Leonard Peltier remains defiant, maintaining innocence and vowing continued activism
Graham Lee BrewerAssociated PressBELCOURT, N.D. — More than 50 years after a shootout on the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation landed him in federal prison, Leonard Peltier remains defiant.He maintains his innocence in the deaths of two FBI agents in 1975 and sees his newfound freedom — the result of a commutation from former President Joe Biden — as the beginning of a new phase of his activism."I'm going to spend the rest of my life fighting for our people, because we ain't finished yet. We're still in danger," Peltier, now 80, said in an exclusive interview with The Associated Press at his new home on the Turtle Mountain Reservation, his tribal homeland in North Dakota, near the Canadian border.There among the rolling, often snow-covered hills, he will serve out the rest of his sentence on house arrest.Born into an era of violent hostility between the American government and Indigenous peoples, the former American Indian Movement member has now stepped into another politically volatile moment in the country. He said he understands well the threats the rise of the far right, as well as the federal government, pose to tribal nations and Indigenous peoples. He believes that, like previous administrations, President Donald Trump will come for mineral and oil on tribal lands."You don't have to get violent, you don't have to do nothing like that. Just get out there and stand up," he told AP this week, in his first sit-down conversation with a journalist in over 30 years. "We got to resist."
The FBI and Native American activists: A volatile mixPeltier was part of a movement in the late 1960s and 1970s that fought for Native American rights and tribal self-determination, sometimes occupying federal and tribal property.The movement grabbed headlines in 1973 when it took over the village of Wounded Knee on Pine Ridge, leading to a 71-day standoff with federal agents. They also protested at Alcatraz and the Bureau of Indian Affairs headquarters. For many members of the American Indian Movement, or AIM, their activism was part of legacy of resistance stretching back to the country's founding.The day of the shootout came amid heightened tensions on the Pine Ridge reservation, where residents felt the FBI's heavy presence was a threat to the people's autonomy. Peltier and other AIM members got into a confrontation with agents Jack Coler and Ron Williams when the agents drove onto a rural property where the AIM members were staying. Both agents were shot and killed, along with Joseph Stuntz, another AIM member.The FBI says Peltier shot the agents at close range. In a letter sent to Biden last year opposing his release, former FBI director Christopher Wray called Peltier a "remorseless killer."His guilt is clear to many, including North Dakota Gov. Kelly Armstrong."More than 20 federal judges upheld his conviction, and he was denied parole as recently as last July," Armstrong said in a statement to the AP. "There was no legal justification for his release. He should still be in prison."
Peltier was not pardoned; Biden said he was commuting Peltier's sentence because of his age, his declining health, and the long period he had already been in prison.Peltier has acknowledged he was at the shootout, but says he acted in self-defense and wasn't the one whose bullets killed the agents. He believes the FBI and prosecutors were looking for someone to take the blame, after his two co-defendants were exonerated for self-defense."They wanted revenge, and they didn't know who was responsible," Peltier told the AP from the kitchen table of his new home. "And they said 'Put the full weight of the American government on Leonard Peltier, we need a conviction.' And when they say that you don't have no rights," he said.Amnesty International and scores of political leaders around the world called Peltier a political prisoner of the U.S., questioning the fairness of his trial and conviction. James Reynolds, the former U.S. Attorney who oversaw Peltier's conviction, urged clemency in a letter to Biden in 2021, acknowledging that prosecutors couldn't prove Peltier fired the fatal shots and calling his imprisonment "unjust".His grandson, Cyrus Peltier, remembers visiting him every weekend at Leavenworth, a federal prison in Kansas. He didn't always understand why his grandfather wouldn't just tell the parole board he was sorry for the crimes, and hopefully win his freedom."And he would say 'Well, that's just not what I'm fighting for, grandson,'" Cyrus Peltier, now 39, recalled from his home in North Dakota this week. "'I'm sorry for what happened to those agents, but I'm not going to sit here and admit to something I didn't do. And if I have to die in here for that, I'm going to.'"A life behind bars, but always hope for freedomIn prison, Peltier's fame only grew, as he amassed the support of prominent political leaders around the globe and celebrities in the U.S. and became a symbol of the injustices against Native Americans.He said it was all their letters of support and acts of protest for his release that kept him going.Peltier said there were moments in the last few years where he began to lose hope that he would ever see freedom. His denial of parole in July was another crushing blow."They gave me the strength to stay alive and to know what I was in prison for," he said.
