By John Q. Hosedrinker 
A letter signed by 34 Democratic lawmakers urges President Biden to grant clemency to Leonard Peltier, a Native American activist imprisoned for nearly 50 years. The letter highlights Peltier’s declining health and the flawed nature of his trial, citing coerced witnesses and suppressed evidence. Lawmakers emphasize this action aligns with the administration’s commitment to addressing past injustices against Native Americans. Recent presidential actions granting clemency and pardons fuel optimism for Peltier’s release.
Read the original article here
Dozens of Democrats are urging President Biden to grant Leonard Peltier a pardon and release him from prison. The calls for his release highlight a long-standing debate surrounding his conviction for the murder of two FBI agents in 1975. Many believe that Peltier’s case is a miscarriage of justice, citing potential misconduct by the FBI and questionable evidence presented at his trial.
The arguments in favor of Peltier’s release often point to alleged flaws in the original investigation and prosecution. Some claim the FBI, at the time, was overly aggressive and possibly manipulated evidence to secure a conviction, potentially using Peltier as a scapegoat. It’s suggested that the FBI’s actions were motivated by a desire to suppress dissent within the American Indian Movement (AIM), of which Peltier was a member. Others allege that key witnesses were coerced into providing testimony against him.
Supporters argue that the original prosecutors themselves have expressed doubts about the case and that substantial evidence points toward the innocence of Peltier. His continued incarceration is seen by many as a grave injustice, particularly given his advanced age and the length of his sentence. The focus is often on the idea that Peltier is a political prisoner, unjustly targeted due to his activism and his involvement in AIM.
Conversely, opponents emphasize the severity of the crime and the need for accountability. They highlight the fact that two FBI agents were executed in cold blood, emphasizing the brutality of the crime. While acknowledging that questions exist surrounding aspects of the prosecution, they remain convinced that Peltier was involved in the murders.
The debate often revolves around the level of Peltier’s culpability in the killings. While some maintain that he was directly responsible for the deaths of the FBI agents, others contend that the evidence doesn’t definitively prove he fired the fatal shots. This central point of contention makes it difficult to reach a consensus on the case.
Adding another layer to the complexity of the situation, some argue that even if Peltier was involved, decades of imprisonment, coupled with his age, justify compassionate release. The sheer length of his incarceration, combined with questions about the integrity of his original trial, makes a strong case for clemency in the minds of many.
The fact that President Obama did not pardon Peltier during his presidency further fuels the debate. Some see this as further evidence of Peltier’s guilt, while others point to the political realities and pressures that influence such decisions.
The issue also highlights a wider conversation regarding presidential pardons and the use of executive power. Some critics believe that Biden’s prior pardons have favored certain groups or individuals over others, leading to accusations of bias and inconsistency. The perceived disparity in the granting of pardons fuels the argument that Peltier’s case has been neglected due to his perceived lack of political influence or financial resources.
The ongoing debate demonstrates a deep divide in public opinion. It underscores the complex ethical, legal, and political considerations that arise when reviewing cases of alleged historical injustice. The call to free Leonard Peltier reveals deep-seated anxieties concerning issues of Native American rights, police brutality, and the potential for political abuse of the justice system. Whether or not President Biden ultimately grants the pardon, the case will undoubtedly continue to be a subject of intense discussion and debate.