Forwarded from Jim Craven: the Blackfoot case against the Federal Government

Louis Proyect lnp3 at SPAMpanix.com
Mon Oct 2 17:32:33 MDT 2000


Hi Louis,

I'm home ill and cannot write from school, could you circulate this
indictment on the list and ask for constructive comments from the members
in order to improve it? Also thanks for circulating the transcripts of
Roland and me on the Residential Schools.

I'll keep in touch and thanks.

Jim

======

INDICTMENT OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, THE
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OF CANADA, DESIGNATED AGENCIES OF THE GOVERNMENTS OF THE
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND CANADA, REPRESENTATIVES OF THE BRITISH CROWN
AND NAMED CHURCHES RESIDENT IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND CANADA*

FOR THE COMMISSION OF INTERNATIONAL CRIMES AND CRIMES AGAINST BLACKFOOT
(PIKANII) LAW

AND PETITION FOR ORDERS MANDATING THE PROSCRIPTION AND DISSOLUTION OF NAMED
INTERNATIONAL CONSPIRACIES AND THEIR ORGANIZATIONS

By James M. Craven
Member and Named Prosecutor, Sovereign Blackfoot Nation


INTRODUCTION

I. EXISTENCE, STATUS  AND  SOVEREIGNTY,  OF THE BLACKFOOT  NATION

   Long before there were recognized nations called The United States of
America and Canada, and for many years since the genesis and recognition of
those nations, Pikanii or Blackfoot People lived as and formed a Whole
People and Nation. By any and all criteria under international law that
legitimate and mandate recognition of The United States of America and
Canada as sovereign nations, that have the unalienable right to
recognition, security and self-determination as nations, the Blackfoot
People have collectively constituted a "People" and Nation. Specifically,
Blackfoot People historically and in the present-day: 1) possessed/possess
Recognized and Commonly-shared Territory; 2) possessed/possess Recognized
and Commonly-shared History, Culture, Spirituality and Language;  3)
possessed/possess Recognized and Commonly-shared Legal and Political
Institutions, Processes and Traditions; 4) possessed/possess Recognized and
Commonly-shared Economic Institutions, Processes and Traditions; 5)
possessed/possess Recognized and Commonly-shared Mechanisms and
Institutions for Determination of Membership in and Leadership/Composition
of the Nation; 6) possessed/possess Recognized and Commonly-shared
Ancestors and Ties of Blood--Family, Clan and Tribe; 7) possessed/possess
the Recognized Capacity to Enter Into Relations With Other Nations; 8)
possessed/possess Recognized and Expressed Common Will of Blackfoot
Individuals to Live Together in Collectives Forming Whole Societies Greater
Than the Sums of the Parts; 9) possessed/posses Close Attachment to
Ancestral Lands and their Resources; 10) possessed/possess
Self-identification and Identification by Others as Members of a Distinct
Nation or Cultural Group; 11) possessed/possess a Recognized and Expressed
Desire to Remain Distinct as Blackfoot and Not to be Assimilated;

   As in the case of any Nation, the status and legitimacy of the Blackfoot
or Pikanii  Nation, and the unalienable rights of the Blackfoot Nation and
its members to security, peace, prosperity and self-determination do not
depend upon  any degree and kind of recognition or non-recognition by any
other Nation or entity. The objective reality and status (under
international law and as a defacto reality) of Blackfoot or Pikanii People
as a Nation, and the derivative rights  of the Blackfoot Nation to
security, peace, prosperity
and self-determination demand--rather than depend upon--recognition by all
those Nations seeking or asserting similar recognition (with less
authority) for themselves.

    Further, it is established and customary practice, and explicitly
codified in international law, that no members of one nation can be
summarily declared to be members or citizens
of another nation without their consent. Blackfoot Peoples and members of
the Blackfoot (Pikanii) Nation were summarily declared to be "citizens" of
the United States of America in 1924 without their consent, and were
summarily declared to be "citizens" of Canada in 1963 without their
consent. Further, it is established and customary practice, and explicitly
codified in International law, that no nation or representative government
of any nation, makes "treaties" with its own citizens; treaties are
instruments and agreements between and among sovereign nations. Further, it
is established and customary practice, and explicitly codified in
international law, that nations have the right to seek, expose and indict
those who commit crimes in the name of/against members of a nation and/or
against international law, and to prosecute, on their soil, or in
recognized international venues, those alleged to have committed such crimes.

