syəcəb
Learn how to create a yellow cedar box drum with master artist, David Boxley, Tsimshian, April 6-7, 13-14, and 20-21 at the Evergreen State College Longhouse Carving Studio
Interested participants should be carvers with experience in making bentwood boxes or wood carving.
Info: 360.867.6413 or email: GRABHORL@evergreen.edu
By Rob Capriccioso, Indian Country Today Media Network
President Barack Obama surprised many in Washington, D.C. on February 6 by announcing his nomination of a political unknown, Sally Jewell, to become his next Secretary of the Department of the Interior after the impending exit of Ken Salazar.
Jewell, CEO of an outdoor gear and clothing company called Recreational Equipment Inc., will be expected to oversee an agency that includes the Bureau of Indian Affairs and many Indian-based areas, including trust programs, education, and economic development. She is also a former commercial banker and oil company engineer longtime advocate for conservation and outdoor recreation.
So what does Jewell, 56, know about Indian country?
Not much, according to her biography, and her office hasn’t responded to queries on whether she has personally taken an interest in Indian issues in her previous positions.
On that question, the White House has also been mum, saying that her office should be contacted, but adding that she is expected to be committed to Native Americans.
“The President has clearly demonstrated a strong commitment to Indian country over the past four years, and Mrs. Jewell is deeply committed to continuing to build on our nation-to-nation relationship with Indian country,” said spokesman Shin Inouye when asked about whether the White House has investigated her experiences involving Indian country-related issues.
“She is committed to building our nation-to-nation relationship with Indian country,” echoed Obama in his nomination speech of Jewell.
One small Indian-related fact has emerged to date about Jewell’s past: While she served on the Board of Regents of the University of Washington, the group approved the construction of the university’s new $5.8 million longhouse.
Despite the seemingly thin Indian-focused resume, Indian supporters of Jewell from Washington state said her career offers some insight into the type of leader she will be if confirmed by the Senate. “Sally’s strong roots in the Seattle Area, her leadership at REI, WaMu, and the University of Washington, have given her a clear perspective on the power and culture of the many Indian nations in the area,” said Chris Stearns, a Navajo attorney with the Hobbs Straus Dean & Walker law firm in Seattle, and a former Clinton Administration official. “She has been a hands-on leader of REI who built a culture of inclusivity and respect among its employees and shareholders. DOI is a much different beast than REI, no doubt, but her leadership style and history bode well for Indian country.”
“I receive the word of President Obama’s appointment of Ms. Jewell with confidence and great anticipation that she will do an exceptional job for not only tribal nations but all people and for the wondrous natural heritage of our great country,” said Fawn Sharp, president of the Quinault Indian Nation and the Affiliated Tribes of Northwest Indians, in a statement. Sharp said that she has “great faith and trust that [Jewell] will understand the incredible significance of her new position to the tribal nations, and that she will always work with us to help safeguard and restore the environment, and support the rights, the heritage and the way of life of Native people.”
Some Indian organizations, while not intimately familiar with Jewell, praised her selection.
“Sally Jewell’s diverse experience in energy, conservation, and stewardship efforts, presents an exciting opportunity for the country and tribal nations to make great strides and continue the transformation of the Department of the Interior under this President,” according to a statement from the National Congress of American Indians.
“Indian tribes have much to offer regarding the deeper mysteries and wonder of this continent,” said Brian Patterson, president of the United South and Eastern Tribes organization, in a statement. “Ms. Jewell’s experience and background indicate that in a variety of ways she has this sense of wonder and sincerely seeks to understand these mysteries.”
Indian country-focused Congress members are also paying attention to Jewell’s knowledge of Indian issues, and senators plan to ask her about it during the confirmation process.
“Senator Cantwell is confident that Sally Jewell would continue the Obama Administration’s progress in strengthening the government-to-government relationship with Indian country,” said Jared Leopold, a spokesman for Sen. Maria Cantwell, D-Wash., and chair of the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs. “Senator Cantwell looks forward to discussing issues important to tribes during Sally Jewell’s confirmation process.”
“Congressman Young hopes that if confirmed, Ms. Jewell shows a willingness to work with Congress on issues such as increased tribal self-governance and responsible resource development,” added Michael Anderson, a spokesman for Rep. Don Young, R-Alaska, and chair of the Subcommittee on Indian and Alaska Native Affairs.
Born in Britain, Jewell has two grown children with her husband, Warren, and she is a graduate of the University of Washington.
Read more at http://indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.com/2013/02/08/how-much-does-sally-jewell-interior-secretary-nominee-know-about-indian-country-147558
By Gale Courey Toensing, Indian Country Today Media Network
The statistics are horrifying: 34 percent of American Indian and Alaska Native women will be raped in their lifetimes and 39 percent will be subjected to domestic violence; on some reservations, Native women are murdered at more than 10 times the national average; over 85 percent of Natives who are victims of rape or sexual assault describe their offenders as non-Indian. Under the current law, tribal courts have no jurisdiction to prosecute non-Indian perpetrators of felony violence against Native women, and U.S. attorneys decline 67 percent of the cases referred to them.
