Happy Fourth Of July

Leonard Peltier Denied Parole For A Crime He Did Not Commit

I’ll try to keep this brief but it’s a fifty-year-old story so it may take a minute.

I was taught in school that Indians, AKA Native Peoples, were either kind to us when we arrived on their land, or they were savages hellbent on fighting the Whie Man. In college, I learned about Leonard Peltier and in researching him I came to see that it was us, the White Man, who were the savages; it completely and permanently changed my views on the government and Native Peoples.

This is the story of Leonard Peltier, who has been in prison since 1977 for the shooting of two FBI agents, Jack Coler and Ron Williams. This week the US Parole Commission once again denied Leonard Peltier's bid for parole; Peltier the case for parole based on several factors: his age,  his nonviolent record in prison and his declining health, which has been affected by diabetes, hypertension, partial blindness from a stroke and bouts of Covid. Peltier's last full parole hearing was 15 years ago—he will have an interim hearing in 2026—but his next full hearing won’t be until 2039 when he will be ninety-four.

Here are the facts of the case:

On June 26, 1975, FBI agents Jack Coler and Ronald Williams, in unmarked cars, followed a pick-up truck onto the Jumping Bull ranch on a federal warrant in connection with the theft of cowboy boots. The families immediately became alarmed and feared an attack; a shoot-out erupted and when it was over the Coler and Williams and one Native American, Joseph Stuntz were dead; the agents were shot at close range, while Joseph Stuntz was shot in the head by a sniper’s bullet. Stuntz’s death has never been investigated, nor has anyone ever been charged in connection with his death.

According to the officials, Leonard Peltier—a member of the Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians and an activist with the American Indian Movement [AIM]—was identified as the only person on the reservation in possession of the type of weapon that could fire the type of bullet that killed the agents.

And while dozens of people participated in the gunfight, only Leonard Peltier, Bob Robideau, and Darrell Butler were arrested. At their trial Robideau and Butler claimed self-defense and were acquitted. When Peltier was tried separately in 1977, not a single witness who identified him as the shooter was presented and—unknown to his defense lawyers at the time—the federal government withheld a ballistics report indicating the fatal bullets didn't come from Peltier’s weapon. But the FBI has maintained his conviction was "rightly and fairly obtained" and "has withstood numerous appeals to multiple courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court" because someone on the reservation murdered those two agents so why not Peltier.

Leonard Peltier fled to Canada and was arrested there in February 1976. The United States presented the Canadian court with sworn statements signed by Myrtle Poor Bear who said she was Peltier’s girlfriend and allegedly saw him shoot the agents but the facts that came out in his hearing proved that Poor Bear had never met Peltier and was not present during the shoot-out. Poor Bear has since recanted her statements and said the FBI threatened her and coerced her into signing the affidavits.

Peltier was extradited to the United States where he was tried in 1977. Key witnesses like Myrtle Poor Bear were not allowed to testify and unlike the Robideau/Butler trial in Iowa, evidence regarding violence between police and the government and residents on the Pine Ridge reservation was severely restricted.

At trial, an FBI agent who had previously testified that Coler and Williams followed a pick-up truck onto Pine Ridge, a vehicle that could not be tied to Peltier, changed his account; he testified that the agents had followed a red and white van onto the scene, a vehicle which Mr. Peltier allegedly drove occasionally. And while three teenaged Native witnesses testified against Peltier about the van, like Poor Bear they all later admitted that the FBI forced them to testify.

To this day not one witness identified Peltier as the shooter.

The U.S. Attorney prosecuting the case claimed that the government had provided the defense with all FBI documents concerning the case but more than 140,000 pages had been withheld in their entirety. In fact, an FBI ballistics expert testified that a casing found near the agents’ bodies matched the gun tied to Peltier and yet but ballistics tests that proved the casing did not come from Peltier’s gun were intentionally concealed.

The jury, unaware of those facts, found Peltier guilty and he was sentenced to two consecutive life terms.