   Prior to the precedents set at the Nuremberg and other International
Tribunals, it was thought that "established and customary" practice of
international law, and the whole of international law itself, applied only
between nations. It was the "customary and established  practice" in
international law that what governments or parties of nations did or didn’t
do to their "own citizens" or their "own national minorities" that caused
harm to these "citizens" or "national minorities" was not a matter for or
concern of international law. Documents of and research on, the periods
during which the U.S. and Canadian Governments summarily declared Blackfoot
Peoples to be "citizens" of the United States and Canada without their
consent, reveal that one of the clear and stated motives and intent was to
summarily declare removed--and to remove--certain "national minorities" of
the United States and Canada (including Blackfoot People) from any
protection, coverage or application of international law or conventions or
treaties to which the U.S. and Canada were signatories and were bound, by
summarily changing their status to that of "citizens" and thus making their
status and treatment an "internal matter" and supposedly not subject to
international law; this is in violation of Article 15 of the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights.

   Any extent to which that any of the core elements of the Blackfoot
Nation have been diminished or extinguished as a result of conquest,
occupation, and ethnocidal/genocidal policies and practices does not, and
should not, in any way call into question the existence, legitimacy, or
fundamental rights to sovereignty and self-determination of the Blackfoot
Nation and its members. Were it so, those who sought to eliminate
Indigenous Peoples in general and Blackfoot in particular, would be
rewarded for and assisted in the
commission of the very genocidal crimes against Blackfoot Peoples and
International Law for which they are being legitimately brought to a
Tribunal of  Blackfoot Justice.

     Indigenous Nations in general and Peoples of the Blackfoot Nation in
particular have recognized, established and codified rights to national
recognition, national sovereignty, national preservation and protection of
lands and resources, national self-determination and the national right to
take any and all measures necessary to preserve and protect the Nation
against genocide, wars of aggression, crimes against humanity and war
crimes or any other kinds of crimes or threats against the existence and
survival of the Nation as a whole or its members.  Legal support for and/or
codification of these fundamental rights are to be found in: The Nuremberg
Charter; The 1948 UN Convention on Genocide; Convention on the Rights and
Duties of States adopted by the Seventh International Conference of
American States Dec. 26, 1933 (to which Canada was not a signatory);
Charter of the United Nations, Article I (2) and Article 55; United Nations
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), Articles I
and 27; the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights
(ICESCR), Article I; UN General Assembly Declaration of Principles of
International Law Concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation Among
States in Accordance With the Charter of the United Nations; UN General
Assembly’s Declaration on the Occasion of the Fiftieth Anniversary of the
United Nations; Supreme Court of Canada Decisions (e.g. "the right of
colonial peoples to exercise their right to self-determination by breaking
away from the ‘imperial power’ is ‘now undisputed’."); UN General Assembly
Resolution on Permanent Sovereignty over Natural Resources (GA Res. 1803,
XVII, 17 U.N. GAOR Supp. No. 17 at 15 U.N. Doc. A/5217, 1962); Universal
Declaration of Human Rights, Articles 15 and 17;  UN General Assembly
Resolutions 1514, XV (Declaration on the Granting of Independence of
Colonial Countries and Peoples of 14.12.1960) and 1541;  UN GA Res. 2625
(XXV) of 24.10.1970, Annex, "Declaration on Principles of International Law
Concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation Among States in Accordance
with the Charter of the United Nations; Basket I, Final Act, Article VIII
of the Helsinki Conference  on Cooperation and Security in Europe; Article
38 no. 1 b of ICJ Statute ( two elements needed to create valid customary
law in international law: general customary practice and opinio iuris);
Article 38 para. 1 d) of the ICJ Statute (judicial decisions can be used as
"subsidiary means for the determination of rules of law"); the ICJ Advisory
Opinion on Namibia in 1971 ("Legal Consequences for States of the Continued
Presence of South Africa in Namibia); ICJ Advisory Opinion on the Western
Sahara (Order of 22 May 1975, ICJ Rep. 1975);  ICJ Judgment on U.S.
Military and Paramilitary Activities Against Nicaragua, ICJ Rep. 1986;  ICJ
Judgment on East Timor (Portugal v Australia), ICJ Rep. 1995; Permanent ICJ
Ruling in the Case of Greco-Bulgarian Communities, P.C.I.J. [1930], Series
B, No. 17,21; International Commission of Jurists, East Pakistan Staff
Study, 1972 ( " a people begins to exist only [and] when it becomes
conscious of its own identity and asserts its will to exist", p. 47);
International Labor Organization Convention 107; the draft "Inter-American
Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples" by the Organization of
American States; declaration of President Richard Nixon, 1973:
"self-determination as the key concept that would govern relations between
Indian tribes [sic] and the government of the U.S."; declaration of
President Ronald Reagan in 1983 that: "…the government-to-government
relationship between the U.S. and Indian tribes had endured…consistently
recognized a unique political relationship between Indian Tribes and the
U.S. which this Administration pledges to uphold"; declaration of President
William Clinton in 1994: "This is our first principle: respecting your
values, your religions, your identity, and your sovereignty…[We want
to]…become full partners with the tribal nations."; memorandum of the U.S.
Department of Justice (opinio iuris) [Clinton’s position] "builds on the
firmly established federal policy of self-determination for Indian
tribes."; Helsinki Final Act; "Fulfilling Our Promises: The United States
and the Helsinki Final Act" by the Commission on Security and Cooperation
in the U.S., 1979; "Compact of Self-governance Between the Duckwater
Shoshone Tribe and the United States of America"; Article I, Section 10 and
Article VI Section 2 of the Constitution of the United States;

