“Would you also say you’ve have had the same access to and trust of others they may have? Cause it kind of seems to me you are taking the position no one can possibly know more, have greater access, insight, or knowledge. I know some of these people who have done the work- I don’t believe they have an agenda other than the truth, I think they are trustworthy and above reproach. I don’t think they are of a garden variety conspiracy nature- I think they have seen many of the same things you have, talked with many of the same people and probably some you haven’t, and arrived at a different conclusion. Is that “politics” or something else?”
I think it’s something else–because I disagree with someone, does not mean I find them untrustworthy or that anything more is unknowable. It simply means they haven’t convinced me.
“There are a lot of people going over the same material, the same FOIs you have-among them journalists, researchers, attorneys, and laymen-some who have devoted years to it-and some who don’t arrive at the same conclusions you do. Some are biased and some are not-so are you saying that your’s is the only accurate one? That everyone else is either wrong, doesn’t understand, or misinterpreting the same FOI’s, the same testimony, and the same facts that are known?”
No, what I’m saying is what I said: “I certainly don’t have all the answers but this is what I honestly believe, and I might add, they are the result of more research and honest inquiry than went into any other book about the true AIM legacy.” I am also rooted in the truth, if that be the spot you referred to. You may not like my answers…but that’s okay, we’re even. I take solace in knowing that I can be persuaded by facts and evidence, not by what other people think, unless they can back it up with facts and evidence. Case in point: There is a longstanding accusation that the FBI used a COINTELPRO against the AIM leadership. I believe we proved this to be false, as documented in our book. Others are free to disagree (Ward Churchill wrote a whole distorted chapter about it, full of “proof”), but that doesn’t change the facts. Which brings me to my point– where are these smoking gun FOI’s? I do not have the FOI’s you say I have. I’d like to see them, though. And if they are being examined, where is the analysis? And if they haven’t been found, how do we know they exist? Peltier’s attorneys have alleged, for example, that there are “secret” documents that exonerate him, if only those dudes down at the vault would share them with the public. Do you believe that is true? How does one know something exists if one can’t find it? Barry Bachrach is a good lawyer and a good friend, but we will never agree about whether or not Peltier got a fair trial. I have to go with the unanimous decisions of every judge who has looked at this double-murder and my personal knowledge of the case. Did I miss something? Can Barry or anyone else produce a document that would convince me otherwise? BTW, Rezinate, did you call Norman about the Hill controversy?
Back to the original question: What is the source of the allegation that FBI agents murdered women and children at Pine Ridge? Who was murdered? I’d really like to know. And I’ve heard of Justin Bieber, but I didn’t know he’s “the Bieb.” I’m from the generation of those who know “the Beav!”
The above from John Trimbach related to Not Trusted Anymore 2.
Well, I think often enough what is “known” is what is allowed, and what is allowed can lead people to a variety of different conclusions.
Allowed is redacting or denying FOI’s, allowed is the official story-I don’t believe for a minute that a “secret document” exists exonerating Peltier any more than I believed the Mr.X story or the map of Jumping Bull as a preplanned invasion strategy.
You keep pointing to Zigrossi as the defintive source of whether Hill rolled over-this while ignoring two essential questions:
(1). If he did is anyone going to admit it, something that would be contrary to procedure wouldn’t it?
(2). With both state and federal charges levelled against him what other possible explanation is there for him walking away from them- walking away, as in dropped, a get out of jail free pass-not going to trial and beating the charges in court.
The main difference between you and I is that you seem to want to take the position that in the entire history of humankind the feds are the only ones who have remained pristine-never erred, never did anything questionable or wrong. That’s a difficult sell few are going to buy into.
I’ve said in the past that American Indian Mafia was a seminal moment in search for the truth, well written, and thought provoking.
I also believe those who had been doing the same work prior to the effort behind your book were in part sourced, or at least sign posts pointing to directions to take.
Nothing wrong in that as it is part of the information gathering process-but that can be a selective process as well when something is deemed to be in need of defending.
“I think it’s something else–because I disagree with someone, does not mean I find them untrustworthy or that anything more is unknowable. It simply means they haven’t convinced me.”
You’re positions and arguments during these exchanges likewise haven’t convinced me.
“Back to the original question: What is the source of the allegation that FBI agents murdered women and children at Pine Ridge? Who was murdered? I’d really like to know.”
You’ll have a difficult time going over the blog in an attempt to find where I’ve said anything like the above, as I haven’t-but more to the point I’d like to know who lays in the unmarked graves and why nothing has ever been done about it?
If rez politicians are either intimidated by or in collusion with AIM and won’t do the work themselves what’s the excuse for the failure on behalf of the FBI who have jurisdiction over such matters?
Cheryl-Ray’s wife, says she conversed with them, was promised a proactive investigation, and yet nothing ever came of it. So what, she’s lying?
Questions related to that would be why would she lie and why hasn’t more been done?
Where is the proactive investigation-where are the corpse sniffing dogs?
As to COINTEL is it true that Richard Held ran it as a separate entity above other agencies? If so does that mean that everybody would have been in the loop?
And lastly since I don’t believe it to be the way of it do you believe that so much as a single agency, entity, committee, politician, anywhere within this government or any other doesn’t withhold information, doesn’t craft what is made public?
I believe Peltier is as guilty as they come, but also think your statement of having to go with what the courts say is a little too broad a statement for me.
If it always came down to that there would be no appeals, there would be no reversals, and as we increasingly see the growing number of people who have spent an egregious amount of time after being wrongly convicted and going through multiple layers of the “process” to finally be exonerated wouldn’t be happening.
They are gaining their freedom because what the courts have said isn’t being accepted as holy writ-that it is understood prosecutors and cops will lie and withhold evidence, proven on more than one occasion-corrupt or inept judges as you have said will play the game for who knows whatever reasons. Hardly a climate to instill trust is it?
Personally I like the fact that Peltier and LPDOC bring court challenges, as it seems to me every time they do they dig their own hole a little deeper.
I’ve answered your “original question”-it would be nice if you reciprocated and answered the ones I have asked above.
I take solace in the truth, and commonsense, and when something doesn’t add up stepping back and asking who benefits from a lie? I have found that truth and commonsense often go hand in hand.
The same process that led me some time ago to see through the bs that is the stock and trade of the Peltierites.
You’ve stated that the motivation for writing your book was you weren’t satisfied with the “answers” that were being provided, and the book has provided answers and filled in some blanks, but I don’t believe it can be said to have provided all the answers.
And so it is the same motivation that compels a growing number of people to say they want more answers- having seen the benefit in that when you were motivated to do so I would think questions should be encouraged. Who knows where the answers could lead to?
As to calling people I don’t have the “disposable income” or inclination to make calls to people asking questions when I already know what their response will be.