? No. Laws are based on morality of the *common good*.
Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice.
Didn't expect for you to bite on that one. So on the one hand you agree with the constitutionality or at least justification for pre-"life" abortion, yet on the other hand you support extremists which violently and consciencelessly injure and *murder* innocent people? That is called being a hypocrite. Can you get any further backed into a corner?
The problem is, he's still a captialist, and some of us are afraid that a Nader government would result in what we call "happy capitalism," where the exploitation continues, but we all feel ok about it.
You shouldn't be afraid. We already live in the height of a "happy capitalism", it can't get worse. And anyway, many of his policies certainly aren't going to be liked by capitalist "fat cats". The $10 "livable" wage, for instance. Nader is a populist to the core (in fact, you should be aware of the history of the Populist party...it was fundamentally a labor party and agricultural party, very much like the Green party).
As far as the polls, Nader would have enough to participate in the debates and gain a huge number by engaging fence-sitters, independents, and non-voters, like Ventura did, if the commission hadn't set the arbitrary and artificially high percentage at 15%. 5% is the percentage for federal matching funds, yet to get into the debates, for which a Republicrat commission sprang up over night to control, he has to get 15%. People are actively trying to get that down.
As long as independent parties go with their independent streak and don't support each other, we will never have a viable third party, which is just as well for the Republicrats. At some point you have to make a real change. And I think Nader presents us with that. And I invite anybody and everybody to look over his position and record, and his singular integrity over his lifetime, and put a vote in "for us all".
Hey, sounds reasonable to me. So you also would have no problem with abortion of disabled or retarded fetuses that come to term but have no significant brain waves that can be interpreted as a sign of life? I'm glad to agree with you as long as you are using a scientific rational to determining life (as opposed to any of myriad religious interpretations...40 days after conception, etc.).
And wouldn't you also disagree with the de-facto ban on abortion imposed by extremist? After all you agree to abortion before the point at which it can be called life, right? This service should be anywhere and everywhere and safe and accessible to all women. If you think it's constitutional, then it's constitutional and you can't expect to impose your morals past that point by bullying.
Alan Keyes has been very vocal about the separation of church and state - namely that there shouldn't be one. He has also made clear he would stack the supreme court with judges which are pro-life. Not only is he practically a polar opposite of a large percentage if not majority of black people, he is SO conservative that he doesn't even represent the American people.
Well I believe it is at *least* a grey area whether abortion is "murder". If you think abortion is murder, at what point do you draw the line? At the point the egg and sperm meet? Or perhaps just the egg because that is really where the organism will grow? If so then billions of women each month are committing murder. It can be argued ad infinitum. Because of this gray area I leave it up to the mother to decide. I am not going to decide where to draw the line for them.
Gotcha! Government can only do what is explicity or implicitly implied in the Constitution. Absence of restriction is not sanction. But I will gladly accept this reasoning to initiate universal health care, and some other things you probably run like the plague from.
If there is no difference in your mind between a defenseless child and a murderer, then the mental defect which causes you to have no opposition to abortion is plainly obvious.
Aha! *I* have opposition. But it is not *MY* choice. I am also a vegetarian, but I am not lobbying government to FORCE everybody to be a vegitarian.
There is a difference between "nonconstitutional" and "unconstitutional".
Yes, you think that "nonconstitutional" means that government is free to do it. If so, I say our police officers need to dress like clowns. After all it's not specified in the Constitution.
I strongly suggest you read up on Nader and get a feel for him. Unlike Libertarians/Anarchists whose premise is that government is inherently evil and needs to be abolished entirely, and Communists who believe the same, but want to replace the government with a Utopic state, Nader believes in *REAL* democracy. He believes it can and does work if the major powers that I assume you oppose are banned from interfering with politics and if citizens take upon themselves the responsibility of daily citizenship. Usually independents are strongly principalled, but I suggest you consider "throwing in" with Nader and the Greens (if Nader is not progressive enough for you check out the general Greens philosophy, I think you'll like it). If anything Nader will at least set and environment in which you *can* actually and effectively voice your opinions instead of being crowded out and shouted down.