     From the fundamental right to survival and self-determination, other
facts and conclusions flow inexorably. For example, Canada’s Indian Act,
and the Indian Reorganization Act of the U.S. strip a recognized Indigenous
sovereign nation, such as the Blackfoot Nation, with its recognized right
to self-determination, of the power to govern the internal affairs of the
Nation and transfer that power to entities of a foreign power (DIA ,
Minister of Indian Affairs and their "Tribal Council" creations in Canada
and the BIA, Department of the Interior and their "Tribal Council"
creations of the U.S. Government) thus summarily eliminating the right of
self-determination as a prelude to and instrument of elimination of the
Nation itself. The paternalistic policies of the Canadian and U.S.
Governments purporting to "protect" Indigenous Peoples through a "trustee
relationship", have demonstrably created and inexorably create, not
"protecting powers", but rather, powers, exploitative relationships and
indeed genocidal policies from which Indigenous Peoples need protection
through the exercise of the right of self-determination and through
international law.

     For the above-mentioned and other clear reasons, agencies such as the
BIA and DIA, and their creations the "Tribal Councils", whose policies and
actions are all subject to final approval and ratification by the BIA and
DIA, can never be recognized as the legitimate leadership and political
authority of the Blackfoot Nation. The mechanisms through which the
Blackfoot Tribal Councils are selected are non-Blackfoot in nature and in
terms of the "final authority" conducting and sanctioning them. Indeed
historically and in the present, corrupt Tribal Councils (not an indictment
of every person serving on a Tribal Council) have been selected, used and
run by the Canadian and U.S. governments as  key instruments of genocide.
It would be absurd and inherently illogical to suppose that only those same
Tribal Councils could have the authority standing to bring charges against
those who have committed crimes against the Blackfoot Nation—crimes in
which they were often intimately involved as co-conspirators and key
instruments of genocide.

II. PRECEDENTS, STANDING AND LEGAL AUTHORITY OF THE TRIBUNAL

   It was clearly established and accepted, by the parties participating in
prosecution and judgment at the Nuremberg and later International Tribunals
(which included the U.S. and Canada), that their findings would constitute
binding precedents adding to the corpus of evolving international law to
which the parties prosecuting and sitting in judgment themselves also would
be bound. Specifically, in his opening argument at Nuremberg, the U.S.
Chief Prosecutor Justice Robert Jackson noted:

         "Never before in legal history has an effort been made to bring
within
           the scope of a single litigation the developments of a decade,
covering
           a  whole continent, and involving a score of nations, countless
individuals,
           and innumerable events…Unfortunately, the nature of these crimes is
           such that both prosecution and judgment must be by victor
nations over
           vanquished foes [but] we must never forget that the record on
which we
           judge these defendants today is the record on which history will
judge
           us tomorrow. To pass these defendants a poisoned chalice is to
put it
           to our own lips as well. We must summon such detachment and
intellectual
           integrity to our task that this trial will commend itself to
posterity as
           fulfilling humanity’s aspirations to do justice." (Nuremberg
transcript)