And yet in the waning days of the 112th Congress, Republican leaders in the House thwarted the reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA), killing off an 18-year-old piece of legislation that included provisions that would help decrease the epidemic of violence against Native women on Indian land. The Republicans specifically opposed provisions of a Senate version of the bill passed last April that would recognize concurrent tribal jurisdiction over non-Indians who commit violent crimes against women on Indian lands, but a House bill passed in May dropped the provision and the two bills could not be reconciled during the lame-duck session of the 112th Congress. Some Republicans claim that expanding tribal jurisdiction is unconstitutional.
But M. Brent Leonhard, a deputy attorney general for the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation in Oregon, says nine early treaties, some of them signed by the Founding Fathers, acknowledge the inherent sovereign right of tribes to exercise jurisdiction over non-Indians in Indian country and set a precedent for extending tribal jurisdiction in the VAWA. Leonhard explored these treaties and three famous related U.S. Supreme Court Indian law cases in the article “Closing a Gap in Indian Country Justice,” published in the Harvard Law School Journal on Racial and Ethnic Justice in October 2012.
The cases are Oliphant v. Suquamish Indian Tribe, Duro v. Reina and United States v. Lara, and together they provide a clear illustration of the complexity of Indian law. In Oliphant the Supreme Court ruled that tribal courts do not have inherent jurisdiction to try and punish non-Indians and may not assume such jurisdiction unless specifically authorized to do so by Congress. In Duro the justices decided that tribal governments could not prosecute Indians who were members of other tribes for crimes committed on their reservations. That didn’t go over well with the tribes and in response, Congress provided a “Duro fix” by amending a section of the Indian Civil Rights Act that specifically authorized tribes to prosecute non-member Indians as an exercise of their inherent sovereign power. The Duro fix was challenged in the Lara case, in which a majority of the justices essentially upheld it. But, says Leonhard, “it is precarious to rely solely on the Court’s holding in Lara” to support the legality of what would essentially be an “Oliphant fix”—acknowledging the tribal power to prosecute non-Indians as an exercise of their inherent sovereign power as opposed to an exercise of congressionally delegated federal power. That’s why the treaties are important.
Leonhard says he wrote “Closing a Gap in Indian Country Justice” because he had been involved in drafting the VAWA reauthorization legislation and in particular the language regarding tribal jurisdiction over non- Indians for domestic violence offences. “And certainly one of the issues that I knew would come up, which everyone knew would come up, is whether or not there’s a constitutional bar in light of Oliphant and Lara,” Leonhard says. “So I did a fair bit of research and analysis on that. I went through all the ratified treaties I could find, looking at how they dealt with criminal jurisdiction issues, and those nine treaties, the very early treaties, make it very clear that the Founding Fathers allowed tribes to exercise jurisdiction over non-Indians at least when those non-Indians were residing in Indian country.”
The treaties, Leonhard says, can be used to bolster the efforts already under way to pass VAWA in the 113th Congress. “I hope it provides more ammunition to their arguments,” he says. “If all the opponents are left with is, ‘There’s no constitutional basis to do this,’ then they don’t really have an argument.”
One of the treaties Leonhard examined is the Treaty of Fort McIntosh. In early January 1785, the Confederation Congress sent three commissioners to Fort McIntosh in Ohio country to negotiate a treaty with the Delaware, Wyandot, Ottawa and Chippewa Indians. The Indian representatives were young leaders with no authority to negotiate a treaty, and according to one report, the Americans plied the young Indian warriors with alcohol and after weeks of negotiations, 13 Indians signed the Treaty of Fort McIntosh on January 21, 1785.
The treaty was a very good deal for the Americans. The Indians agreed to live under the U.S. government’s “protection” and promised not to form alliances with any “other sovereign whatsoever.” They gave up vast stretches of their land in southern and eastern Ohio, acknowledged that it now belonged to the United States and promised not to settle on any part of it. The U.S. dictated that the Indians would be confined to the western corner of modern day Ohio. The Indians accepted that the U.S. would keep army posts at strategic points and they agreed to hand over to the United States any Indian who robbed or murdered “any citizen of the United States” (Indians weren’t U.S. citizens until 1924).
But there was one provision in the treaty that respected the Indians’ inherent sovereignty: Article 5 affirmed their right to punish U.S. citizens and other non-Indians who tried to settle on Indian land. “If any citizen of the United States, or other person not being an Indian, shall attempt to settle on any of the lands allotted to the Wiandot and Delaware nations in this treaty…such person shall forfeit the protection of the United States, and the Indians may punish him as they please.”
Leonhard says that provision affirms inherent tribal sovereignty, “because it talks in terms of removing federal protections over non-Indians, and if that’s removed what remains is the tribal jurisdiction. It doesn’t talk in terms of granting federal power to tribes to prosecute non-Indians or delegated authority. So I think the authority that ends up in those cases is inherent authority.”
