Feeding America's appetite for land

[Marks - the Earth's Sun]

Porter: Sherrill: Feeding America's appetite for land
© Indian Country Today June 17, 2005. All Rights Reserved

The Iraq War caused many in the world to question whether the United States is simply an imperial nation intent upon consuming other nations and peoples for its own purposes. In explaining America's role in the world, former Secretary of State Colin Powell said that America is a ''great protector'' that has ''sent men and women from the armed forces of the United States to other parts of the world throughout the past century to put down oppression ... ll in the interest of preserving the rights of people.''

In concluding this, Powell expressly rejected the notion of America as colonizer and occupier: ''And when all those conflicts were over, what did we do? Did we stay and conquer? Did we say, 'Okay, we defeated Germany. Now Germany belongs to us? We defeated Japan, so Japan belongs to us?' No. What did we do? We built them up. We gave them democratic systems which they have embraced totally to their soul. And did we ask for any land? No, the only land we ever asked for was enough land to bury our dead. And that is the kind of nation we are.''

Indeed. Apparently, Powell completely forgot what the United States did to wrest control of this land from American Indians.

Which is why the Supreme Court's recent decision in the case of City of Sherrill v. Oneida Indian Nation of N.Y. is so ironic. At a time when the United States is engaged in a global war to promote freedom, democracy and justice, its very own Supreme Court is denying the right of a Native people to re-establish its own homeland.

The Sherrill case arises out of a challenge to the efforts by the Oneida Nation in New York to regain control over 300,000 acres of their aboriginal territory. Through a series of illegal treaties with the state after 1790, the Oneidas lost all but 32 acres of their land. On two occasions - in 1974 and 1985 - the Supreme Court upheld the right of the Oneidas to bring legal action to recover their land. The theory advanced by the Oneidas, and accepted by the Supreme Court, was that the 1790 Trade and Intercourse Act was violated because Congress had never approved the treaties with the state.

Despite these decisions, no action was taken by the United States to restore Oneida possession to the land. Years of negotiations dragged on with no results. The parties all agreed that the state was liable for illegally taking the Oneida land. The problem was what to do about it.

In 1980, the Cayuga Nation brought a similar action against the state, seeking restoration of 64,000 acres of land wrongfully taken in 1795. Unlike the Oneida case, the Cayuga case eventually resulted in a jury verdict. But instead of being awarded title to the land, the jury only awarded money damages. While the monetary award of $247.9 million was certainly significant, it was not the same as receiving actual title to the land.

Why not? Under American trespass law, ejectment of illegal occupants and restoration of title is the historic remedy for the wrongful taking of another's land. Why doesn't this rule apply to cases brought by Indians? Doesn't justice demand that the Indians be restored to title if the land has already been adjudged to be owned by them?

Apparently, the law of trespass only works for non-Indians. The reason is purely political. To eject the illegal occupiers of Cayuga and Oneida land would be to remove thousands of non-Indians, primarily white people, from land they have illegally been living on for over 200 years. Given this scenario, it is easy to see the reluctance of federal and state officials to do what is both legal and just.

In this way, what the Oneida and Cayuga land claims represent is a breakdown of the American legal system. It was not too long ago in America's history that tremendous efforts were taken to protect the rights of blacks. The Supreme Court ruled that racial segregation was illegal. The president ordered the National Guard to enforce the desegregation orders. Congress enacted civil rights laws to protect minority rights.

But when it comes to defending the inherent, treaty-protected rights of Native peoples, the laws and legal institutions of the United States look more like a house of cards than a foundation of liberty. Oh sure, there are cases from time to time that purport to uphold Indian rights in the face of opposition from non-Indians and their governments. These cases, however, are few and far between. This has been especially so in recent years with a Supreme Court that is extremely hostile to Native rights.

The Sherrill case is a prime example of this failure. Because no remedy from the government was forthcoming, the Oneidas took matters into their own hands and simply began to use their own money to buy back their own land. In a 10-year period, the Oneida Nation was able to repurchase approximately 17,000 acres of its original 300,000-acre reservation.

The Oneidas reasoned that this repurchased land was aboriginal territory immune from taxation and regulation. One of the fundamental principles of American law is that only Congress has the authority to extinguish Indian land titles. Accordingly, because Congress had never extinguished their title, the Oneidas concluded that their aboriginal possession was restored the minute they bought out the non-Indian occupant.

But they thought wrong. In Sherrill, the Supreme Court rejected the Oneida position. It held that the Oneidas could not unilaterally reassert control over their own land because the land claimed was populated predominately by non-Indians, the state and local governments have long exercised jurisdiction over it, and the Oneidas simply waited too long to remedy the situation. In short, the court actually held that ''equity'' under these circumstances favored the non-Indians, not the Oneidas.

In the weeks following the decision, the local whites have been attacking the Oneidas like buzzards feeding on fresh road kill. The local town assessed the Oneida casino at $399 million and has sought to shut it down for non-payment of taxes. If shutting down the only thriving business in an economically depressed region and throwing 4,000 people out of work is not evidence of irrational hatred, I don't know what is.