  The findings, arguments and judgments of the Nuremberg and later
International Tribunals and Conventions clearly established, and
incorporated into the corpus of evolving international law that:
1) universal jurisdiction exists with respect to crimes against humanity
and genocide (no nation can claim immunity from international law or a
"sovereign right" to conduct crimes against humanity and genocide against
persons living under the control of that nation);
2) no nation may legally arrogate the "sovereign right" to selectively and
conveniently meet or not meet the terms of legitimate treaties or
international conventions it has ratified and accepted; nor may any nation
summarily assert primacy of national law over international law, treaties
or conventions in the event of conflicts between national laws and policies
and international laws;
3) even when certain crimes against humanity and genocidal acts against
persons and groups have been traditionally practiced and accepted by
members of dominant exploiting groups, and even in the absence of certain
explicit laws prohibiting such crimes, established principles against
retroactivity or ex-post-facto prosecution and punishment (punishing
someone for violating laws that did not exist when the crime was committed
on the basis the person (s) had no warning that they were culpable for
their conduct) may not preclude prosecution and punishments in present
circumstances when it can be shown, that alleged perpetrators violated
established and customary practices, sensibilities, laws and principles
that they routinely recognized, asserted and obeyed for themselves for
their own protection;
4) individuals and organizations may be held to be criminal and culpable
and prosecuted/punished even when acting as agents of broader governmental
entities and policies, and, the argument of "only following orders" would
no longer be acceptable;
5) "mens rea", intentions, motives and interests may be inferred and
considered "proved" on the basis of the highly probable, clearly
foreseeable (by a average and reasonable prudent person) or inexorable
consequences of given actions or policies and in the absence of  recordings
of specific utterances or documents explicitly detailing "mens rea",
intentions, motives and interests;
6)  common plans  to wage aggressive wars (crimes against peace), war
crimes or crimes against humanity constitute criminal conspiracies and  are
in violation of international law and established treaties to which the
U.S. and Canada were bound even before Nuremberg;
7) waging aggressive wars and barbaric practices against other nations or
groups within a nation constitute "Crimes Against Peace" and "Crimes
Against Humanity" in violation of international law and treaties existing
even before Nuremberg and to which the U.S. and Canada were bound;
8) even in all-out war there are limits in terms of outlawed barbaric
practices and outlawed targets of those practices that constitute "War
Crimes" and "Crimes Against Humanity";
9) that any "designated authorities", collaborators or "contrived
institutions" placed in control over the occupied victims of crimes
(designated by and for the interests and motives and those occupying and
controlling the collaborators also committing the crimes; e.g. Vichy
Government in France during World War II) by those being prosecuted, are
also criminal and can never be held to be or recognized as the legitimate
and representative authorities and institutions of those seeking prosecution
      of  and punishment for any crimes or violations of  international
law;
10) citizens of a given nation are also citizens of a World Community, and
since reckless, genocidal  and aggressive crimes, policies and actions by
parties of one nation have spillover effects on the World Community, and
since no one is free and all are threatened when anyone is oppressed, all
human beings of the World Community have both the unalienable right and
sacred duty to sit in judgment of (and attempt to stop) genocidal and other
criminal acts and policies by or against any members of that World Community;
11)  racial stereotyping and caricatures, racial policies and  creating
environments that objectively make genocide and crimes against humanity
more likely and easier to conduct and accept, are themselves crimes, even
without a specific nexus between a specific policy or polemics on the one
hand  and the death of specific persons on the other hand;

   The governments of Canada (represented by the British government) and
the United States were both participants (as prosecutors and sitting in
judgment) at the Nuremberg Tribunals. In his opening address, the U.S.
Prosecutor, Justice Robert Jackson noted:

      "The privilege of opening the first trial in history for crimes
against the peace of…
    …the world imposes a grave responsibility. The wrongs, which we seek to
condemn
    and punish, have been so calculated, so malignant, and so devastating
that civilization
    cannot tolerate their being ignored, because it cannot survive their
being repeated.
    That four great nations, flushed with victory and stung with injury,
stay the hand
    of vengeance and voluntarily submit their captives to the judgment of
the law is
    one of the most significant tributes that Power has even paid to reason."

   There was more than grotesque irony and hypocrisy in this statement. The
architect (Hitler) of  many of the very  crimes and policies committed by
the nazis and their collaborators for which they were being tried at
Nuremberg, had been directly "inspired" by aspects of  U.S. and Canadian
histories, policies and actions related to Indigenous Peoples. According to
James Pool in his "Hitler and His Secret Partners":

       "Hitler drew another example of mass murder from American history.
Since his
     youth he had been obsessed with the Wild West stories of Karl May. He
viewed
     the fighting between cowboys and Indians in racial terms. In many of
his speeches
     he referred with admiration to the victory of the white race in
settling the American
     continent and driving out the inferior peoples, the Indians. With
great fascination
     he listened to stories, which some of his associates who had been in
America told
     him about the massacres of the Indians by the U.S. Calvary.

         He was very interested in the way the Indian population  had
rapidly declined
    due to epidemics and starvation when the United States government
forced them
    to live on the reservations. He thought the American government’s
forced migrations
    of the Indians over great distances to barren reservation land was a
deliberate policy
    of extermination. Just how much Hitler took from the American example
of the
    destruction of the Indian nations his hard to say; however, frightening
parallels can
    be drawn. For some time Hitler considered deporting the Jews to a large
‘reservation’
     in the Lubin area where their numbers would be reduced through
starvation and
    disease. (p. 273-274).