In “Closing a Gap,” Leonhard cites two long-standing principles that apply when interpreting Indian treaties. The first is that Indian treaties, “by their nature, reserved rights that tribal nations already had—they were a grant from Indians to the United States, not a grant of rights to Indians from the United States.” The second is that treaties are to be interpreted liberally in favor of the tribes and if there is any question about the appropriate interpretation “it must be read in a way that does not prejudice tribes.”
Leonhard’s paper also cites the first treaty entered into by the United States—the 1778 treaty with the Delaware Indians—which is even more explicit on the nation-to-nation relationship between the newly formed United States and the ancient Delaware Indian nation. “For the better security of the peace and friendship now entered into by the contracting parties, against all infractions of the same by the citizens of either party…neither party shall proceed to the infliction of punishment on the citizens of the other, otherwise than by securing the offender or offenders by imprisonment…till a fair and impartial trial can be had by judges or juries of both parties, as near as can be to the laws, customs and usages of the contracting parties and natural justice: The mode of such trials to be hereafter fixed by the wise men of the United States in Congress assembled, with the assistance of such deputies of the Delaware nation, as may be appointed to act in concert with them in adjusting this matter to their mutual liking. And it is further agreed between the parties aforesaid, that neither shall entertain or give countenance to the enemies of the other, or protect in their respective states, criminal fugitives, servants or slaves but the same to apprehend, and secure and deliver to the State or States, to which such enemies, criminals, servant or slaves respectively belong.”
This first treaty with an Indian nation shows that the U.S. “viewed tribes not just as having inherent power to punish citizens of the United States for crimes committed against the tribe”—a power that the tribe agreed in the treaty to share concurrently with the U.S. government—“but that the powers exercised by Indian nations were essentially the same as the powers exercised by the United States—they were equals as nations,” Leonhard says.
Six of the nine treaties that recognized the ability of tribes to punish non-Indians on Indian land were ratified between 1785 and 1789 by the Confederation Congress, a legislative body that included of 33 of the men who signed the Constitution. So, if the Founding Fathers acknowledged the inherent sovereignty of tribes to exercise jurisdiction over non-Indians on Indian land in treaties that have been around for more than 200 years, why do some legislators today question the constitutionality of expanded tribal jurisdiction?
“I’m not sure that the representatives in Congress are really aware of [these treaties],” Leonhard says. “I’m not sure it would change their opinion ultimately, but I think it’s a serious hurdle that they have to address if they’re going to claim that there’s a constitutional bar.”
John Dossett, general counsel of the National Congress of American Indians (NCAI), applauds Leonhard’s work. “I think the treaties are very strong and some of these arguments are very viable,” he says. The NCAI, a member of the National Task Force to End Sexual and Domestic Violence Against Women, has been a strong advocate for the VAWA, compiling talking points and fact sheets on a VAWA to counter the misinformation about expanded tribal jurisdiction website. Dossett agrees that constitutional federal Indian law is not something members of Congress are likely to know about “so we really have to educate folks, and that has been happening. I think we’re not far away from getting [VAWA] done. There’s a lot of support on both sides of the aisle, and that’s good news.”
Six years have passed since the 2007 publication of Amnesty International’s report: “Maze of Injustice: The failure to protect indigenous women from sexual violence in the U.S.A.”: “Indigenous Peoples in the U.S.A. face deeply entrenched marginalization—the result of a long history of systemic and pervasive abuse and persecution,” the report says. “Sexual violence against indigenous women today is informed and conditioned by this legacy of widespread and egregious human rights abuses. It has been compounded by the federal government’s steady erosion of tribal government authority and its chronic under-resourcing of those law enforcement agencies and service providers [that] should protect indigenous women from sexual violence. It is against this backdrop that American Indian and Alaska Native women continue to experience high levels of sexual violence, a systemic failure to punish those responsible and official indifference to their rights to dignity, security and justice.”
Native women are vulnerable to violent attacks by non-Indians who know they are untouchable by the “maze of injustice” that allows them to victimize women with impunity. Passage of the VAWA expanded tribal jurisdiction would allow tribes to hold these offenders accountable, Leonhard says. The essential question, he says, is whether or not Congress can pass a VAWA that expands inherent tribal authority. It did in Lara and I think conservative Republicans are saying now, well, we’ve got a different Supreme Court, and it’s not at all clear a majority would agree with that outcome, which may be true,” Leonhard says. “But, regardless, you’ve got these early treaties by the Founding Fathers. A conservative approach to interpreting the Constitution—like [Justice Antonin] Scalia’s originalism—is you look at what the original intent of the Founding Fathers was with regard to those provisions in the Constitution, and when you do that and you see they already ratified nine treaties that expanded the inherent powers of tribes to include the authority over non-Indians, it’s just a given that there’s no constitutional bar to passing the VAWA.”