And with the advent of ubiquitous computing I have no doubt in the feasibility of a first class, true Democracy (not Republic).
It seems to be that anarchy is just basically laissez-faire sovereignty. How can you possibly expect an entirely voluntary system in which everybody voluntarily respects each other's rights?
Wow. The conservative right really are good brainwashers to get a black man to side with a nazi-friendly, anti-semitic, anti-minority, and an assimilist who has adopted a religious dogma under which the most heinous crimes of humanity, especially against peoples like your "own" (I make that assumption very loosely), have been committed.
I think it really is true that as America moves to the middle the extremists get smaller and more proportionally extreme and loud to compensate.
Slashdot Mirror
How about this timeline:
Casados in his pickup (a "red and white vehicle") is tailed by FBI, leads them/drives to the camp, where he has either previously informed people there that he is being tailed or they discover it after he arrives. Persons in the pickup stop, get out and engage in firefight with FBI, others possibly joining, possibly including Peltier. Agents are shot, Casados kills them with *his* AR-15 (original analysis indicated Peltiers AR-15 and several others around had been cleared), and steals William's revolver. Stuntz ("guy in the white shirt") takes an FBI vest. Everybody runs away. People see somebody, possibly Peltier, with a shoulder weapon fleeing the seen. Sure, Peltier may have participated, or possibly even instigated, but no one can say for sure who shot the fatal shots.
You have a man who may or may not have been at the scene (Poor Bear is flaky, and there is evidence other witnesses were coerced), firing a weapon which may or may not have been Peltier's (Leroy Casados also had an AR-15, was in possession of agent Williams' revolver, and owned a vehicle which possibly could have looked like Peltier's and was suspected to be involved), which may or may not have killed the agents (Stuntz was supposedly firing a .44 magnum, which was the type of the one bullet retrieved from one agent's body. The bullet the prosecution claimed to be the .223 that killed one agent tested negative for blood residue which is highly strange).
Add to that the failure of the FBI to follow up other leads (Casados, Sky), in favor of a big AIM member, very strange documents suggesting agent Adams had been on the scene *before* the firefight, apparent suppression of Poor Bear's earliest and contradictory affidavit, weird removals of information from FOIA availability, contradictory statements from the ballistics analyst which indicate the analysis of a supposedly fatal shell occurred at various times, which could lead one to believe said shell may have been replaced in the time period from submission to analysis, and alleged evidence tampering...and you have at *least* an very large shadow of doubt.
Just as I shouldn't take everything I read on activist websites at face value, you should neither take everything you read by Outside magazine or the FBI at face value.
Canada at least thinks there is a large enough shadow of doubt in the whole process to continually submit formal requests that Leonard Peltier be returned to Canada where his position, and requests for clemency may be supported.
It is also stated that the van was shared by many people. I don't see what line of reasoning he uses to conclude that the van was in fact at that moment being driven by Peltier, besides the fact that it had a fingerprint on the mirror (which would be totally possible since it was being shared).
In any case, if we are unsure of the innocence of Peltier, the fact that the FBI falsified evidence, that the only eye witness was a mentally disturbed woman, and that there were 24 other fingerprints on the bag containing the gun, and that the FBI has never released the prints on the actual gun itself should themselves be mitigating circumstances. Which leads one to wonder why he has never had an appeal heard. If anything there is one big black honking shadow of doubt. But it doesn't matter. They got their man in jail.
By the way, that link took about three seconds to find. One of the worst enemies of justice are those who fabricate plausible and rational, though entirely incorrect, counter-arguments to make the opposition look like fools. Of course this "rational" alternative is much more appealing then the vehemence of those seeking justice, and people looking for answers blindly accept it and go on peacefully.
Evaporate this: http://nativenet.uthscsa.edu/archive/nl/9507/0122. html
It doesn't and I never said it did, which is why I bristle when you imply I don't believe the Democrats are due the same.
No, obviously both, and all, certainly can have their say. But protesters exposing their lies have just as much right to a voice. I support freedom of speech, but the mass propaganda and crimes of omission they let flood is pushing it a bit. Protesters should be allowed to pull the wool back from people's eyes.