    And:

         "The next morning Hitler’s ‘plan’ was put in writing and sent out
to the German
     occupation authorities as ‘The Fuehrer’s Guidelines for the Government
of the
     Eastern Territories: ‘ the Slavs are to work for us. Insofar as we
don’t need them,
     they may die. Therefore compulsory vaccination and German health
services are
     superfluous. The fertility of the Slavs is undesirable. They may use
contraceptives
     And practice abortion, the more the better. Education is dangerous. It
is sufficient
     if they can count up to a hundred. At best an education is admissible
which produces
     useful servants for us. Every educated person is a future enemy.
Religion we leave
     to them as a means of diversion. As to food, they are not to get more
than necessary.
     We are the masters, we come first.’

          "Always contemptuous of the Russians, Hitler said: ‘For them the
word ‘liberty’
       means the right to wash only on feast-days. If we arrive bringing
soft soap, we’ll
      obtain no sympathy…There’s only one duty: to Germanize this country
by the
      immigration of Germans, and to look upon the natives as Redskins.’
Having been a
      devoted reader of Karl May’s books on the American West as a youth,
Hitler
       frequently referred to the Russians as ‘Redskins’. He saw a parallel
between his
       effort to conquer and colonize land in Russia with the conquest of the
      American West by the white man and the subjugation of the  Indians or
       ‘Redskins’. ‘I don’t see why’, he said, ‘a German who eats a piece
of bread
        should  torment himself with the idea that the soil that produces
this bread
        has been won by the sword. When we eat from Canada, we don’t think
about
        the despoiled Indians." (James Pool, Ibid, pp. 254-255)

And from a speech by Heinrich Himmler (date not given):

             " I consider that in dealing with members of a foreign
country, especially
           some Slav nationality…in such a mixture of peoples there will
always be
           some racially good types. Therefore I think that it is our duty
to take their
           children with us, to remove them from their environment, if
necessary, by
           robbing or stealing them…" (Telford Taylor "Anatomy of the
Nuremberg
           Trials", Alfred A Knopf, N.Y. 1992, p. 203)

And from John Toland, preeminent biographer of Adolf Hitler:

           "Hitler’s concept of concentration camps as well as the
practicality of
         genocide owed much, so he claimed, to his studies of English and
United
         States history. He admired the camps for Boer prisoners in South
Africa
         And for the Indians in the Wild West; and often praised to his
inner circle
         the efficiency of America’s extermination—by starvation and uneven
         combat—of the ‘Red Savages’ who could not be tamed by captivity."
         (John Toland, "Adolf Hitler" Vol II, p 802, Doubleday & Co, 1976)

   We have and will present, solid evidence that many of the genocidal
practices and policies for which German and Japanese fascists were put on
trial and punished at Nuremberg and other International Military Tribunals,
were inspired by and directly paralleled, U.S. and Canadian histories,
policies and practices (past and present) with respect to Indigenous
Peoples in general and Blackfoot People in particular. Specifically, and
not limited to: 1) forced relocations and transfers of Indigenous children
and adults; 2) coerced/deceptive sterilizations of Indigenous children and
adults; 3) coerced and deceptive uses of Indigenous children and adults for
medical experimentation; 4) coerced and deceptive uses of  "blood-quantum"
criteria and categories to establish categories of "status" (versus
non-recognized and "non-status") Indians specifically designed and intended
to define Indigenous Peoples (and eliminate the ‘persistent Indian
problem’) out of existence; 5) arrogating to summarily eliminate
traditional Indigenous institutions and ways of determining Indigenous
leadership (Chiefs) and membership/composition of Indigenous Nations and
replacing those traditional Indigenous institutions and ways with
non-Indigenous organizations, entities, mechanisms and criteria designed to
impose compliant and collaborationist/sell-out agents of the non-Indigenous
forces intent on policies and practices defined as "genocide" under Article
II of the 1948 UN Convention on Genocide; 6)  outright thefts and takings
of traditional Indigenous lands and resources, making and summarily
breaking treaties constructed and imposed through unconscionable
relationships, threats, fraud, deception etc; 7) designating and using
Indigenous Reserves/Reservations as dump sites for highly toxic wastes and
causing a wide rage of diseases and disease trends that served as
instruments of genocide; 8) calculated uses of various instruments of
chemical and biological warfare designed to exterminate large populations
of Indigenous Peoples; 9)  practicing and/or knowing about and/or
tolerating and/or covering-up routine murder, sexual and physical abuse,
mind control, torture, illegal confinement, starvation, unsanitary
conditions, deleterious non-Indigenous diets, abductions, illegal
"adoptions", forced assimilation into non-Indigenous cultures, denial of
basic due process, coerced abortions and forced religious conversion in
Residential and Boarding Schools and other institutions; 10) establishing
and/or knowing about and/or tolerating and/or covering-up for corrupt
Government-sanctioned "Tribal" authorities, institutions, policies and
practices that resulted in losses/misappropriations of billions of dollars
of desperately-needed and owed Nation/Tribal resources 11) systematic
refusal to ratify and apply various precedents, Conventions and principles
of international law as they relate to Indigenous Peoples. These are but
some of the issues and particulars that we propose to charge and prove in
this Tribunal.

