[Mb-hair] FW: LPNET: [Fwd: Media Manipulation]

[Sharmagne Leland-St.John]

>
>
>INJUSTICE AGAINST LEONARD PELTIER:
>THE ROLE OF MEDIA MANIPULATION
>
>===================================
>
>Background
>
>Beginning in January 1975, the Senate Select Committee to Study
>Governmental Operations with Respect to Intelligence Activities,
>known as the "Church Committee" (named after its chairman Frank
>Church), took public and private testimony from hundreds of
>people, collected huge volumes of files from the Federal Bureau
>of Investigation (FBI) and many other federal agencies, and
>issued 14 reports.
>
>Since the passage of the JFK Assassination Records Collection
>Act in 1992, over 50,000 pages of Church Committee records
>have been declassified and made available to the public.  These
>files contain testimony and information on the FBI's counter-
>intelligence programs and related topics.
>
>As discovered by the Church Committee and reported in 1976,
>the goals of the COounterINTELligence PROgrams of the period from
>1956 to the mid-1970s were to "expose, disrupt, misdirect,
>discredit, or otherwise neutralize" those persons or organizations that
>the FBI decided were "enemies of the State."
>
>The COINTELPROs were designed to "disrupt" groups and
>"neutralize" individuals deemed to be threats to domestic
>security.  The law - in particular, the U.S. Constitution - was
>simply ignored.  There was a general attitude that intelligence
>needs were responsive to a higher law.  According to the Church
>Committee:  "Whatever opinion one holds about the policies of
>the targeted groups, many of the tactics employed by the FBI
>were indisputably degrading to a free society."
>
>One of the most effective tactics used, as documented by the
>Church Committee, was the use by the Bureau of the media to
>not only impact on the public image of the FBI, but also to
>disrupt the public communication channels of targeted
>individuals and dissident groups, as well as spread mis-
>information about them so as to adversely affect public
>perceptions and attitudes.
>
>Examples:
>
>+ Planting a series of derogatory articles about Martin Luther
>King, Jr., and the Poor People's Campaign.  In anticipation of
>the 1968 "Poor People's March on Washington, DC," Bureau
>Headquarters granted authority to furnish "cooperative news
>media sources" an article "designed to curtail success of
>Martin Luther King's fund raising."  Another memorandum
>illustrated how "photographs of demonstrators" could be
>used in discrediting the civil rights movement.  Six
>photographs of participants in the poor people's campaign in
>Cleveland accompanied the memorandum with the following
>note attached:  "These [photographs] show the militant
>aggressive appearance of the participants and might be of
>interest to a cooperative news source."  Information on the
>Poor People's Campaign was provided by the FBI to friendly
>reporters on the condition that "the Bureau must not be
>revealed as the source."
>
>+ Soliciting information from Field Offices "on a continuing
>basis" for "prompt... dissemination to the news media... to
>discredit the New Left movement and its adherents."  The
>Headquarters directive requested, among other things, that
>specific data should be furnished depicting "the scurrilous and
>depraved nature, of many of the characters, activities, habits,
>and living conditions representative of New Left adherents...
>Every avenue of possible embarrassment must be vigorously
>and enthusiastically explored."
>
>+ Ordering Field Offices to gather information which would
>disprove allegations by the "liberal press, the bleeding hearts,
>and the forces on the left" that the Chicago police used undue
>force in dealing with demonstrators at the 1968 Democratic
>Convention.
>
>+ Taking advantage of a close relationship with the Chairman of
>the Board - described in an FBI memorandum as "our good
>friend" - of a magazine with national circulation to influence
>articles that related to the FBI.  For example, through this
>relationship, the Bureau: "squelched" an "unfavorable article
>against the Bureau" written by a freelance writer about an FBI
>investigation; "postponed publication" of an article on another
>FBI case; "forestalled publication" of an article by Dr. Martin
>Luther King, Jr.; and received information about proposed editing
>of King's articles.