***
Treaties
Brent Leonhard has found numerous treaties between the United States and tribal nations that explicitly recognize the power of tribes to exercise criminal jurisdiction over non-Indian citizens of the United States. These treaties refute the claim that there is a “constitutional bar” against restoring tribal jurisdiction over criminal acts of violence against women committed in Indian country. All of the treaties can be found in Indian Affairs: Laws and Treaties, Compiled and Edited by Charles J. Kappler, here.
Treaty with the Delaware Indians, Sept. 17, 1778. In the first peace treaty signed with the Indian nations, the United States shows the U.S. “viewed tribes not just as having the inherent power to punish citizens of the United States for crimes committed against the tribe, but that the powers exercised by Indian nations were essentially the same as the powers exercised by the United States—they were equals as nations.”
Treaty with the Six Nations, Oct. 22, 1784. This treaty recognizes that the nations exercised at least some form of de facto jurisdiction over non-Indians as an aspect of their inherent sovereign powers and contains no language suggesting that the six nations gave up any inherent sovereign power to exercise jurisdiction of any type over U.S. citizens in the future.
Treaty with the Wyandot, Delaware, Chippewa, and Ottawa nations, January 21, 1785. This treaty explicitly agrees that any non-Indian who tries to settle on Indian land will “forfeit the protection of the United States” and may be punished by the Indians and that any Indians who commit crimes against the U.S. will be turned over to be punished by U.S. laws, implying that in the absence of such agreements, tribal nations could refuse to do so.
Treaty with the Cherokee, Nov. 28, 1785. This treaty is similar to the Wyandot treaty with some changes: The U.S. agreed that any of its citizens attempting to settle on Cherokee lands– including those already settled there who did not leave within six months of the signing of the treaty–would be subject to the criminal jurisdiction of the tribal nation. The Cherokee agreed to deliver to the U.S. Indians or non Indians who committed certain crimes against provided the punishment was the same as it would have been if committed by a U.S. and the U.S. agreed that any punishment of an Indian would be witnessed by the Cherokees if they so desired.
Treaty with the Choctaw, Jan. 3, 1786, Treaty with the Chickasaw, Jan. 10, 1786, Treaty with the Shawnee, Jan. 31, 1786, Treaty with the Wyandot, Jan. 8, 1789, Treaty with the Creeks, Aug. 7, 1790, and Treaty with the Cherokee, July 2, 1791, are all similar to the 1785 Wyandot Treaty.
Treaty with the Wyandots, Delewares, Shawanoes, Ottawas, Chipewas, Putawatimes, Miamis, Eel-river, Weea’s, Kickapoos, Piankashaws, and Kaskaskias, Aug. 3, 1795. This treaty expands the earlier Wyandot Treat to include language reflecting the 1790 Indian Trade and Nonintercourse Act requiring congressional approval for the transfer of Indian land. “If any citizen of the United States, or any other white person or persons, shall presume to settle upon the lands now relinquished by the United States, such citizen or other person shall be out of the protection of the United States; and the Indian tribe, on whose land the settlement shall be made, may drive off the settler, or punish him in such manner as they shall think fit; and because such settlements made without the consent of the United States, will be injurious to them as well as to the Indians, the United States shall be at liberty to break them up, and remove and punish the settlers as they shall think proper, and so effect that protection of the Indian lands herein before stipulated.”
Read more at http://indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.com/2013/02/07/early-treaties-prove-us-founding-fathers-would-have-deemed-vawa-constitutional-147534
By David P. Ball, Indian Country Today Media Network
Idle No More’s founders and leaders are determined to keep the movement’s momentum going and to maintain pressure on aboriginal leaders and the federal government to enact concrete change.
As Parliament resumed on January 28, activists in at least 30 cities held a second Idle No More day of action, continuing to set themselves apart from official leadership and the six-week-long, liquids-only fast of Attawapiskat First Nation Chief Theresa Spence, which ended on January 24.
“Our nationhood can’t just be words in a constitution,” said lawyer Pamela Palmater, Mi’kmaq, chair of the Centre for Indigenous Governance at Ryerson University in Toronto and runner-up in last year’s Assembly of First Nations (AFN) national chief race. She told Indian Country Today Media Network, “It has to be recognized and implemented and respected—and that’s what this movement is about: shifting everything.”
Idle No More wants to keep aboriginal issues on the radar of mainstream Canadians and in the national dialogue while going beyond the flash mobs and rallies with which the movement has become virtually synonymous.
“We have seen the demands emanating from the grassroots sharpening and becoming even more precise,” Glen Coulthard, assistant professor of First Nations Studies and Political Science at the University of British Columbia (UBC), told ICTMN. “Before, it used to be housing conditions, the material conditions on reserves, and the attack on some of the environmental and land concerns with omnibus Bill C-45. Now we’re focusing on the core issue: setting right the relationship between indigenous and non-Indigenous Peoples in Canada.”