     The U.S. Government and the Canadian Government (represented by the
British Government) were major forces initiating and conducting the
International Military Tribunals at Nuremberg and those Tribunals were a
major force in the origination and content of the 1948 UN Convention on
Genocide. Yet the U.S. Government did not ratify the UN Convention on
Genocide until 1988, forty years after the original UN Convention on
Genocide. Further, the U.S. government summarily placed a "restriction" on
its ratification of the UN Convention on Genocide known as the
"Lugar-Helms-Hatch Sovereignty Package" which stated in Article I (2):

     "Nothing in the Convention requires or authorizes legislation or other
action by
    the United States of America prohibited by the Constitution of the
United States
    as interpreted by the United States."

   This is a clear violation of Article 27 of the 1969 Vienna Convention on
the Law of Treaties (recognized by the U.S. Supreme Court as the definitive
international law on treaties) as it is in violation of Article VI, Section
2 of the U.S. Constitution itself:

    [treaties are] "the supreme law of the land, and the judges in every
State shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any
State to the contrary notwithstanding."

    Documents of the U.S. Government reveal clearly consciousness of guilt
on the part of the Government and its agencies. Debates in the U.S. Senate
reveal that there was a general awareness of and fear that the U.S.
Government could/would be charged with geneocide and related acts for
historical and present-day policies and actions related to
African-Americans and American Indians.

    The Government of Canada was even more ingenuous in its duplicity and
attempts to appear to ratify the 1948 UN Convention on Genocide while
effectively obstructing its recognition and application. The government of
Canada put the crime of genocide in the criminal code of Canada as a crime.
However, of the five specific acts mentioned as constituting genocide in
Article II of the UN Convention on Genocide, three were deleted from the
definition of genocide in the Canadian criminal code. So from Article II of
the Genocide Convention, b) "Causing serious bodily or mental harm to
members of the group", and d) "Imposing measures intended to prevent births
within the group", and e) "Forcibly transferring children of the group to
another group" were deliberately not included in the Canadian criminal code
definition of the crime of genocide. Only a) [deliberate] killing members
of the group, and part of c) an intentional plan to "bring about the
physical destruction the group in whole or in part" were retained. The
clear intent was to make the definition of "intent" very narrow and the
proving of "mens rea" or intent next to impossible; and therefore
prosecution next to impossible to pursue. Indeed there has been only one
case of anyone being charged with the Canadian Criminal Code’s "genocide"
and that resulted in an acquittal.

   For these and other clearly calculated, duplicitous and obstructionist
machinations on the part of the Canadian and U.S. Governments and some of
their agencies,  they are also in violation of  the following articles of
the United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime
of Genocide:

Article I:

          "The contracting parties confirm that genocide, whether committed
in time
       of peace or in time of war, is a crime under international law for
which they
       undertake to prevent and to punish."

Article III

            "The following acts shall be punishable:

a) Genocide;
b) Conspiracy to commit genocide;
c) Direct and public incitement to commit genocide;
d) Attempt to commit genocide;
e) Complicity in genocide;

Article IV

        "Persons committing genocide or any of the other acts enumerated
      in Article III shall be punished, whether they are constitutionally
      responsible rulers, public officials or private individuals."

Article V

        "The Contracting parties undertake to enact, in accordance with their
      respective Constitutions, the necessary legislation to give effect to
the
     provisions of the present Convention, and, in particular, to provide
     effective penalties for persons guilty of genocide or any of the other
acts
     enumerated in Article III"

Article VI

        "Persons charged with genocide or any other acts enumerated in
                        Article III shall be tried by a competent tribunal
of the State in
                    the territory of which the act was committed, or by
such international
                    penal tribunal as may have jurisdiction with respect to
those Contracting
                    Parties which shall have accepted its jurisdiction."

Article VII

                        "Genocide and the other acts enumerated in Article
III shall not
                      be considered as political crimes for the purpose of
extradition. The
                      Contracting Parties pledge themselves in such cases
to grant extradition
                      In accordance with their laws and treaties in force."