>
>As these instances demonstrate, the FBI has covertly influenced
>the public's perception of persons and organizations by
>disseminating derogatory information to the press, either
>anonymously or through "friendly" news contacts.  The impact of
>those articles is generally difficult to measure, although in some cases
>there are fairly direct connections to injury to the target.  Beginning
>immediately after the shoot-out at Oglala, in force
>during his trial, and continuing into recent history, this is
>particularly true in the case of Leonard Peltier.  Yes, this
>tactic continues to be used against Peltier today.
>
>Executive Clemency
>
>In 1993, Leonard Peltier requested Executive Clemency from
>then President Clinton.  Peltier's petition was not seriously
>investigated or considered until the year 2000.
>
>In 1999-2000, an intensive campaign was launched - supported
>by Native and human rights organizations, members of
>Congress, community and church groups, labor organizations,
>luminaries, and celebrities.  The Peltier case became a national
>issue.
>
>On November 7, 2000, during a live radio interview, Clinton
>stated that he would seriously consider Peltier's request for
>clemency and make a decision before leaving office on January
>20, 2001.
>
>In response, the FBI launched a major "disinformation" campaign
>in the media, and among key government officials and members
>of Congress.
>
>Many citizens were highly disturbed by a number of public
>statements and actions by various FBI officers in 1999-2000.
>These officials, by the way, publicly announced that their
>one and only goal was to block the release of Mr. Peltier,
>whether through parole or clemency.
>
>At the outset, the propriety of members of the Department of
>Justice (DOJ) engaging in such a public campaign was questionable. Parole
>and clemency decisions are largely determined at various
>branches of the Justice Department and neutrality and fairness
>in the handling of such matters must be above reproach.  Having
>members of one branch of the Department engaged in vigorous
>lobbying on these matters (to Congress and the American people)
>certainly raised serious questions.
>
>Many of the statements made by DOJ officials during the
>Peltier clemency campaign (and since) were false, intentionally
>misleading, or omitted highly relevant information with the
>intent of deceiving the public.  Still other statements were
>highly emotional and dramatic, if not near hysterical, in
>nature. These constant declarations were clearly intended to
>misinform the public and create an atmosphere of fear and
>confusion, all with the goal of depriving Mr. Peltier of a
>fair and reasoned consideration of his legal requests for parole
>and clemency.
>
>Most notable, in November 1999, during efforts by a number of
>Mr. Peltier's supporters to disseminate information and
>increase public awareness about his case, the Federal Bureau
>of Investigation Agents Association placed a large paid
>advertisement in the Washington Post.  This ad intended to
>mislead the public and obstruct full and fair consideration
>of Peltier's parole and clemency requests with statements that
>were inappropriate, inaccurate, deceptive, and inflammatory.
>
>Similar public statements were made by individual FBI agents,
>as well as the organizers of a Web site dedicated to denying
>a fair consideration of Mr. Peltier's requests for parole.
>
>But nothing was more bizarre than the event of December 15, 2000.
>In an unprecedented event, over 500 FBI agents marched in front
>of the White House to oppose clemency for Leonard Peltier.  The
>agents claimed to be exercising their First Amendment rights and
>argued they were acting as private citizens on their own time
>despite the fact that this march took place during standard
>business hours.  FBI agents are law enforcement officers, it
>should be remembered.  As such, they are generally considered
>to be always on duty.  They also are officers of the court and on
>ethical grounds should have refrained from out-of-court
>communication, verbal or otherwise.
>
>The marchers risked disciplinary action (which never
>materialized, despite the concerns of then Attorney General
>Janet Reno) for one purpose, we believe, i.e., to garner media
>attention.  Indeed, the media paid special attention to the staged event,
>with segments airing on evening news programs of all the
>major television networks.  There appeared to have been a news
>blackout, however, with regard to the event five days earlier when
>THOUSANDS of people marched in support of Leonard Peltier in front of the
>United Nations building in New York City.
>
>All of the above tactics proved successful.  Despite indications
>from the White House that clemency was imminent, on January 20,
>2001, the list of clemencies granted by Clinton was released to
>the media.  Without explanation, Peltier's name had been excluded.
>
>Continuing Media Manipulation
>
>State ethics rules prohibit prejudicial statements by attorneys in a case.
