FBI agents march on White House to oppose clemency for political prisoner Leonard Peltier

December 17, 2000 6:16 PM

FBI agents march on White House to oppose clemency for political prisoner Leonard Peltier
Now the freaking FBI are protesting, see what you people started. No confirmation of any street blocking. I have been hoping Clinton would pony up and free the man, but with this I imagine he will make the gutless cowardly choice once again.
posted by thirteen (18 comments total)

1. I will apologize here if Clinton sets Lenord free.
2. I will not explain way I ended up on a on a socialist website.
3. Browne would have free'd him.
posted by thirteen at 6:20 PM on December 17, 2000

"explain the weird way I ended up..."Ugh, why don't I get anything right anymore.
posted by thirteen at 6:22 PM on December 17, 2000

Equal time: Bush won't free him either.
posted by thirteen at 6:22 PM on December 17, 2000

Damn politicians concerned about how it'll make our system look. If the man should be free, there's no reason not to free him.
posted by grank at 6:37 PM on December 17, 2000

And if he shouldn't be free then there is of plenty of reason not to free him.
posted by bytecode at 6:40 PM on December 17, 2000

I've been hearing about this guy since my Anthropology 110 class four years ago--the Antropology department at my university regularly protests his continued imprisonment. Apparently he is regularly treated in the Springfield Federal Prisoners' Hospital.
posted by daveadams at 7:36 PM on December 17, 2000

We talked about it a couple of weeks ago.

Amnesty International have called for his release.

Although, the FBI obviously think otherwise and there is the No Parole Peltier site (although, if you look at the FAQ, you will see it was created by an FBI agent.

Finding impartial sources is always difficult, but if you look at these websites you can probably find out some information. The only decent newspaper article I could find was published in the Toronto Sun, but you have to pay to read it. It has been reprinted here . One thing to remember is that this guy has been in prision for 24 years and a lot of the evidence is somewhat circumstantial to say the least.
posted by jay at 8:14 PM on December 17, 2000

I attended the protest for about an hour, and, while I'm in favor of Leonard Peltier's immediate release, I found it somber and moving. An agent who was the partner to one of the agent's killed was there with a large picture of his partner, and he was visibly choked up as he spoke to the press.

Part of the protest involved the entire mass of people (about 500, clad in typical coat and dark glass fbi uniform) facing the White House in total silence, and the effect of the action (or lack of action) was very powerful and one that I'd recommend to people wishing to make a strong statement.
posted by steve.wdc at 8:15 PM on December 17, 2000

Mother Jones is a good source for these issues. They're usually very even-handed in their coverage, but get flack from conservatives for even covering them, and from liberals who say they should advocate more. If you don't piss everybody off, you're not a journalist.

Incident at Round Valley

They were very careful (and caught flack from both sides) over their Mumia Abu-Jamal story.
posted by capt.crackpipe at 9:03 PM on December 17, 2000

I think it's an extremely alarming precedent for hundreds of armed government agents to stage a political protest. It's only one step removed from armed soldiers marching in the streets for political purposes. Freeh should be shown the door for this stunt.
posted by rcade at 10:07 PM on December 17, 2000

Sorry, “Incident at Round Valley” has nothing to do with Leonard Peltier. It's a different Indian shooting.

Look into seeing Incident at Oglala.

Yahoo Directory of the AIM.
posted by capt.crackpipe at 12:07 AM on December 18, 2000

I think it's an extremely alarming precedent for hundreds of armed government agents to stage a political protest.

Freedom to assemble unless you work for the goverment? I have a problem if they were on the clock but if they were there on their own time then it is their right.
posted by Mick at 7:22 AM on December 18, 2000

Indeed, it's more of an assault on freedom to create classes of people who are not permitted to peaceably demonstrate.
posted by Dreama at 9:16 AM on December 18, 2000

I think that the problem with the FBI agents was not that they had a peaceful political protest, but that they did it as clearly identifiable FBI agents.

Had they conducted their protest as private citizens, sans "FBI uniform" and without the mandate from Freeh, then there may not have been an issue (though their intent may have been to create controversy).
posted by Avogadro at 10:37 AM on December 18, 2000

What's peaceable about a political demonstration by an armed faction of the government? If they want to protest as American citizens and recruit like minded people from their families and others, that's fine. But when they trade on their status as federal law enforcement officials, organize strictly with other armed coworkers, and secure the approval of their boss to protest, it's not like a peaceful assemblage of citizens. It's something we would expect from a banana republic.
posted by rcade at 3:17 PM on December 21, 2000

Don't be silly. They have as much right to protest as anyone does. Be glad they merely chose to protest. After all, there are many other things they could have done in their positions, unofficially -- maybe keep tabs on pro-Peltier demonstrators, put them under a little surveillance as a side project, compile dossiers on them just in case it ever became necessary to blackmail them to keep them in line.

What's peaceable about a political demonstration by an armed faction of the government? I dunno, maybe the same thing that's peaceable about a demonstration of gun owners? If there wasn't any violence at the demonstration, it was peaceable.

If those same g-men had been campaigning for the release of Peltier, I dare say nobody would have a damn problem with it.
posted by kindall at 5:07 PM on December 21, 2000

If those same g-men had been campaigning for the release of Peltier, I dare say nobody would have a damn problem with it.

I love how you can't make an argument these days without someone accusing the other side of hypocrisy. "If X had done this instead of Y, the [liberals|conservatives] would have been in a frenzy about it!"

Bah. This isn't about Peltier, for me. It's about the FBI director and his agents organizing themselves as a political faction in street protest. That's so obviously out of bounds I'm astounded that it remains open for debate.

Show me a group of Americans who don't work for the government but have the legal right to assemble for protest *while armed*.

As for surveillance and the other things you mention, what are the odds that the FBI hasn't engaged in them against Peltier supporters already?
posted by rcade at 6:00 AM on December 22, 2000