Article VIII

                           "Any Contracting Party may call upon the
competent organs of
                        the United Nations to take such action under the
Charter of the United
                        Nations as they consider appropriate for the
prevention and suppression
                        Of acts of genocide or any of the other acts
enumerated in Article III."

Article IX

                             "Disputes between the Contracting Parties
relating to the
                          interpretation, application or fulfillment of the
present Convention,
                          including those relating to the responsibility of
a State for genocide
                          or for any of the other acts enumerated in
Article III, shall be submitted
                          to the International Court of Justice at the
request of any of the parties to
                          the dispute."

    The calculated, systematic and ongoing violations of Articles I to IX
of the UN Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of
Genocide by the Governments of the United States of America and Canada,
along Articles I to IX themselves and all authority under international law
recognizing/supporting the sovereignty and self-determination of the
Blackfoot Nation and People, legitimate and give "standing" and authority
to this Tribunal of the Blackfoot Nation. The Governments of the United
States of America and Canada have refused to recognize and have sought to
exterminate, the traditional elements, authorities and institutions of the
Blackfoot Nation and replace them with collaborationist elements and
institutions that would/could never charge those Governments of crimes
against international law or against their own laws even if they were so
inclined and  the evidence mandated such charges. The Governments of the
United States and Canada have refused to allow their own genocidal policies
and actions to be submitted to the ICJ and have refused to recognize
traditional Blackfoot authorities or institutions as having "standing" or
authority to bring charges at the ICJ and have refused/obstructed any real
exercises in Blackfoot self-determination that would result in the
Blackfoot Nation and its traditional authorities and institutions having
standing and becoming/being recognized as a "Contracting Party" able to
bring charges at the ICJ. The U.S. Government has refused to accept the
authority of the ICJ on any matters other than those related to "commerical
affairs". The narrow language of the UN Convention on Genocide has been
selectively interpreted by the Governments of the United States of America
and Canada in such ways as to allow those who practice genocide and other
crimes against international law to either physically eliminate and/or
summarily non-recognize any victims, evidence or traditional institutions
that might bring charges against them. This is like the nazis recognizing
only their puppet/collaborationist regimes in the occupied territories as
being "Contracting Parties" or "competent authorities" with the "standing"
to charge them with various crimes, and, recognizing only nazi courts as
the legitimate venues in which any charges could be brought.

   The long history of barbaric, criminal and genocidal activities
committed by the Governments of the United States and Canada and their
accomplices, against Indigenous Peoples in general and Blackfoot People in
particular, continues today. Every attempt to expose, stop and obtain
redress for various criminal activities through the institutions of the
perpetrators has been met with more denial, cover-up and repression.
Further, attempts to establish a World Court free of the biases and
influences of the perpetrators of crimes against Indigenous Peoples have
been obstructed by those very perpetrators. We therefore assert this
constituted Tribunal and its constituted authorities and procedures to be
legitimate (in traditional Blackfoot Law and in International Law) in
composition, location and standing. Any final decisions of this Blackfoot
Tribunal will qualify as binding "judicial decisions" within the meaning of
Article 38 (1) (d) of the Statute of the International Court of Justice and
will therefore constitute a "Subsidiary Means For The

    Determination of Rules of Law" for international law and practice. As
the "Statute of the International Court of Justice" is an "integral part"
of the United Nations’ Charter under Article 92 and to which both the U.S.
and Canada are signatories, this Tribunal’s decision may be relied upon by
some future International Criminal Court or Tribunal or by any People or
State of the World Community. Were this not so, the nazis of World War II,
for example, could have never been brought to justice for crimes in
"occupied territories" as the "designated representatives" and "recognized
authorities" of the occupied nations and victims, supposedly charging and
judging those nazis, would have been the very collaborators and accomplices
of the nazis against whom also charges were also properly made and later
proved. Indeed, not one of those "governments" or "governmental agencies"
recognized by the nazis as "legitimate", sat as judges and prosecutors at
Nuremberg; they all sat as defendants.

As to the standing, fairness and legitimacy of this Blackfoot Tribunal,
composed of potential victims judging alleged victimizers, A. L. Goodheart
in his "The Legality of the Nuremberg Trials", "Juridicial Review", April
1946 took on this argument succinctly:

    "It has been argued that the Tribunal cannot be regarded as a court in
the true
     sense because, as its members represent the victorious Allied Nations,
they
     must lack that impartiality which is an essential in all judicial
procedure.
     According to this view only a court consisting of neutrals, or, at
least, containing
     Some neutral judges, could be considered to be a proper tribunal. As
no man
     can be a judge in his own case, so no allied tribunal can be a judge
in a case
     in which members of the enemy government or forces are on trial.
Attractive
     as this argument may sound in theory, it ignores the fact that it runs
counter
     to the administration of law in every country. If it were true then no
spy
     could be given a legal trial, because his case is always heard by judges
     representing the enemy country. Yet no one has ever argued that in
such cases
     it was necessary to call on neutral judges. The prisoner has a right
to demand
     that his judges shall be fair, but not that they shall be neutral. As
Lord Writ
     has pointed out, the same principle is applicable to ordinary criminal
law
     because ‘ a burglar cannot complain that he is being tried by a jury of
     honest citizens."