It's not a conspiracy. An Indian had to answer for the deaths of two officers and the one they picked was Leonard. The FBI didn't like the fact that a paramilitary group was protecting its own land, which was not under FBI jurisdiction in the first place, and presenting a threat to the US placed puppet government ("Tribal Government") there. Leonard Peltier was one of four people originally accussed, and after three of them were acquitted, the government fixed on Leonard, and through "government misconduct and investigative abuse", by the words of the judge who admitted the government shared equal responsibility for the deaths of the agents, fabricated a weapon which evidence would later show could not have fired the shots that killed the agents, and convicted him. His appeals have been refused. Of course there is no conspiracy. As you aptly show, nobody gives a fuck about a red man rotting in jail for a crime he didn't commit.
I'm not a Democrat you myopic asshole, and I expect that there will be a few demonstrations at the Democratic convention.
The Republican convention is nothing about freedom of speech. It is an orgy of big business pouring money into the political system, buying politicians, and creating a fabricated and imaginary hope for the people. People have the freedom to speak out against them just as much as they have the freedom to spread lies.
Granted there are a lot of bad apples that spoil the peacable assembly and legal protestation.
Leonard peltier has been rotting in jail for 24 years because FBI agents chased somebody who supposedly stole *a pair of used cowboy boots* into the encampment he was in. They needed a fall guy to "resolve the deaths" of the FBI agents. Sucks to be a Native American don't it?
The point is to make a Republican convention something that no city wants. Harassing police is part of that. Sure, he should have expected what happened to happen. But the police should also be trained to act as police officers, not as authority figures annoyed that some little bastard is evading them. The police provide a public service. They should be scrutinized. I wonder what would have happened if there was no camera.
I thought this was amusing:
5 /0731254&mode=thread
http://www.phillyimc.org/article.pl?sid=00/08/0
Yes, but the point of fact is that while you vehemently oppose aborting technically "alive" fetuses you have no qualms about murder of innocent people who perform operations you yourself have deemed acceptable (pre-"life" abortions). And apparently "Thou shalt not murder" has "no meaning" to you, murder no inherent "wrong" associated with it, besides your anti-abortion stance.
That just boggles me.
I consider this thread pretty much beaten to death.
Well, than I can't remove my disgust for the hypocrisy of the conservative right you embody. I suppose it is ok for you to support the christian foundation of republican morals, yet not be phased by "thou shalt not kill". Apparently to you two wrongs make a right. Well, I'm satisfied that you, like Keyes, reach you're conclusions through a series of rational observations, trumped at the very end by your hypocrisy and unwillingness to believe that what goes for you, goes for everybody.
Because the system is corrupt.
You are "responsible" to the country insofar as the country has enabled you to prosper. That's why 18% tax takes a larger chunk out of wealthy people than poor people. I'm not arguing for an *unfair* tax. I'm saying taxes should proportionally represent the amount you have prospered in the country that hosts you. If you don't like it you can always go to a different country which allows you to prosper more freely without any responsibility to the society that hosts you.
I'm not so fatalistic. I don't think government is always going to be "corrupt" or has to be "corrupt". What makes government corrupt today are corporations and big money exerting their influence. I believe if these factors are taken away, that there is no reason government can't work correctly. In any case, no government, is hardly a solution to curropt government.
assimilist...as in one who assimilates? I suppose I should say assimilator, since there is no word for someone who propagates assimilation.
I would call being trapped like an animal, tied up, brought accross the Atlantic in a ship packed like a sardine tin, sold at an auction block into slavery, treated like cattle, eventually gain the privelage of "indenture servitued", and through very hard work under extremely difficult circumstances finally break through to the rights and privelages granted any other human being in this country, to turn and accept the ideology and dogma of your previous oppressors, and to then also promulgate that ideology, as being "assimilist".
I hope I don't have to explain any other words.
...ergo I can legislate my morality on you? No. Laws are based on morality of the *common good*.
Didn't expect for you to bite on that one. So on the one hand you agree with the constitutionality or at least justification for pre-"life" abortion, yet on the other hand you support extremists which violently and consciencelessly injure and *murder* innocent people? That is called being a hypocrite. Can you get any further backed into a corner?