After the trial, Peltier’s attorneys discovered new evidence obtained, and the hidden evidence, through a Freedom of Information Act [FOIA] lawsuit and sought a new trial. At that trial, the Eighth Circuit ruled:

“There is a possibility that the jury would have acquitted Leonard Peltier had the records and data improperly withheld from the defense been available to him in order to better exploit and reinforce the inconsistencies casting strong doubts upon the government's case."

And then they denied the request for a new trial.

In fact, during oral arguments, the government attorney conceded that they did not know who shot the agents but claimed that Peltier is equally guilty whether he shot the agents at point-blank range or participated in the shoot-out from a distance even though Peltier’s co-defendants participated in the shoot-out from a distance but were acquitted; he alone was guilty because he was there.

Judge Heaney, who authored the decision denying a new trial, has since changed his opinion and voiced support for Peltier’s release, stating that the FBI used improper tactics to convict Peltier, that the FBI was equally responsible for the shoot-out, and that Peltier's release would promote healing with Native Americans.

Leonard Peltier has served over 47 years in prison for a crime that even the government says he did not commit, a crime for which the government withheld evidence, rewrote the narrative, and coerced witnesses into testifying against Peltier.

And given all this, given the numerous human rights awards Peltier has been given for his good deeds from behind bars which include annual gift drives for the children of Pine Ridge, fund raisers for battered women’s shelters, and donations of his paintings to Native American recovery programs., given his age, his health and time served, he is still being held behind bar.

And it doesn’t look like the FBI will ever admit the wrongs they perpetuated against Leonard Peltier; in the wake of Peltier being denied parole again, current FBI Director Christopher Wray praised the Parole Commission's decision, saying in a statement that Peltier "has been afforded his rights and due process time and again, and repeatedly, the weight of the evidence has supported his conviction and his life sentence."

Ain’t that America? Aren’t we the savages?

PS A couple of good books to read are In The Spirit of Crazy Horse by Peter and Matthiessen, and Prison Writings by Leonard Peltier. Also on this blog from 2008: Leonard Peltier

PPS Y’all might think I have words about the alleged assassination attempt over the weekend, but I do not condone violence against anyone; my only thoughts are “alleged assassination attempt.”

On This Date In ISBL History:CBS Films Straight-Washes 'Pride'

As Carlos and I are in sunny Miami for business and pleasure, I thought I’d do something I’ll call “On This Date In ISBL History” and repost some things from back when the blog was new, and newish … this was originally published January 6, 2015:

CBS Films Straight-Washes 'Pride'

It was hard for a gay when I was a kid. I mean, I didn’t see myself on TV — there was no Will & Grace and Ellen or Cam and Mitchell, no Queer As Folk or Looking. The only remotely gay-ish characters were generally played by Terry-Thomas onscreen or Paul Lynde on television, so I thought being gay meant I had to wear paisley and ascots and velvet smoking jackets and talk with a lisp and call myself a “confirmed bachelor.”

That wasn’t me, but those are the only images I saw because The Gays were often scrubbed from movies since it was assumed that Mr. and Mrs. America didn’t want to see that kinda stuff when they went to the picture shows.

So it was common for gay characters and gay stories to be scrubbed clean of The Gay; gay characters were changed to straight, or the fact that they were gay in the books on which the films were based, was simply left out of the film adaptation altogether.

Like Corporal Fife in Terrence Malick’s The Thin Red Line. In the book by James Jones, you find Fife bunking in a shelter tent next to Private Bead, and the two decide to, ahem, “help each other out” one rainy night. Not so much in the film.

And what about Justin McLeod in The Man Without A Face? In Isabelle Holland’s book, the disfigured lead character was definitely gay, but when it came to selling the book to Hollywood, and noted homophobe Mel Gibson, who would direct the film and play McLeod, the character was suddenly heterosexual.