SPECIFIC CRIMES AND VIOLATIONS OF INTERNATIONAL LAW

     The traditionally recognized and responsible authorities of the
Blackfoot Nation, present at this Tribunal and acting on behalf of the
Blackfoot Nation and whole People, specifically charge that the Government
of the United States of America and its agencies, the Government of Canada
and its agencies, the British Crown authority in Canada and  named Church
or religious organizations resident on Blackfoot lands and/or in which
Blackfoot were placed (Catholic Church, United Church, Anglican Church, LDS
or Mormon Church, Presbyterian Church) directly committed, and/or conspired
to commit, and/or sanctioned and tolerated, and/or facilitated, and/or
covered-up, and/or refused to prosecute and/or obstructed the prosecution
of the following crimes specified further in the following:


1) Article I of the UN Convention on Genocide;
2) Article II of the UN Convention on Genocide;
a) Killing Blackfoot persons as Blackfoot;
b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to Blackfoot persons as Blackfoot;
c) Deliberately inflicting on Blackfoot persons and the Blackfoot Nation
conditions
of life calculated to bring about the destruction of the Blackfoot People and
Nation in whole or in part;
d) Imposing measures intended to prevent biological reproduction of the
Blackfoot
People and Nation;
e) Forcibly transferring Blackfoot children to other (non-Blackfoot)
groups, lands and cultures;
3) Article III of the UN Convention on Genocide;
4) Article IV of the UN Convention on Genocide;
5) Article V of the UN Convention on Genocide;
6) Article VI of the UN Convention on Genocide;
7) Article VII of the UN Convention on Genocide;
8) Article VIII of the UN Convention on Genocide;
9) Article IX of the UN Convention on Genocide;
10)  Common Article 3 and Additional Protocol II of the Geneva Conventions
of 1949;
11)  Charter of the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg:
A) Article 6
a) Crimes Against Peace
b) War Crimes
c) Crimes Against Humanity
      B) Article 7
      C) Article 8
12) Principles of International Law Recognized in the Charter of the
Nuremberg Tribunal
And in the Judgment of the Tribunal as adopted by the International Law
Commission of the United Nations 1950 and UN General Assembly Resolution 177
a) Principle I
b) Principle II
c) Principle III
d) Principle IV
e) Principle V
f) Principle VI
g) Principle VII
13) Articles of the Statute of the International Criminal Court for Former
Yugoslavia
Specifying the Acts Within the Court’s Jurisdiction
a) Article 2
b) Article 3
c) Article 4
d) Article 5

14) Articles of the Statute of the International Criminal Court for Rwanda
Specifying the Acts Within the Court’s Jurisdiction:
a) Article 2 (2,3)
b) Article 3
c) Article 4

CONCLUSION


     The Blackfoot Nation and People are on the verge of extinction.
Victims of and witnesses to the various charged crimes are dying. Blackfoot
People individually and collectively cannot wait for the formation of an
International Criminal Court (blocked by the U.S. Government) to hear
Blackfoot charges against the Governments of the U.S and Canada and other
named parties. Blackfoot cannot wait for the U.S. and Canadian Governments
to allow charges to be heard by the ICJ at the Hague. Blackfoot cannot wait
for the traditional authorities, institutions and self-determination of the
Blackfoot Nation to be recognized and respected by the very Governments of
the U.S. and Canada intent on elimination of the Blackfoot Nation and
People and their self-determination. Blackfoot cannot wait for the U.S. and
Canadian Governments to "decertify" and de-recognize their puppet and
complicit entities (Tribal Councils, BIA and DIA) and to recognize the
traditional authorities and institutions of the Blackfoot Nation that are
certified and legitimated by the recognized right of and international law
governing self-determination of the Blackfoot  Nation and People.

     For all of the above-mentioned reasons and under all of the
above-mentioned legal authority (and more to be specified later) this
Tribunal, structured and conducted by the competent and traditionally
recognized authorities and institutions of the Blackfoot Nation, has
standing and authority under international law and any decisions or
findings of this Tribunal can be considered binding judicial decisions
under Blackfoot Law and International Law.



Louis Proyect
Marxism mailing list: http://www.marxmail.org/





More information about the Marxism mailing list