Lakota Indians Withdraw Treaties Signed With U.S.

Lakota Indians Withdraw Treaties Signed With U.S.

www.foxnews.com

WASHINGTON — The Lakota Indians, who gave the world legendary warriors Sitting Bull and Crazy Horse, have withdrawn from treaties with the United States.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

(visit the link for the full news article)

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.

Well I about choked when I read this. President Bash has been practicing his own special brand of unilateral treaty withdrawal over the last 6 years - from International Criminal Courts, War Crimes Acts, Prisoner of War Conventions, and Human Rights Treaties. His justification being that he can pull out of any treaty at any time, without any obligation to the other countries involved.

Finally, the ultimate comeback...

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.

www.foxnews.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

Hooray, good for them

I am so happy and pleased that the true people of that country are finally standing up.

I sincerely hope they have no further problems and can live the way they see fit.

Congratulations Lakota Indians. May many more rise up and join/follow you in this example.

This is very interesting indeed, I wonder how the Government will deal with this?

I just found the website of Russell Means, under current events, he starts with a question:

I pose this question to American taxpayers; why do you allow your taxpayer money to be used to cause death and distruction to millions of people around the world? Yet you do not say a thing when your government refuses to spend any taxpayers money to relieve the disastrous destruction of a natural disaster such as the Tsunami or the 100,000 dying in the Sudan of starvation and millions in other parts of the world? To use and overuse colloquialism. What is wrong with this picture?

Source

This question could actually apply to many nations, not only the U.S, but I am also interested in the answer...

!!! Good on 'em!!!
Hopefully the mainstream media picks up on this story, and rubs it in Bush's face. I will be eagerly awaiting more info on all this, as well as reading about the reaction of the Federal Govt.

reply to post by Extralien


Considering how many treaties the US broke with the indians, I'm not surprised really - wonder how bush will react now the boot is on the other foot.
Badly probably, with all the usual subtlety he displays.

i wonder if the indians will be rounded up and put into `re-education camps` for there own protection?

Home grown terrorists? Be interesting to see what action is taken against them by the Federal boys once revenue stops flowing in.

Good for them

I really do hope they can pull it off. I wouldn't mind living in Montana and 'free' is my favorite tax rate.

They have a lot of natural resources and if they're smart they could draw manufacturing industries to the area and build a real economy, instead of this service based glass bubble that's about to shatter.

Of course if that happened, some future PNAC stooge would probably claim they're building WMD and nuke the crap out of them.

... doesn't that mean the 'Reservation' Lands the Lakota retained as part of those 'Treaties' automatically revert to the United States.

Their independent & seperate 'Nations' are no longer demarcated
by the force and rule/law of any past 'agreed upon' "Treaty"


I'm afraid that If or When the Lakota nullify their Treaty
they no longer have an independent Nation on those lands we term
Reservation Lands....
They are caught up in a real Catch-22.



the protest is a symbolic gesture and has no legs, imho

The legality of this is probably a bit more advanced that we can summarise here, and will no doubt go down to the fine print. That's what I want to know, if they are going to fully go through with this.
Indeed, if they can make a tax haven and lure industries and businesses in, then they are set. They need to hire some country consultants

What about the fact that the land was theirs in the first place?

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.

Hmm, with United Nations backing...I think they can pull this off.

In fact, the Federal Government wouldn't act because this cause blow up if it's handled too badly.

From what I've been reading, they have every right to do this.

This is interesting, the link is very great;

www.lakotafreedom.com...

[edit on 20-12-2007 by infinite]

The problem there is the US will go against the UN ` as it clashes with there own laws` to put this down ; and its also a `non-binding declaration` so the US could and will simply ignore it.

then deal with the indians as a purely `internal matter` - but what will the world do if the native indians are brutally supressed?

From the treaty of ford laramie 1851 part 5:

ARTICLE 5. The aforesaid Indian nations do hereby recognize and acknowledge the following tracts ofcountry, included within the metes and boundaries hereinafter designated, as their respective territories,viz;

The territory of the Sioux or Dahcotah Nation, commencing the mouth of the White Earth River, on theMissouri River; thence in a southwesterly direction to the forks of the Platte River; thence up the northfork of the Platte River to a point known as the Red Buts, or where the road leaves the river; thence alongthe range of mountains known as the Black Hills, to the head-waters of Heart River; thence down HeartRiver to its mouth; and thence down the Missouri River to the place of beginning.

and many other terrytories aswell in the treaty...

Will this be the land they claim to be theres?

more from same treaty:

It is, however, understood that, in making this recognition and acknowledgement, the aforesaid Indian
nations do not hereby abandon or prejudice any rights or claims they may have to other lands; and further,
that they do not surrender the privilege of hunting, fishing, or passing over any of the tracts of country
heretofore described.

This is very interesting reading indeed...

Source

Yeah good for them. I think some of the supporters on this thread should join this new and wonderful country! It seems they have a utopia for all to enjoy.

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.

www.foxnews.com...

I also love the fact Bush has been brought into this argument. Of course this silly propaganda by the Indians is Bush's fault. How moronic of me not to notice.

pffft!

Becker

Originally posted by watch_the_rocks

!!! Good on 'em!!!

This week I agreeing with you
Really, I wish them well.

I love the concept of micronations in general. en.wikipedia.org...
There have been several attempts here in Australia, with the Principality of Hutt River perhaps being the most successful. en.wikipedia.org...
I must say I entertain this idea myself on a very regular basis. If the Lakota Tribe leads the way in the USA, I wonder if an indigenous tribe will do the same over here

Hmmm...just out of idle curiousity, what's the financial base for their tax-free declaration? Oil?

If so, does that become an issue of national security? Then the government totally loses its sense of humour. I'll be watching with interest as this story unfolds.

Its about time

I really hope this turns out well and they can have what is theres,

I may have some direct links to this so im going to invite a few people here to give there say on this, Hopefully they can add something as im sure there right in thre middle of this somewhere lol,

Originally posted by Becker44
I also love the fact Bush has been brought into this argument. Of course this silly propaganda by the Indians is Bush's fault. How moronic of me not to notice.

Bush was brought into it because he's the one that set the precedent for breaking US treaties. If the US can simply withdraw from any treaty it's previously signed, then the same applies to the other signatories.

Consider it a lesson in what goes around, comes around.