And we cannot forget the character of Ruth Jamison in Fried Green Tomatoes. In Fannie Flagg's 1987 novel Fried Green Tomatoes at the Whistle Stop Cafe there is a very clear intimate lesbian relationship between Ruth and her girlfriend Idgie but suddenly in the film Ruth is hung up on a boy.

Even Ben-Hur was supposed to be gay! When it came to writing the script for the chariot epic starring Charlton Heston, Gore Vidal made note of a romantic connection in Lew Wallace's 1880 manuscript between Ben and his friend Messala. But, according to a letter Vidal received from Heston, he and director William Wyler wanted the gay erased from the script. Heston would not be playing gay.

Paul Newman’s Brick in Cat on a Hot Tin Roof was alleged to be gay, grieving the suicide of his ‘friend’ Skipper’ but the film remains ambiguous; Newman’s Brick is just a drunk.

And what about Celie in The Color Purple? In the film, Celie and Shug steal a kiss, though Whoopi Goldberg, who played Celie, says the kiss was simply about “love and tenderness ... It has nothing to do with lesbianism. It has to do with, her eyes are opened, now she understands." Funny then, that Alice Walker's novel takes the relationship a lot further than a kiss.

See what I mean, though? The Gays have been straight-washed from films for years; made straight, or maybe just made lonely and desperate for affection so they might share a kiss or a hand job to stave off the isolation. But times have changed, right? There are all kinds of gay characters in films; hell, there are entire films made about The Gays, and it’s a good thing.

But then, please to explain this: an LGBT film, with real LGBT characters, based on real-life LGBT people, has been closeted for its DVD release in America.

The film is a British import, Pride, based on the true story of a group of English gay and lesbian activists who stood in solidarity with coal miners during a 1984 strike. But the artwork, and the synopsis, for the film have been straight-washed for the American public for some reason.

The original synopsis for release in the UK, says:

“PRIDE is inspired by an extraordinary true story. It’s the summer of 1984, Margaret Thatcher is in power and the National Union of Mineworkers is on strike, prompting a London-based group of gay and lesbian activists to raise money to support the strikers’ families. Initially rebuffed by the Union, the group identifies a tiny mining village in Wales and sets off to make their donation in person…”

But the synopsis on the US DVD box says: 

“PRIDE is inspired by an extraordinary true story. It’s the summer of 1984 and much of blue-collar Great Britain is on strike. For one tiny Welsh village, the strike brings unexpected visitors – a group of London-based activists who decide to raise money to support strikers’ families and want to make their donations in person.”

And what about the artwork? The UK version — at the top — clearly has a sign about LGBT support of the miners, but the US version — at the bottom — has the sign removed; erased. No gays.

A rep for CBS Films, which acquired US rights, said the company is looking into the situation — which reads as ‘Oops, we got caught and now we’ll back-pedal” — and makes note that their website for the film keeps the LGBT in it.

How is it that we’re in 2014, and a major film-distribution company wants to straight-wash the gay references from a film that is based on a true story about gay people? And don't think the irony of straight-washing a film called 'Pride' is lost on anyone.

We think we’ve come so far but we’re still being marginalized by some folks who wish, maybe, we didn’t exist; at least when it comes to making them some money.

We saw this film on Showtime recently and the film is very gay, and by that I mean, it is the story of a group of LGBT activist who stood up for, and with, the miners.

But you’d never have known that by the CBS Films description.

Happy 4th of July!

CBS Films Straight-Washes 'Pride'

It was hard for a gay when I was a kid. I mean, I didn’t see myself on TV — there was no Will & Grace and Ellen or Cam and Mitchell, no Queer As Folk or Looking. The only remotely gay-ish characters were generally played by Terry-Thomas onscreen or Paul Lynde on television, so I thought being gay meant I had to wear paisley and ascots and velvet smoking jackets and talk with a lisp and call myself a “confirmed bachelor.”

That wasn’t me, but those are the only images I saw because The Gays were often scrubbed from movies since it was assumed that Mr. and Mrs. America didn’t want to see that kinda stuff when they went to the picture shows.

