NEWS: Lakota Indians Withdraw Treaties Signed With U.S. 150 Years Ago

WASHINGTON — The Lakota Indians, who gave the world legendary warriors Sitting Bull and Crazy Horse, have withdrawn from treaties with the United States.

"We are no longer citizens of the United States of America and all those who live in the five-state area that encompasses our country are free to join us,'' long-time Indian rights activist Russell Means said.

A delegation of Lakota leaders has delivered a message to the State Department, and said they were unilaterally withdrawing from treaties they signed with the federal government of the U.S., some of them more than 150 years old.

The group also visited the Bolivian, Chilean, South African and Venezuelan embassies, and would continue on their diplomatic mission and take it overseas in the coming weeks and months.

Lakota country includes parts of the states of Nebraska, South Dakota, North Dakota, Montana and Wyoming.

The new country would issue its own passports and driving licences, and living there would be tax-free - provided residents renounce their U.S. citizenship, Mr Means said.

The treaties signed with the U.S. were merely "worthless words on worthless paper," the Lakota freedom activists said.

Withdrawing from the treaties was entirely legal, Means said.

"This is according to the laws of the United States, specifically article six of the constitution,'' which states that treaties are the supreme law of the land, he said.

"It is also within the laws on treaties passed at the Vienna Convention and put into effect by the US and the rest of the international community in 1980. We are legally within our rights to be free and independent,'' said Means.

The Lakota relaunched their journey to freedom in 1974, when they drafted a declaration of continuing independence — an overt play on the title of the United States' Declaration of Independence from England.

Thirty-three years have elapsed since then because "it takes critical mass to combat colonialism and we wanted to make sure that all our ducks were in a row,'' Means said.

One duck moved into place in September, when the United Nations adopted a non-binding declaration on the rights of indigenous peoples — despite opposition from the United States, which said it clashed with its own laws.

"We have 33 treaties with the United States that they have not lived by. They continue to take our land, our water, our children,'' Phyllis Young, who helped organize the first international conference on indigenous rights in Geneva in 1977, told the news conference.

The U.S. "annexation'' of native American land has resulted in once proud tribes such as the Lakota becoming mere "facsimiles of white people,'' said Means.

Oppression at the hands of the U.S. government has taken its toll on the Lakota, whose men have one of the shortest life expectancies - less than 44 years - in the world.

Lakota teen suicides are 150 per cent above the norm for the U.S.; infant mortality is five times higher than the U.S. average; and unemployment is rife, according to the Lakota freedom movement's website.

I hope they stick to thier guns on this.....



hey BC long time no see

Go Russel! What a marvelous stand.

I saw that earlier and thought it sounded pretty interesting. I really have trouble seeing it as an unreasonable stance. An agreement is an agreement.

Russia and several South American countries are recognizing the Lakota ...free state? What am I to call this new development?

~K

Am I gonna need a fucking passport to get to Sturgis now?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by keiko

Russia and several South American countries are recognizing the Lakota ...free state? What am I to call this new development?

~K

---

Well if you are the US government you can call it sedition, conspiracy to corrupt US policies on behalf of foriegn powers, and possibly treason. It's no doubt that it can be called terrorism, as the American Indian Movement, a native empowerment and independance group Means has been connected to, is allready labled by the FBI.

While I am in 100% support of this ambition, it has absolutly zero legal recourse.

Some Indian territory has been granted limited autonomy by the government. These tribal areas are called "nations" but they are technically on land that is owned by the US and has been given to these people, so they are more like sub-states. These territories have thier own governments and I believe that they don't have to pay taxes to the US government. They can pass thier own laws, but I don't think that they can pass laws that are contrary to the US constitution, nor can they close thier borders and not allow US citizens entry. They don't print thier own money and they don't have thier own military force, but they do have thier own police force. Ultimatetly they are concessions that are granted by the US government, so the notion of independance is really a moot point. Most realize that it's just a way to keep the reservations standing.

Those people of Indian descent that do not live on tribal territories are US citizens just like everyone else that was born in this country and are subject to it's laws and government. If they make the motions to withdraw thier citizenship (which I'm not sure is even possible), then they have no legal right to be here and they can be deported and exiled.

The legality of any treaties is pointless as the law of the land is the constitution, which all other laws must be in accordance to, and THAT is pointless as well because the task of interpreting the constitution falls to the Supreme Court. So really what it comes down to is the law is whatever (51% of) the members of the Supreme Court says it is.