Sylvia McAdam, Cree, one of the four female founders of Idle No More, wants to continue broadening its support. “I keep telling as many people [as I can] that it’s not an indigenous movement, because Bill C-45 affects all of us,” the Big River First Nation member said. “I believe that the voice of Idle No More—the voice of grassroots people—will become clearer and more focused.”
Some fear the movement could lose energy following the January 11 meeting that Atleo and other AFN chiefs had with Prime Minister Stephen Harper. Others see the 13-point Declaration of Commitment signed by the chiefs, including Spence, on January 24 as an attempt by aboriginal leadership to co-opt the grassroots movement. There are even whispers about a possible coup inside the AFN by those who felt the Harper meeting was a capitulation of sorts.
“There’s going to be political fallout,” Palmater said. “Where progress will be made is in the reunification of leadership with the grassroots people. The kind of core, fundamental breakthrough that we’ve been looking for is that the chiefs would listen to the people and stand by their people.”
But some are wary. McAdam insisted that Idle No More is independent from leadership, even if some chiefs have shown support. “Once leadership takes over, the movement shifts,” she said.
Some recommended taking a more aggressive and independent stand.
“We need to alter our strategies and tactics to present more of a serious challenge on the ground to force the federal government…to respond to us in a serious way,” wrote Mohawk author Taiaiake Alfred, professor of indigenous governance at the University of Victoria, in a blog post. “We need to focus our activism on the root of the problem facing our people collectively: our collective dispossession and misrepresentation as Indigenous Peoples.”
UBC’s Coulthard, Yellowknives Dene First Nation, believes that actions such as flash mobs and blockades are an effective tool in Native struggles—at least until there is a substantive change in the indigenous-Canadian relationship. At the same time, he wants the movement to discuss economic and political alternatives as concrete solutions to today’s crises.
But Chief Steve Courtoreille, of Mikisew First Nation in Alberta, urges moderation. Courtoreille is one of the leaders taking the Bill C-45 fight into the courts through a treaty rights lawsuit filed with Frog Lake First Nation in January. And while he favors confrontation, he is wary of alienating potential allies.
“It’s time now the country pulls together on this very issue—to make the government of Canada rethink their plan,” he told ICTMN. “I don’t support blockades—I support the Idle No More movement’s peaceful rallies. The more the Canadian people understand what’s going on, I know they’ll come on board.”
Read more at http://indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.com/2013/02/11/idle-no-more-enters-new-phase-seeks-next-steps-147554
By Indian Country Today Media Network Staff
U.S. Senator Maria Cantwell (D-WA), chairwoman of the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs and co-sponsor of the Violence Against Women Act bill introduced by Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT) on January 22, 2013 spoke on the Senate floor on February 7, during the Senate hearing on VAWA where she urged swift passage of S.47 with strong tribal provisions.
Below are Cantwell’s full remarks on the Senate floor:
“Madam President I thank the leader Senator Leahy for his leadership on trying to get the Violence Against Women Act passed. And for being down here and working out some agreements hopefully with the other side of the aisle about votes either today or in the future.
“And hopefully we will bring this issue to an end and get along with protecting the rights of women throughout the United States of America. So I am very anxious to help and further that debate today.
“I come to the floor now as the Chair of the Senate Indian Affairs Committee and somebody who has spent a lot of time dealing with tribal leadership in the state of Washington and throughout the Pacific Northwest.
“As I know the presiding officer has a very large tribal population within your state too. And I’m sure you’ve had many experiences with them. And like me you want to make sure that all victims of domestic violence are protected in America. And for us in Washington state we receive over 30,000 domestic violence calls a year.
“That’s more than 500 incidents per week. So I can tell you that our domestic violence program services about 1,800 people each day. Each day. And that is why we need to get this legislation reauthorized and move past this debate and make sure that we help protect victims.
“You know a woman named Carissa came to one of our events recently. She had fled a very abusive domestic violence abuse with her three-year-old daughter. And she is alive she said because of the Violence Against Women Act. Because those safeguards and protections were there to protect her.
“So Madam President I come to the floor today and I’m a little frustrated that this debate has bogged down over a few issues. Particularly this issue as it relates to Native Americans and the rights of Native Americans.
“We had the Department of Justice come to the United States Congress with a very good solution, because their point was, we have an epidemic of violence against women in tribal country. And we don’t have a ready solution as it relates to the necessary law enforcement there to protect them.
“And I guess I don’t mean to be elementary but going back to our country’s history and our relationship with tribal governments it is a federal relationship. And to secure that federal relationship we have said basically these are rights for the federal government and not the states.
“In many ways we’ve eliminated what states can do as it relates to tribal land. So the challenge we have is that on these tribal reservations we need to make sure that the law is enforced, a federal law. And that there are individuals to carry out that federal law.
“So I guess my colleagues on the other side of the aisle by voting for the underlying amendment, I don’t know if they have an appropriation authorization there that says, “OK, here’s how we’re going to deal with it. We’re going to give you a federal prosecutor and a federal agent on every tribal reservation or in every jurisdiction.”
