|
||||||
|
|
|
Analysis
and Refutation of the FBI's "Accounting" By Ward Churchill
|
||
In May 2000, the Minneapolis
Field Office of the Federal Bureau of Investigation released a
"report" entitled Accounting
for Native American Deaths: Pine Ridge Indian Reservation, South
Dakota. The document, which purports to disprove allegations that the
FBI failed to properly investigate the murders of 57 members and
supporters of the American Indian Movement on the Pine Ridge Sioux
Reservation during the height of the FBI's anti-AIM operations there
(March 1973 through March 1976), is so full of distortions,
half-truths and outright falsehoods that it literally demands rebuttal. What follows, therefore, is a point-by-point analysis of the myriad inaccuracies in the Bureau's polemic. Those few instances in which it provides additional, clarifying, or otherwise useful information will also be noted. |
||
Problems in Presentation |
||
The official untruths begin on the very first page of Accounting for Native American Deaths, with a "Forward" provided by Douglas J. Domin, Special Agent in Charge of the Minneapolis Field Office, wherein it is claimed that the document was produced by his agents in response to new information provided to his office by the South Dakota Advisory Committee of the United States Commission on Civil Rights in December 1999. This information, SAC Domin observes, consisted of "a list of fifty-seven names" of individuals who died violently on Pine Ridge during the years 1973-76, along "with allegations that their deaths had not been investigated" by the FBI (which held/holds jurisdiction and primary investigative responsibility within all federal trust territories, including American Indian reservations). Submission of this list and attendant allegations, SAC Domin continues, "for the first time, provided the FBI with specific information to address" in connection with longstanding "rumors" that the Bureau had, at best, frequently turned a blind eye to the murders of AIM people on Pine Ridge during the mid70s. "The names of murder victims were not attached to the rumors," he claims, and "addressing the allegations could not be [previously] accomplished." Once it was provided the names, he concludes, his office quickly prepared and began to disseminate its report for purposes of clarifying or correcting the record and "protect[ing] the [public] confidence the FBI must have to accomplish its mission."
This presentation
of "fact" is pure hogwash from start to finish. First of all, SAC Domin seems completely unaware that the Bureau itself confirmed its pattern of not investigating the murders of AIM people on Pine Ridge a quarter-century hence, while the deaths were still occurring. This 1975 verification was made by George O'Clock, then Assistant Special Agent in Charge of the FBI's Rapid City Resident Agency, the facility most directly responsible for investigating crimes on Pine Ridge. Responding to press queries as to why so many recent homicides on and around the reservation had gone unsolved, O'Clock announced quite straightforwardly that his office was in general "too shorthanded" to delved into such matters. Secondly, as the allegations quoted in the report itself make absolutely clear, it is not alleged that "none" of the 57 homicides were investigated by the Bureau. In eight cases the allegations state clearly that an FBI investigation is classified as either "ongoing" or "pending" after 25 years. In a further six cases, it is alleged that investigations were conducted, but that they were marred by severe defects. Hence, Domin's presentation misrepresents 14 of 57 allegations before the "accounting" even begins. Third, this was by no means "the first time" the FBI has had an opportunity to address the list of names and allegations in question. Along with Jim Vander Wall, I initially assembled it in 1987 from fragmentary records provided by Bruce Ellison, Ken Tilson and Candy Hamilton, all former members of the Wouned Knee Legal Defense / Offense Committee (WKLDOC). A portion of it was then published in my and Vander Wall's 1988 Agents of Repression (pp. 184-88), the first six copies of which book were acquired by the FBI library in Washington, DC. Refined and expanded in 1989, the list was then published again in my and Vander Wall's book The COINTELPRO Papers (pp. 393-4), copies of which were also acquired by the FBI library. The same list was also published as an attachment to an essay included in my 1994 Indians Are Us? (pp. 197-205), and still again in my 1996 From A Native Son (pp. 257-60). It has, moreover, been in continuous distribution by the Leonard Peltier Defense Committee (LPDC) for the past six years. Had the FBI felt the least institutional need to reassure the American public of its integrity by reporting on these particular matters - or believed itself obliged to correct what it sees as inaccuracies in the historical record - it could and should have done so at any point since the names and allegations first came into its possession more than a decade ago. The Bureau did no such thing, and it follows that the motives underlying the release of Accounting for Native American Deaths at this late date must be other than those described by SAC Domin. The question at hand is thus what the FBI's real motives might be. To this, the only plausible answer is that in issuing such material now, the Bureau is hoping to undermine prospects that imprisoned AIM member Leonard Peltier, currently in his 24th year of incarceration after being wrongly convicted of killing two FBI agents during a 1975 firefight on Pine Ridge, might receive clemency from President Bill Clinton before the first of the year. To the extent that the list of allegations can be discredited, so the reasoning goes, AIM will be discredited, and so, by extension, will Peltier. Viewed in this light, it is not hard to see that the report has nothing to do with a pursuit of truth or justice. To the contrary, it is difficult to imagine a more vindictive and duplicitous agenda than that prompting its publication. The FBI's document thereby stands revealed for exactly what it is: a patent piece of political propaganda. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|