The outcry over the recent release of Abdel Basset Ali al-Megrahi, convicted Lockerbie bomber, made me wonder whether it really mattered if the man was guilty or innocent of the crime. The fact that there was scant evidence used to convict him, including the use of an informant who was paid $2 million by the American government to testify against him, makes it appear more important that the authorities had someone to convict in order to appease the public.

It reminded me of a situation that occurred in the United States that involved a Native American man named Leonard Peltier and the U.S. judicial system. At the time, Peltier’s conviction for the murder of two FBI agents was used to set an example to the American Indian Movement that if it continued to protest against abuses of Native Americans by corrupt tribal leaders and anti-Indian racists, they would feel the full brunt of the American judicial system.

In 1975, on the Pine Ridge Reservation in South Dakota, Leonard Peltier was involved in a standoff with the FBI, allied with a local paramilitary group who were supporters of a corrupt tribal leader. During the standoff, two FBI agents were killed along with one Native American.

Many now believe that Peltier was falsely accused of the killings of the two FBI agents. Despite this, after 32 years of being incarcerated for the crimes, Peltier recently went before the parole board on July 28 and was once again denied parole. Similar to the evidence used against al-Megrahi, witnesses were either bought off or threatened by the American federal police force unless they testified against him.

After escaping to Alberta, Peltier was extradited back to the United States on the basis of the testimony of Myrtle Poor Bear, a woman with a learning disability who had never met him in person. It was revealed years later that she was threatened with having her hands cut off if she didn’t agree to testify that she saw Peltier kill the agents. Warren Almond, Solicitor General of Canada at the time of the extradition, later said that had he known the evidence was falsified, he would never have had him extradited.

It was found out later that the FBI had also doctored evidence involving the ballistics of a weapon belonging to Peltier to ensure that there would be a conviction.

In 1980, Peltier received another trial and with this new evidence at hand, it appeared the verdict might be reversed. During the trial, the judge would not allow Peltier’s defence team to submit the new evidence that might have resulted in his release.
In both cases, it now appears it didn’t matter whether Peltier, a Native American, or al-Megrahi, a Muslim, were guilty or innocent of the crimes they were convicted of. The perception that they were guilty through show trials, regardless of the evidence, seemed to be satisfactory to the public.

Revenge seemed to be a greater motive than actual justice taking place.

Brian Rice is a professor of education at the University of Winnipeg.

Published in Volume 64, Number 8 of The Uniter (October 22, 2009)