“In my state I don’t know how many that would be. Because you know, we have huge lands and so if you thought that was going to be effective, you’d have to have a prosecutor and a federal agent in probably 20 different parts of my state.
“And if you multiply that even just in the West or your state, we’re talking about hundreds of millions of dollars that the federal government would have to bailout to properly police and enforce federal law as it relates to crimes against these women.
“Now why isn’t anybody recommending that? Because I think the Department of Justice has adequately seen that the best way to do this is to build a partnership. And to build a partnership with those tribal jurisdictions to get that done.
“You know I’m always amazed in looking back at this over history, what have previous administrations – Republican administrations – said about this tribal relationship?
“Well, the Supreme Court has made decisions. And even George H. Bush’s solicitor general Kenneth Starr stated in a filing with the Supreme Court, “It remains true today that the state has no jurisdiction on reservations involving Indians.”
“And then George W. Bush, his solicitor general said, “The policy of leaving Indians free from state jurisdiction and control is deeply rooted in our nation’s history.”
“So here are Republican administrations that have basically said the way to deal with this is as a federal relationship. And I’m saying to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, unless you are willing to put a federal prosecutor, and to put a federal agent right there on all tribal reservations, who do you think is going to prosecute these crimes?
“Who? Who is going to prosecute them? And so that is why the Department of Justice came to us and said we have an idea of how we might do it. Let’s try to get a partnership with tribal jurisdictions to make sure that justice is being brought on tribal land. But do so by protecting the civil liberties of American citizens as we go through this process.
“And that is the legislation that is before us. That passed out of the Judiciary Committee and is now on the Senate floor. That is now trying to be stripped from those very rights that Native American women would have. And so the way this would work is obviously tribal jurisdictions would prosecute these individuals.
“And if you don’t think that this isn’t a problem, it is amazing to me to think that this concept that maybe one of our other colleagues might be proposing. That somehow you would say…well it’s a lesser crime. That if you assaulted an Indian woman on tribal reservations it would be a misdemeanor.
“That somehow aggressive abuse, a violent attack against a woman would somehow be a misdemeanor. I am not going to treat Native American women as second-class citizens in the United States of America. Now I get that that might have been the cultural norm of the 1700s and the 1800s but it has no place in our history in 2013.
“This is about legislation that will protect tribal women on Indian reservations and to make sure that these cases of abuse, whether they are done by a Native American or non-Native American are protected. In one case, a woman Diane Millich, her ex-husband was not arrested for more than 100 times he had beaten her or attacked her.
“And then he finally showed up at her workplace with a gun to kill her. And only because an individual from her workplace pushed her out of the way is she still alive. But her husband is being treated as a first-time offender. Because all those times that he beat her or domestically assaulted her he was never prosecuted. Because it took place on a reservation.
“This epidemic is so great that now these people involved in sex-trafficking, in drug-trafficking are targeting reservations and these women because they know they won’t get prosecuted. They know this. So we are allowing an intolerable situation to grow in great extremes simply because we aren’t working together with the tools we have.
“I get that many of my colleagues may not understand the history of tribal law. And the history of our country in securing the relationship with tribes and the treaties that we signed. Again, as I said before, this is a relationship that we have preserved for the federal government. And the federal government is saying this is how we can best solve these crimes by getting the help and support of tribal jurisdictions.
“Now I want to say to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, because I’ve heard some of them say that somehow this violates the civil liberties of non-Native Americans if these crimes happen in Indian country. Nothing could be farther from the truth.
“First of all, all tribal courts also adhere to the Indian Civil Rights Act which is basically our 14th Amendment. So that security of the 14th Amendment is right there in the law and will protect any non-Native American that is charged with this crime on a reservation.
“Secondly, this law has specifically broad language making sure that the defendant would be protected with all rights required by the United States in order for this jurisdiction to have oversight. So it is almost like a double protection saying twice that Habeas Corpus rights of individuals are going to be protected under this statute.
“So the notion that this is somehow abrogating individual rights just because the crime takes place on a tribal reservation is incorrect. So I ask my colleagues, do you want to continue to have this unbelievable growth and petri dish of crime evolving? Because criminals know, when you have a porous border that is where they are going to go.
“Or whether we want to partner with a recommendation that has been determined by the Department of Justice, who has the authority to carry out this federal law on tribal reservations. And are asking for this partnership but with due protection. To give them that due protection so we can root out this evil in our communities.
“I would say to my colleagues it’s time to pass this legislation. And to protect these rights for all individuals. We cannot vote for an amendment on the other side of the aisle that basically strips the rights of Native American women and treats them like second-class citizens. Nor can we just go silent on what is an epidemic problem in our country.