Billions and billions of dollars are now being spent to wage wars and spread the American way of life all over the world. But here at home, it is a dirty little secret how America treats indigenous peoples.

Powell was dead wrong about America's ambitions towards other countries. For the United States, it has always been about accumulating land, money and power. The Indian nations were the first victims of America's voracious appetite. But unlike the Iraqis, the United States does not need the military to carry out its agenda on the domestic front. It has the Supreme Court to do that for it.

Robert Odawi Porter, J.D., Seneca, is a professor of Law, senior associate dean for research and Dean's Research Scholar for Indigenous Nations Law at Syracuse University. He is the founding director of the Syracuse University Center for Indigenous Law, Governance and Citizenship. Previously he was an attorney general for the Seneca Nation of Indians and a chief justice of the Sac and Fox Nation Supreme Court.

[Marks - the Earth's Sun]

FBI compiles files on rights, anti-war groupsPublished: Tuesday, 19 July, 2005, 12:35 PM Doha Time

WASHINGTON: The US Federal Bureau of Investigation has collected some 3,500 pages of files on civil rights, environmental and antiwar groups, US media reported yesterday.

The FBI has monitored websites and compiled correspondence and other documents on several groups over the past years, said The New York Times, The Washington Post, and other US news media.

The targets included the environmental group Greenpeace, which has led acts of civil disobedience in protest over the administration policies and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), one of the leading critics of Bush’s anti-terrorism policies.

“I’m still somewhat shocked by the size of the file on us,” said Anthony Romero, executive director of the ACLU, told The New York Times.

“Why would the FBI collect almost 1,200 pages on a civil rights organisation engaged in lawful activity?” he said.

The groups accuse FBI counter-terrorism officials of using their expanded powers since the September 11 terrorism attacks to blur the line between legitimate civil disobedience and potential terrorist activity in an effort to stifle political opposition.

The FBI compiled records on another group, United for Peace and Justice, which led wide-scale protests over the Iraq war at last year’s Republican National Convention in New York City, and a group called the American Indian Group in Colorado.

“We always assumed the FBI. was monitoring us, but to see the counter-terrorism people looking at us like this is pretty jarring,” Leslie Cagan, a spokeswoman for the group, told the Times.

The US Justice Department disclosed the existence of the documents in a filing earlier this month in a Washington federal court, after a several of the groups sued for disclosure of the documents under the federal Freedom of Information Act.

FBI and Justice Department officials told the Times they have not sought to monitor the political activities of activist groups, and said the surveillance was to head off disruptive or criminal activity at demonstrations, not to hinder free speech. – AFP

[Marks - the Earth's Sun]

Bush calls for sell-off of Western public land
Critics question the budget proposal, which would put some proceeds toward reducing the federal deficit.
By Mike Soraghan
Denver Post Staff Writer

Washington - President Bush wants to sell more public land across the West to raise money for schools, conservation and deficit reduction.

Bush's proposed 2007 federal budget, sent to Congress on Monday, calls for granting the U.S. Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management new authority to sell off land. Those agencies together control hundreds of millions of acres in Western states.

Democrats and environmentalists compare the idea to recent proposals by Tom Tancredo and other Republicans in Congress to sell federal land to pay for hurricane relief and invigorate the mining industry.

Dave Alberswerth of the Wilderness Society dubbed the new sell-off proposal "a billion-dollar privatization program."

And Rep. Mark Udall, D-Colo., sees it as a destructive way to pay for what he considers reckless tax cuts. "It's like selling your homestead to pay your credit cards," he said.

Administration officials, however, say they're merely tinkering with existing programs that let them sell scattered lands with little natural value.

"We have 350,000 acres of small, isolated tracts that are difficult to manage and no longer serve National Forest System needs," said Agriculture Undersecretary Mark Rey, who oversees the Forest Service. He also said the agency adds more than 100,000 acres a year.

>:(The Forest Service proposes selling 150,000 to 200,000 acres to raise $800 million over five years.

The agency is trying to maintain a program that supported rural schools with timber proceeds but ran into financial trouble when logging declined.

The BLM doesn't have an estimate of how many acres it might sell under the plan, but it expects to sell land worth $40 million to $50 million per year. Some of the money would go to BLM conservation programs, but at least 70 percent would go to the Treasury.
Neither agency has said what lands it expects to sell, but the Forest Service is expected to post a list of potential sites on its website by Friday.

Recent attempts to sell public land have not been popular. In December, Rep. Jim Gibbons, R-Nev., withdrew his plan to allow mining companies to buy public land amid complaints that it would lead to backcountry development.

Tancredo, R-Colo., introduced a bill in September that would order the Interior Department to sell 15 percent of its land to offset the costs of repairing Hurricane Katrina's damage to the Gulf Coast. The Interior Department oversees the BLM and the national park system.

"The president's budget takes a common-sense approach to public lands that Westerners appreciate," Tancredo said Tuesday. "The federal government should sell land that it has no business owning in order to fund more important functions and to return the land to the local tax base."