Many Indigenous people, leaders, and organizers lobbied for decades for Peltier's release.However, some who believe Peltier was involved in the murder of AIM member Anna Mae Pictou Aquash in 1975, fought against his release. Two other AIM members were convicted of the crime."Their ability to say that he is free and he gets to go home negates the whole fact that Anna Mae never got to go home," said Aquash's daughter, Denise Pictou Maloney.In his interview with the AP, Peltier denied having any knowledge of Aquash's death.'I didn't give my life for nothing'In the end, Biden listened to the counsel of former Secretary of the Interior Deb Haaland, a member of the Pueblo of Laguna and the first Native American to lead the Interior Department. Pelltier was released on Feb. 18, and returned to North Dakota.A week later, he still often wakes up at night terrified that it is all a dream and that he is still in a cell.Peltier remains confined to his home and nearby community. But he now has access to routine medical treatment for his many health issues, including an aortic aneurysm. He gets around with the help of a cane or a walker.He is heartened by the many people who come to visit him and drop off gifts like beaded medallions, letters and artwork, which are piling up in his home.Peltier wants to make a living selling his paintings, as he did in prison, and plans to write more books. He also wants to train young activists about the threats they will face.When he was in prison, lying in his bunk at night, he would often wonder if his protest efforts resulted in any change. Seeing young Native activists today continuing to fight for the same things gives meaning to the 49 years he was incarcerated."It makes me feel so good, man, it does," he said, holding back tears. "I'm thinking, well, I didn't give my life for nothing."AP reporter Jack Dura in Bismarck, North Dakota, contributed to this report.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hamilton Spectator
33 minutes ago
- Hamilton Spectator
Why some Canadians are alarmed by Mark Carney's pledge to act with urgency
Canadians elected Prime Minister Mark Carney's Liberal government based on its pledge to act with urgency and fix things — the country's economy, its security and its standing on the world stage. But with the unveiling of a bill to supercharge the economy and early efforts to improve the country's adversarial relations with India and China, there's growing concern that Carney's plans to boost Canada could involve unsavoury trade offs. Ask Indigenous leaders who were left out of 'nation-building' meetings or were given just a week to comment on legislation that will fast track infrastructure projects reasonably expected to pass through their treaty-protected territories. Ask Sikh-Canadian leaders who have seen their members targeted for death or violence, allegedly on orders from Indian government agents. Last Friday, they listened as Carney defended his G7 invitation to Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi as one that 'makes sense' based on India's economic power, population and key role in international 'supply chains.' Ask foreign aid organizations, perhaps, if Canada commits to radically increasing defence spending along with NATO allies at a leaders' summit planned for later this month. Carney is not alone in his apparent willingness to step on toes if it means he can move further and faster in responding to the sense of emergency at hand. It's part of a global movement with governments invoking looming threats and emerging risks to push through all sorts of questionable — and sometimes contestable — priorities. The most blatant example is the one that has sparked the economic emergency in Canada. U.S. President Donald Trump's tariffs on imports have been pushed through not with legislation that can be studied, debated and voted upon, but through presidential executive orders invoking real or imagined national emergencies at the Canada-U. S. border. They are premised upon risks from America-bound migrants, fentanyl, steel and cars and, despite initial court rulings that tranches of the tariffs are illegal under U.S. law, they remain in effect. Likewise, the generalized panic that Russia's three-years-and-counting war against Ukraine has instilled in Europe. There is legitimate reason to worry about the longer-term intentions of Russian President Vladimir Putin, a leader who has been unwilling to agree to a ceasefire despite sanctions, despite diplomatic isolation, despite the more recent appeals, threats and exhortations of the Trump administration. But preparations for a potentially wider conflict on the European continent now have German officials talking about rehabilitating long-abandoned bunkers, Poland vowing to build up 'the strongest army in the region,' and Swedish households receiving an alarming 32-page pamphlet from their government entitled: 'In case of crisis or war.' 