“What we have to do is stand up and realize that the relationship between the federal government and Indian country is a very mature relationship today. With a lot of federal case law behind it. A lot of Republican administrations recognizing that it’s a federal relationship. And that we can accomplish asking Indian country to help us solve this problem and prosecute these individuals under the rights that we have as constitutional citizens of the United States. I am confident that we can get to an answer here and resolve this issue.
“And I can say to my colleagues. We need to do so with urgency. We can’t allow another 1,800 calls to go in and be unanswered and not supported because we haven’t authorized this legislation. Let’s get our job done and let’s protect all women throughout the United States of America. Madam President I yield the floor.”
Read more at http://indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.com/2013/02/09/sen-cantwell-urges-swift-passage-violence-against-women-act-senate-floor-tribal
Indian Country Today Media Network Staff
The school’s website says it’s a place “where education is a journey” and Noah Williams, who teaches history at Highland Hall Waldorf School in Northridge, California takes that seriously.
When he teaches his students about Native American history, they don’t just read out of books, they listen to the oral histories of the Inuit, Ute Mountain, Cheyenne and Pomo and end their studies with a trip to Ute Mountain Tribal Park in Towaoc, Colorado.
“Reading the myths and legends of the Pomos and Cheyennes isn’t just about introducing literature; these are stories handed down through an oral tradition. They were told and heard. So retelling them is really a lesson in listening,” Williams explains in a press release. “I ask the students to put down their pens, be present, and live in the words.”
After various lectures the students travel 15 hours by train and bus for a 3-and-a-half-day camping trip in a remote canyon where they go without electricity and running water. The students gather wood, make fires, learn cooking skills and experience a star-filled night sky surrounded by silence.
“The experience that made the deepest impression on me was when we visited one of many ancient cliff-dwelling ruins,” says Highland Hall 10th grader Casey Gardner. “First we hiked a steep path up the side of [the] canyon. The weather was hot, the rocks were unstable, and we all carried weighted backpacks filled with our belongings. Finally, we reached the ruin. It sat strong and resolute on a thin ledge overlooking the abyss. After lunch, our Ute Indian guide Rick encouraged us to have a moment of silence and take in the astounding view. To me, the silence became a living thing; one could hear and indeed even feel the silence. It made me think of an ancient Native American, probably sitting in the same spot, marveling at the same sight that I was taking in. We usually associate silence with aloneness, but being with my class, people I’ve known for most of my life, made the quiet a shared experience.”
Read more at http://indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.com/2013/02/09/teaching-native-american-studies-doing-147320
By Rikki King, Herald Writer
EVERETT — Snohomish County Executive Aaron Reardon, who has opposed commercial flights at Paine Field, on Friday announced to his friends and followers on social media that he is pushing ahead with plans to build a passenger terminal.
Reardon shared the news on his Facebook page, and through his personal Twitter feed.
Federal law requires the county, which runs the airport, to build the terminal.
“However the county’s elected officials personally feel about the decision of the FAA to allow passenger service at Paine Field, it is essential that Snohomish County ensure all requirements under federal law are met,” he wrote.
The social media announcements came a day after Alaska Airlines proposed, over the next several years, to provide service from Everett to destinations including Honolulu, Los Angeles and Las Vegas. Allegiant Air also has asked to operate flights to Las Vegas and, eventually, other cities.
The Federal Aviation Administration recently approved passenger flights at the airport after a three-year environmental study.
The topic has been debated in the county for years. In general, the county’s business community, from whom Reardon draws strong support, approves of regular commercial service to and from Paine Field. The cities of Mukilteo and Edmonds, and community groups located near the airport, recently filed a federal lawsuit challenging the decision to allow regular commercial flights.
When 20 children died in the Sandy Hook shooting in Connecticut in December, many people rushed to the Internet to argue about guns. As so often happens, emotions took over. It’s almost an American tradition, debating gun laws. People on both sides toss out stats.
Let’s fact-check one of the big ones: Is it true that more people die from traffic accidents than gun violence?
Not here. As the tables below and the accompanying graphics show, more people in Snohomish County die from gunshot wounds, according to data kept by the county Medical Examiner’s Office.
Four out of five gun deaths reported here since 2007 were ruled suicides and, for a number of reasons, rarely resulted in news reports.
Conversely, nearly every fatal car accident that occurs around here gets some mention. Roughly 30 to 40 people die in the county each year in traffic accidents. On average, about 45 people die from gunshot wounds.
Guns are a significant factor in homicides here. Snohomish County reported 18 homicides in 2012. Of those, 10 involved firearms.
About 4,500 people die in the county every year, the great majority of them from natural causes or accidents. For technical reasons, almost all firearm deaths are classified as homicides or suicides, including fatal accidental shootings.
The most common causes of accidental deaths are falls and fractures and drug and alcohol overdoses, followed by car accidents.
About 100 people fatally overdose here every year. Some of those deaths are suicides, but many are accidents. It’s not always possible to say for sure.
That’s 100 deaths just from drugs and alcohol — more than double those from bullets.
