The Informant Quandary (Part II)

Albertson had rebuffed FBI attempts to recruit him as an informant, so the Bureau placed a “snitch jacket” on him by forging an “informant’s report” in Albertson’s handwriting. According to a court complaint later filed by Albertson’s widow, this “report” caused Albertson to lose his job, and associates and friends ostracized him. He spent the remainder of his life vainly trying to prove he was not an informant.

An equally, if not more, tragic story is that of Anna (Annie) Mae Aquash. A member of the American Indian Movement (AIM) during the late 1960s and early 1970s, Aquash was found murdered on the Pine Ridge Reservation in South Dakota on February 24, 1976. For years it appeared her death would be one of the more than sixty unsolved murders that had occurred on Pine Ridge because of an armed conflict between AIM members struggling for self-determination, and pro-government Indians, known as GOONs. To many AIM members, Aquash’s violent death symbolized the depths to which the United States government would sink to deny Indians their treaty rights and heritage.

But in 2003 two former AIM members were indicted for Aquash’s murder. One, Fritz Arlo Looking Cloud, was convicted, and the second is awaiting trial.

During Looking Cloud’s trial it was revealed that Aquash had not been killed by forces hostile to AIM, but by some AIM members who suspected her of being an informant. These revelations were echoed in the documentary The Spirit of Annie Mae.

These revelations have created a great deal of dissension. Some argue that the government is now using Aquash’s death to paint AIM as a criminal organization, thereby diverting attention from the legitimate grievances that inspired its creation in the first place. Others claim that these belated prosecutions are designed to destroy any possibility of parole or a new trial for imprisoned AIM activist Leonard Peltier. Others, however, welcome these trials as an opportunity to seek justice, albeit belatedly, for a woman who selflessly dedicated her life to the betterment of her people.

There are some who will argue that the legal system ultimately rights its wrongs by financially compensating those who were wrongfully imprisoned or falsely labeled informants: William’s widow Lillie Albertson, Elmer “Geronimo” Pratt, Joseph Salvati, Peter Limone, the families of Henry Tameleo and Louis Greco, and the families of Fred Hampton and Mark Clark were all awarded compensation for the wrongs directed against them or their loved ones.

But, as I stated in a previous Pravda.Ru article entitled Vote For Me (April 8, 2008), many states do not have laws to compensate the wrongfully convicted. In these states the wrongfully convicted, to obtain compensation, have to accomplish the almost impossible task of proving they were prosecuted “in bad faith.”

Unfortunately even the prospect of paying financial compensation may not be enough to dissuade zealous or corrupt prosecutors from misusing informants. From a purely cost/benefit perspective, some government officials probably felt it was worth paying a few million dollars to silence “Geronimo” Pratt behind prison walls, to murder Hampton and Clark, and to put a “snitch jacket” on Albertson. After all, do monetary damages really have any deterrence value when the government has the entire United States Treasury, and all the taxpayers, at its disposal?

Still, as demonstrated by the plethora of wrongful convictions, the leadership vacuum that led to the formation of the Crips, the suicide of William O’Neal, and the murder of Anna Mae Aquash, the direct and indirect social costs for misusing informants can be staggering.

Everyday, whether they want to acknowledge it or not, Americans walk on eggshells. Their money, their homes, their freedom, their very lives can be lost in an instant because of dishonest informants and corrupt members of a legal “system” who believe “sending messages” or “winning” is more important than truth.

David R. Hoffman, Legal Editor of Pravda.Ru