'To all residents of Sweden: we live in uncertain times,' the booklet begins ominously. It goes on to cover everything from securing one's home to digital safety to instructions on how to stop bleeding to advice about handling pets and talking to children. This is the political and emotional backdrop against which Canada and other NATO member states later this month are expected to back an agreement to steeply increase in their national defence budgets, moving to five per cent of GDP from two per cent. If agreed to, it will result in many billions of dollars going to weapons, tanks, planes and soldiers' salaries. But before those purchases can go ahead, there will be many difficult choices made about how to come up with the funds. Governments always talk about finding budget efficiencies for unexpected priorities, though saving is not a specialty for which politicians are well suited. Even Donald Trump and Elon Musk came up spectacularly short of their savings pledges through the Department of Government Efficiency. More frequently, governments end up robbing Peter in order to pay Paul, as the saying goes — cutting spending in on domain to increase it in another. That is exactly what the United Kingdom did with blunt effect when it announced earlier this year that it would slash foreign aid spending drastically in order to increase the defence budget. 'Few countries have articulated such a direct, one-to-one trade off before between those two areas of public spending,' noted a report from ODI Global , a think tank, that criticized the British government for thinking of defence and foreign-aid spending as an either-or choice. Similar potential trade offs are cause for concern in Canada. Will the urgency to build oil pipelines and assert the country as an 'energy superpower' in new markets come at the cost of Canada's fight against global warming? Carney's reputation as a climate-change warrior is well-established, but his use of the oil-and-gas industry's ' marketing speak ' at a recent meeting first ministers' meeting with provincial premiers has some worried about the economy taking priority over the environment. Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami, the national association representing Canadian Inuit, wasn't even invited to the first ministers' meeting, which concluded with a statement about the need to 'unlock the North's economic potential.' 'It is troubling that in 2025, the Government of Canada is so comfortable with empty rhetoric in place of rightful participation,' the Inuit association said in a news release . The legislation to get Carney's economic fast-track transformation under way — one that the Liberal government wants to pass into law by Canada Day — was decried by the Assembly of First Nations, which had just seven days to provide any concerns about the bill, APTN News reported . There are those who will defend a go-fast approach to governing in extraordinary times. They will warn that there is a greater risk in being sunk by the status quo — the never-ending consultations, the delays, red-tape entanglements. 'The advantage of a wartime mentality lies in the sense of urgency it introduces, and the readiness it encourages to push aside unnecessary bureaucratic barriers,' wrote Lawrence Freedman, an emeritus professor of War Studies at King's College London, in a piece about Russia, Ukraine and Europe. It's a line that can be applied as equally to Ottawa as to Moscow, Kyiv, Paris, Brussels or London. But one person's bureaucratic barrier is the next person's guard rail — a measure ensuring confidence, protecting against damaging errors, saving lives. Moving at high speeds, it can be difficult to spot the difference.
Yahoo
34 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Noem praised Trump for sending National Guard. She opposed it when Biden considered it.