You shouldn't be afraid. We already live in the height of a "happy capitalism", it can't get worse. And anyway, many of his policies certainly aren't going to be liked by capitalist "fat cats". The $10 "livable" wage, for instance. Nader is a populist to the core (in fact, you should be aware of the history of the Populist party...it was fundamentally a labor party and agricultural party, very much like the Green party).
As far as the polls, Nader would have enough to participate in the debates and gain a huge number by engaging fence-sitters, independents, and non-voters, like Ventura did, if the commission hadn't set the arbitrary and artificially high percentage at 15%. 5% is the percentage for federal matching funds, yet to get into the debates, for which a Republicrat commission sprang up over night to control, he has to get 15%. People are actively trying to get that down.
As long as independent parties go with their independent streak and don't support each other, we will never have a viable third party, which is just as well for the Republicrats. At some point you have to make a real change. And I think Nader presents us with that. And I invite anybody and everybody to look over his position and record, and his singular integrity over his lifetime, and put a vote in "for us all".
Hey, sounds reasonable to me. So you also would have no problem with abortion of disabled or retarded fetuses that come to term but have no significant brain waves that can be interpreted as a sign of life? I'm glad to agree with you as long as you are using a scientific rational to determining life (as opposed to any of myriad religious interpretations...40 days after conception, etc.).
And wouldn't you also disagree with the de-facto ban on abortion imposed by extremist? After all you agree to abortion before the point at which it can be called life, right? This service should be anywhere and everywhere and safe and accessible to all women. If you think it's constitutional, then it's constitutional and you can't expect to impose your morals past that point by bullying.
http://www.buchanan2000.com/. htm
http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a374c60fd7a01
Alan Keyes has been very vocal about the separation of church and state - namely that there shouldn't be one. He has also made clear he would stack the supreme court with judges which are pro-life. Not only is he practically a polar opposite of a large percentage if not majority of black people, he is SO conservative that he doesn't even represent the American people.
Well I believe it is at *least* a grey area whether abortion is "murder". If you think abortion is murder, at what point do you draw the line? At the point the egg and sperm meet? Or perhaps just the egg because that is really where the organism will grow? If so then billions of women each month are committing murder. It can be argued ad infinitum. Because of this gray area I leave it up to the mother to decide. I am not going to decide where to draw the line for them.
Gotcha! Government can only do what is explicity or implicitly implied in the Constitution. Absence of restriction is not sanction. But I will gladly accept this reasoning to initiate universal health care, and some other things you probably run like the plague from.
Aha! *I* have opposition. But it is not *MY* choice. I am also a vegetarian, but I am not lobbying government to FORCE everybody to be a vegitarian.
Yes, you think that "nonconstitutional" means that government is free to do it. If so, I say our police officers need to dress like clowns. After all it's not specified in the Constitution.
I strongly suggest you read up on Nader and get a feel for him. Unlike Libertarians/Anarchists whose premise is that government is inherently evil and needs to be abolished entirely, and Communists who believe the same, but want to replace the government with a Utopic state, Nader believes in *REAL* democracy. He believes it can and does work if the major powers that I assume you oppose are banned from interfering with politics and if citizens take upon themselves the responsibility of daily citizenship. Usually independents are strongly principalled, but I suggest you consider "throwing in" with Nader and the Greens (if Nader is not progressive enough for you check out the general Greens philosophy, I think you'll like it). If anything Nader will at least set and environment in which you *can* actually and effectively voice your opinions instead of being crowded out and shouted down.
And with the advent of ubiquitous computing I have no doubt in the feasibility of a first class, true Democracy (not Republic).
It seems to be that anarchy is just basically laissez-faire sovereignty. How can you possibly expect an entirely voluntary system in which everybody voluntarily respects each other's rights?
Wow. The conservative right really are good brainwashers to get a black man to side with a nazi-friendly, anti-semitic, anti-minority, and an assimilist who has adopted a religious dogma under which the most heinous crimes of humanity, especially against peoples like your "own" (I make that assumption very loosely), have been committed.
I think it really is true that as America moves to the middle the extremists get smaller and more proportionally extreme and loud to compensate.