So it was common for gay characters and gay stories to be scrubbed clean of The Gay; gay characters were changed to straight, or the fact that they were gay in the books on which the films were based, was simply left out of the film adaptation altogether.

Like Corporal Fife in Terrence Malick’s The Thin Red Line. In the book by James Jones, you find Fife bunking in a shelter tent next to Private Bead, and the two decide to, ahem, “help each other out” one rainy night. Not so much in the film.

And what about Justin McLeod in The Man Without A Face? In Isabelle Holland’s book, the disfigured lead character was definitely gay, but when it came to selling the book to Hollywood, and noted homophobe Mel Gibson, who would direct the film and play McLeod, the character was suddenly heterosexual.

And we cannot forget the character of Ruth Jamison in Fried Green Tomatoes. In Fannie Flagg's 1987 novel Fried Green Tomatoes at the Whistle Stop Cafe there is a very clear intimate lesbian relationship between Ruth and her girlfriend Idgie but suddenly in the film Ruth is hung up on a boy.

Even Ben-Hur was supposed to be gay! When it came to writing the script for the chariot epic starring Charlton Heston, Gore Vidal made note of a romantic connection in Lew Wallace's 1880 manuscript between Ben and his friend Messala. But, according to a letter Vidal received from Heston, he and director William Wyler wanted the gay erased from the script. Heston would not be playing gay.

Paul Newman’s Brick in Cat on a Hot Tin Roof was alleged to be gay, grieving the suicide of his ‘friend’ Skipper’ but the film remains ambiguous; Newman’s Brick is just a drunk.

And what about Celie in The Color Purple? In the film, Celie and Shug steal a kiss, though Whoopi Goldberg, who played Celie, says the kiss was simply about “love and tenderness ... It has nothing to do with lesbianism. It has to do with, her eyes are opened, now she understands." Funny then, that Alice Walker's novel takes the relationship a lot further than a kiss.

See what I mean, though? The Gays have been straight-washed from films for years; made straight, or maybe just made lonely and desperate for affection so they might share a kiss or a hand job to stave off the isolation. But times have changed, right? There are all kinds of gay characters in films; hell, there are entire films made about The Gays, and it’s a good thing.

But then, please to explain this: an LGBT film, with real LGBT characters, based on real-life LGBT people, has been closeted for its DVD release in America.

The film is a British import, Pride, based on the true story of a group of English gay and lesbian activists who stood in solidarity with coal miners during a 1984 strike. But the artwork, and the synopsis, for the film have been straight-washed for the American public for some reason.

The original synopsis for release in the UK, says:

“PRIDE is inspired by an extraordinary true story. It’s the summer of 1984, Margaret Thatcher is in power and the National Union of Mineworkers is on strike, prompting a London-based group of gay and lesbian activists to raise money to support the strikers’ families. Initially rebuffed by the Union, the group identifies a tiny mining village in Wales and sets off to make their donation in person…”

But the synopsis on the US DVD box says: 

“PRIDE is inspired by an extraordinary true story. It’s the summer of 1984 and much of blue-collar Great Britain is on strike. For one tiny Welsh village, the strike brings unexpected visitors – a group of London-based activists who decide to raise money to support strikers’ families and want to make their donations in person.”

And what about the artwork? The UK version — at the top — clearly has a sign about LGBT support of the miners, but the US version — at the bottom — has the sign removed; erased. No gays.

A rep for CBS Films, which acquired US rights, said the company is looking into the situation — which reads as ‘Oops, we got caught and now we’ll back-pedal” — and makes note that their website for the film keeps the LGBT in it.

How is it that we’re in 2014, and a major film-distribution company wants to straight-wash the gay references from a film that is based on a true story about gay people? And don't think the irony of straight-washing a film called 'Pride' is lost on anyone.

We think we’ve come so far but we’re still being marginalized by some folks who wish, maybe, we didn’t exist; at least when it comes to making them some money.

via THR and Mental Floss