WASHINGTON – As South Dakota governor in February 2024, Kristi Noem threatened then-President Joe Biden when Democrats said he should federalize the National Guard in Texas to disrupt that state governor's anti-immigration efforts. If he did, Noem warned, Biden would be mounting a 'direct attack on states' rights,' and sparking a 'war' between Washington and Republican-led state governments, she said in a Feb. 6, 2024 interview with Fox News host Sean Hannity. On June 8, Noem − now President Donald Trump's Homeland Security secretary − cheered Trump for doing the same thing to the Democratic governor of the state of California. Over the weekend, Trump deployed riot gear-clad National Guard troops to Los Angeles to shut down anti-immigration protests over the objections of California Gov. Gavin Newsom. If Newsom 'was doing his job," Noem said, "our ICE agents would not be injured and attacked while doing their jobs and carrying out immigration enforcement." 'Under the leadership of @POTUS," Noem added in a post on X, "Trump we will put the safety of American citizens FIRST not these criminal illegal aliens that sanctuary city politicians are defending.' Trump said late Sunday that he sent the National Guard to California to restore order amid mounting violent clashes between police and rock-throwing protesters angry at his aggressive efforts to detain and deport undocumented immigrants in the U.S. illegally. 'We're not going to let this happen to our country." Traditionally, it is up to the governor of a particular state to deploy the National Guard. Trump's National Guard deployment of 2,000 troops in Los Angeles is expected to last 60 days, according to a directive from California's adjutant general. Trump's memo June 7 invoked a section of federal code authorizing the president to call the guard into service to 'repel an invasion of the United States by a foreign nation' or to 'suppress a rebellion against the authority of the Government of the United States' or to 'execute the laws of the United States when the President is unable to do so with regular forces.' Newsom has vocally opposed Trump's intervention, and on Sunday formally asked the President to rescind the 'unlawful' deployment of the National Guard in Los Angeles. 'This is a serious breach of state sovereignty," he said, 'Rescind the order. Return control to California.' Former acting vice chief of the National Guard bureau (Ret) Maj Gen Randy Manner criticized Trump for sending the National Guard to Los Angeles against Newsom's wishes. 'The President's federal deployment of the National Guard over the official wishes of a governor is bad for all Americans concerned about freedom of speech and states rights," Manner said in a statement to Fox News. Manner said that while Trump's order was technically legal, Newsom has "the authority and ability to respond to the civil disturbances with law enforcement capabilities within his state," augmented as needed by requesting law enforcement assistance from other governors. Trump's order, he said, "tramples the governor's rights and obligations to protect his people. This is an inappropriate use of the National Guard and is not warranted.' On CBS News' Face the Nation Sunday, Noem explained her reversal by saying, "Governor Newsom has proven that he makes bad decisions." "The president knows that he makes bad decisions, and that's why the President chose the safety of this community over waiting for Governor Newsom to get some sanity," Noem said. "And that's one of the reasons why these National Guard soldiers are being federalized so they can use their special skill set to keep peace." Last year, Noem's tune was much different. At the time, Democratic lawmakers and immigration-rights activists were lobbying heavily for Biden to federalize the National Guard in Texas to defuse a brewing crisis there over the state's aggressive crackdown on illegal immigration. More: National Guard on the ground in LA as immigration tensions escalate: Live updates Biden's Department of Homeland Security was complaining that razor wire that Texas had installed at the border with Mexico was preventing DHS agents from Customs and Border Protection and Immigration and Customs Enforcement from doing their jobs. Activists said the wire was endangering the lives of those trying to cross into the United States, especially via rivers at the border where the wire was installed. The Supreme Court had ruled that the federal government could cut through the razor wire. But the Republican governor in Texas, Greg Abbott, was refusing to take it down. The dispute led to a prolonged standoff between Abbott and the Biden administration, with the Texas National Guard at times blocking Border Patrol agents from accessing certain areas of the border. To resolve the standoff, Democrats and others demanded that Biden federalize National Guard soldiers in Texas and order them to stand down and get out of the way of federal immigration agents. In response, Noem not only sent National Guard soldiers from South Dakota to the border to support Abbott's efforts. She also went there personally, she said at the time, to stand with him in case Biden decided to intervene against Abbott's wishes. For his part, Biden never said he was even considering the move, which would have been unprecedented in recent history. The last time a President deployed the National Guard over the home state governor's objections was during the Civil Rights protests of the 1950s and 1960s, when Southern governors refused to comply with orders to desegregate schools and other public institutions. 