>  These rules apply in both state and federal court, and to
>prosecutors and defense attorneys alike.  The Supreme Court in
>Gentile v. State Bar of Nevada noted that "[f]ew interests under
>the Constitution are more fundamental than the right to a fair trial by
>impartial jurors," and such ethics rules are necessary to
>uphold that right.
>
>The American Bar Association's Model Rule 3.6, on Trial
>Publicity, sets the standard.  It prohibits an attorney who is
>participating in a case investigation or litigation - as well as any
>lawyer in the same firm or government agency - from making an
>out-of-court statement that would have the substantial likelihood
>of prejudicing "an adjudicative proceeding" in the matter.
>
>In early February 2004, a murder trial was held in Rapid City,
>South Dakota.  Arlo Looking Cloud was charged in the murder of
>Anna Mae Pictou Aquash in 1976.
>
>During the trial, it is true that the U.S. prosecutor refrained
>from making out-of-court statements.  However, the majority of
>the testimony presented by the U.S. prosecutor during the four-
>day trial concerned the American Indian Movement (AIM), in
>general, and Leonard Peltier, in particular, and had no relevance
>to the government's case.
>
>There is no ethics rule to prevent in-court statements.
>Reporters observing the trial were treated to a barrage of
>prejudicial information that served to sensationalize the
>proceedings.  This clearly had an effect on jurors, but we
>believe the real target audience was the media and, by extension,
>the American public.
>
>The style and content of the articles published by the media
>during the February trial of Arlo Looking Cloud were
>alarmingly similar to those published by the media at the
>request of particular FBI agents during Peltier supporters'
>campaign for Executive Clemency in 1999-2001.
>
>Since the Looking Cloud trial, the media mentions about
>Peltier have increased, as well as highlighted and exaggerated
>the testimony given during the trial, to the extent that now
>it is claimed that Peltier may have ordered the murder of
>Annie Mae.
>
>What the media does not report is that Leonard Peltier simply did
>not have the authority within AIM to order any such action.  At
>the alleged time of the murder, Peltier was himself a prisoner
>in a Canadian prison and mostly isolated from the happenings in
>South Dakota.  Leonard did not learn many of the details
>of Annie Mae's death until he was extradited to the United States
>in December 1976, nearly one year after her murder occurred.
>Leonard Peltier simply had nothing whatsoever to do with Anna Mae
>Aquash's murder.
>
>Conclusion
>
>Nearly 30 years after the incident at Oglala, the FBI and
>government prosecutors still engage in vengeful acts.  They
>carefully avoided out-of-court statements this past year,
>However, they did use actual court proceedings, primarily for
>the benefit of the media, to intentionally provide as fact
>false information to the public on AIM and Leonard Peltier.
>This has the effect of rewriting history with regard to AIM,
>in general, and Leonard Peltier, in particular, so as to
>prejudice the public against them.  The sensational claims
>of witnesses - some of them paid informants - were widely
>reported in the press.  As other prosecutions with respect
>to the Aquash murder are pending, such behavior has the
>appearance of having been done for the purpose of prejudicing
>the public against AIM in a state where anti-AIM sentiment
>and racism against Native Americans already runs very high.
>In our considered opinion, these actions have been taken to
>influence the outcome of pending federal prosecutions by
>potentially poisoning the jury pool, as well as destroy
>support for Peltier and prevent his release on parole in 2008.
>
>============================================================
>============================================================
>
>The "PeltierSupport" Mailing List is a service of the
>Peltier Legal Team.
>
>To SUBSCRIBE, visit the Peltier Legal Team's Web site
>at http://www.peltiersupport.org.  Scroll to the
>bottom of the home page, enter your name & e-mail
>address in the mailing list text box, & click on
>"Subscribe" & then "GO".
>
>To UNSUBSCRIBE, please send an e-mail
><mailto:WillowElderGrove at netscape.net?Subject=UNSUBSCRIBE> to the Legal
>Team.  To ensure your wishes are honored in this regard,
>we prefer to manually remove your address from our e-mail
>mailing list.  Thank you.
>
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.islandlists.com/pipermail/mb-hair/attachments/20050226/0f9aacf2/untitled-2.html