More online
| Year | Firearm deaths | Traffic accident deaths |
|---|---|---|
| 2007 | 38 | 31 |
| 2008 | 33 | 29 |
| 2009 | 62 | 42 |
| 2010 | 50 | 28 |
| 2011 | 44 | 38 |
| Total | 227 | 168 |
| Year | Firearm suicide | Firearm homicide | All firearm deaths |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2007 | 25 | 13 | 38 |
| 2008 | 24 | 9 | 33 |
| 2009 | 51 | 11 | 62 |
| 2010 | 46 | 4 | 50 |
| 2011 | 39 | 5 | 44 |
| Total | 185 | 42 | 227 |
| Year | Accidental fall | Accidental overdose or poisoning | Traffic accident | All accidental |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2007 | 96 | 98 | 31 | 225 |
| 2008 | 130 | 110 | 29 | 269 |
| 2009 | 123 | 110 | 42 | 275 |
| 2010 | 129 | 98 | 28 | 255 |
| 2011 | 137 | 149 | 38 | 324 |
| Total | 615 | 565 | 168 | 1,348 |
| Year | Suicide | Homicide | Total non-accidental violent deaths |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2007 | 72 | 19 | 91 |
| 2008 | 61 | 13 | 74 |
| 2009 | 94 | 22 | 116 |
| 2010 | 103 | 13 | 116 |
| 2011 | 95 | 11 | 106 |
| Total | 425 | 78 | 503 |
Source: heraldnet.com
MOUNT VERNON — Adiya Jones-Smith scored 21 points and Katia Brown hit several free throws late as Tulalip Heritage overcame some early nerves to knock off Mount Vernon Christian 48-38 in the 1B District 1 Tournament final on Friday.
“The girls started out slow, they were scared and nervous (in the first half),” said Hawks head coach Tina Brown.
Brown credited the play of sophomore guard Justice Vela for keeping the Hawks in the game during the first half.
“I’m very proud of Justice Vela, she stepped up in the first half,” said Brown. “Justice got a couple of steals, made a couple of shots when we could’ve folded.”
With Vela’s help, the Hawks (17-2) held a two-point lead at the half before getting their offense into gear in the third quarter by ratcheting up the defense. Tulalip Heritage held the Hurricanes (15-8) to just four points in the period, while scoring 15. According to Tina Brown, Jones-Smith was able to score off layins created from Tulalip Heritage steals.
Jacqueline Case led the Hurricanes with 15 points and Mount Vernon Christian finally solved the Hawks defense in the fourth, scoring 19 points, which equaled its output from the first three periods. But Katia Brown made 9 of 10 from the line in the last two minutes to ice the game. Brown’s dead-eye free throw shooting shouldn’t be a surprise, she’s the granddaughter of former Seattle SuperSonics great “Downtown Freddie” Brown.
The win earns the Hawks the district title and the No. 1 seed to next week’s tri-district tournament. The Hawks will host the winner of Grace Academy-Evergreen Lutheran. Mount Vernon Christian will enter as the No. 2 seed and play the Lopez-Shoreline Christian winner. Both games are scheduled for Feb. 12.
At Mount Vernon Christian H.S.
Mount Vernon Christian 10 5 4 19 — 38
Tulalip Heritage 10 7 15 16 — 48
Mount Vernon Christian–Natalie Sakuma 6, Kimber-Lynn Anderson 0, Amanda Lervick 4, Molli Kaptein 0, Jacqueline Case 15, Melyssa Whitener 0, Grace Kuipers 7, Kennedy Lucas 2, Carla Van Rooyen 4, Lindsay Noste 0, Ottey Weidenbach 0, Jenna Withers 0. Tulalip Heritage–Katia Brown 13, Kanoa Enick 7, Cassandra Jimicum 2, Adiya Jones-Smith 21, Justice Vela 5, Michelle Iukes 0, Wendy Jimicum 0. 3-point goals–Case 3, Vela, Enick. Records– Mount Vernon Christian 15-8 overall. Tulalip Heritage 17-2.
Herald staff, heraldnet.com
MONROE — Police on Friday arrested an Idaho man, 53, suspected of robbing a Monroe bank last week and using some of the loot to buy drugs and sex.
A day after the Feb. 1 heist at the Union Bank, police received a tip from a woman about a possible suspect. She told investigators she met a man at the Tulalip Casino and later spent the evening with him.
During their time together, the man allegedly admitted he robbed a bank in Monroe. He reportedly showed the woman the note he used to demand money from a teller. She also said the man gave her money to buy methamphetamine and to pay her for sex, police said.
The woman gave investigators the man’s cellphone number. Detectives later learned the man’s name and driver’s license number from the hotel registration card. Police compared video footage from the bank with surveillance from the hotel. The suspect was seen entering the casino and hotel wearing the same clothes he had on during the heist.
Detectives called the man on Friday and asked him to come to the police station. They learned he was at his mother’s Monroe house. The man was arrested and booked into the Snohomish County Jail.