'That would be a boneheaded move on his part, total disaster,' Abbott told conservative host Tucker Carlson on his show 'Uncensored." In her interview with Hannity, the Fox News host told Noem that she and other Republican governors who "stood by Gov. Abbott's side' and opposed federal intervention likely caused Biden to back down from doing something that likely would "have precipitated a real, real crisis down there.' That's why she personally went down to Texas, Noem said, because she recognized 'the real threat that was to states' rights.' 'We will defend our Constitution. We will defend our rights because the last several years, we've seen Democrats take away our freedom of religion, our freedom of assembly, our freedom of speech,' Noem told Hannity. 'We can't let them take away our state's rights too, especially our rights protect ourselves.' This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: DHS Sec. Noem opposed Biden, but praises Trump, on National Guard
Newsweek
34 minutes ago
- Newsweek
How Elon Musk Is Responding to LA Riots During Feud With Trump
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. Elon Musk shared comments made by President Donald Trump and Vice President JD Vance related to the Los Angeles riots during his ongoing public feud with Trump over the "One Big Beautiful Bill" proposal. On Sunday, Musk shared a Truth Social post by Trump on X criticizing California Governor Gavin Newsom and Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass. "Governor Gavin Newscum and 'Mayor' Bass should apologize to the people of Los Angeles for the absolutely horrible job that they have done, and this now includes the ongoing L.A. riots," Trump wrote on Truth Social. "These are not protesters, they are troublemakers and insurrectionists." Why It Matters Protests broke out in Los Angeles over the weekend following reports that detainees were being held in the basement of a federal building. ICE denied these allegations, with a spokesperson previously telling Newsweek the agency "categorically refutes the assertions made by immigration activists in Los Angeles." The Trump administration has conducted numerous ICE raids, some of which have swept up individuals with proper documentation. Trump deployed National Guard troops to Los Angeles following violence toward law enforcement officials. What To Know Musk also showed support after Vance shared another Truth Social post made by Trump on X. "A once great American city, Los Angeles, has been invaded and occupied by Illegal Aliens and Criminals," Trump wrote. "Now violent, insurrectionist mobs are swarming and attacking our Federal Agents to try and stop our deportation operations—But these lawless riots only strengthen our resolve." In Vance's repost of the comments, he added, "This moment calls for decisive leadership. The president will not tolerate rioting and violence." Musk shared both Vance and Trump's comments with two American flag emojis. Elon Musk attends a news conference with President Donald Trump in the Oval Office of the White House, Friday, May 30, 2025, in Washington. Elon Musk attends a news conference with President Donald Trump in the Oval Office of the White House, Friday, May 30, 2025, in Washington. AP Photo/Evan Vucci Newsweek reached out to the White House and representatives for Musk for comment. The rift between Musk and Trump had intensified after Musk, once the head of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) in Trump's administration, launched scathing public criticism of Trump's signature "One Big Beautiful Bill" proposal. Musk repeatedly denounced the legislation as "outrageous," "pork-filled," and a "disgusting abomination," a stance that undercut the two men's previously close working and political relationship. Trump initially avoided direct confrontation, but as Musk's messaging intensified across social media, Trump publicly responded, calling his former ally "crazy" and suggesting Musk suffered from "Trump derangement syndrome." The situation escalated further after Musk went beyond fiscal disagreements and claimed, without substantiation, that Trump's name appeared in the Jeffrey Epstein files. White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt has called Musk's claim "an unfortunate episode." Trump countered by threatening "very serious consequences" if Musk decided to financially back Democratic candidates, a move some observers speculated Musk might consider as the feud deepened. Trump has dismissed the idea of reconciliation, asserting the relationship was over and accusing Musk of disrespecting the office of the presidency. Trump pushed the confrontation into the economic realm by announcing that cutting government contracts and subsidies to Musk's various enterprises, such as SpaceX and Tesla, would be the "easiest way" for the government to save money. Trump referenced Musk's critical response to the removal of the so-called EV Mandate as a turning point, accusing Musk of having gone "crazy" after this policy change. The White House characterized Musk's criticisms as stemming from disappointment over the legislative process, and Trump used his social media platform to emphasize the bill's fiscal benefits and to further depict Musk as acting erratically in the aftermath of regulatory shifts affecting electric vehicles. What People Are Saying Trump, on Truth Social: "Order will be restored, the Illegals will be expelled, and Los Angeles will be set free." Musk, reacting to a photo of the riots on X: "This is not O.K …." What Happens Next The riots in Los Angeles are ongoing. California officials are calling for the withdrawal of the National Guard. Do you have a story that Newsweek should be covering? Do you have any questions about this story? Contact LiveNews@
