Government owes American Indians $456 mln: judge

page: 1
3
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 8 2008 @ 11:56 AM
link   

Government owes American Indians $456 mln: judge


www.reuters.com

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - After 12 years of litigation, a federal judge rejected claims that the government owed American Indians $47 billion for mismanaging their money held in a special trust fund, but ruled they were owed less than 1 percent of the amount sought.

The U.S. Interior Department was sued for mishandling the revenue in the Indian trust fund going back to 1887. The trust includes 10 million acres of land owned by individual Indians and 46 million acres belonging to Indian tribes.

On this lands, the department manages more than 100,000 leases and the money they generate from mineral mining, oil and gas drilling, timber, livestock grazing, recreational and agricultural uses are deposited into the trust. That money is disbursed by the department to individuals and tribes
(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on Aug, 8 2008 @ 11:56 AM
link   
HAH! Sounds like Reparations to me !

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



posted on Aug, 8 2008 @ 12:04 PM
link   

The case is not over yet, because the judge said another hearing will determine how the missing money should be restored and allocated.


$10 per month for the next 3 million, 8 hundred thousand years... I believe that's do-able without putting too much of a crimp in our federal budget.



posted on Aug, 8 2008 @ 12:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by burdman30ott6

The case is not over yet, because the judge said another hearing will determine how the missing money should be restored and allocated.


$10 per month for the next 3 million, 8 hundred thousand years... I believe that's do-able without putting too much of a crimp in our federal budget.



Oh, you don't make good on your debts?

Sorry to hear about that.

I'm glad America will be giving reparations to these folks.

In America, we don't run from our responsibilities.




posted on Aug, 8 2008 @ 12:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Quazga
 


Do you also support reparations for blacks?

If so, why?



posted on Aug, 8 2008 @ 01:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Scorched Earth
reply to post by Quazga
 


Do you also support reparations for blacks?

If so, why?


This thread isn't about support. It's about what is.

The US Government IS going to have to pay $456 Mil to Native Americans due to negligence. This is called "Accountability".

Do you support "Accountability"?

If no, why?


btw, what are "blacks?"

[edit on 8-8-2008 by Quazga]



posted on Aug, 8 2008 @ 01:14 PM
link   
shoot, less than $500 million? That's a steal! Well, actually a "steal" would be more like what we already gave them...



posted on Aug, 8 2008 @ 01:14 PM
link   
I'm tired of seeing this type of court ordered action in Native American claims being viewed as reparations in the same sense that the word is used in connection with slavery.

These payments are due to the US government failing to fulfill it's obligations, as stipulated by treaties signed at the closing of hostilities with separate nations of the Native population. There was never a "treaty" between African slaves and the US government, therefore, the basis for any claim in a court of law is not founded on anything solid.

It is idiotic that the candidates and MSM cannot see the difference, but I really expect better here on ATS.



posted on Aug, 8 2008 @ 01:18 PM
link   
reply to post by Quazga
 


You claimed they were reparations. Reparations and being accountable for mismanaging funds are 2 separate things.

This isn't payment for something in the past, this is payment for screwing up and not practicing proper accounting methods. The same type of judgement gets issued all the time in tons of civil cases.

As for your question about blacks, it doesn't need an answer. You know. You just want to split politically correct hairs.



posted on Aug, 8 2008 @ 01:23 PM
link   
Not to mention ... who says the government won't keep this ruling help up in further appeals? I would expect this to go to the Supreme Court, who would then probably reject hearing the case.



posted on Aug, 8 2008 @ 02:31 PM
link   
reply to post by NGC2736
 


I tend to agree.

This is not "reparations" - this is a legal settlement for breach of contract, essentially.

Nothing to do with the slavery reparations issue.



posted on Aug, 8 2008 @ 02:38 PM
link   
I thought we paid them back at the Casino's


The government needs to do it's duty and repay what they owe to the Indians. Why should we pay taxes when they won't even pay their bill? A contract is a contract.



posted on Aug, 8 2008 @ 02:41 PM
link   
It's not reparations and $456 M, please, that's a new football stadium. Anyway it was someone in the Dept. of the Interior that messed up. A few years ago the blocked NPS uniform purchases for a little while until they worked out a deal for that money.



posted on Aug, 8 2008 @ 02:50 PM
link   
What a sham! So, who's supposed to pay for this? If they expect my taxes to go into paying off a bunch of Indians who can't get over their own history and move into the 21st century, I'll support military action against the reservations. Why don't we seize their casinos?



posted on Aug, 8 2008 @ 02:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by NGC2736
I'm tired of seeing this type of court ordered action in Native American claims being viewed as reparations in the same sense that the word is used in connection with slavery.

These payments are due to the US government failing to fulfill it's obligations,


I hate to disagree with you, but the legally binding obligation of "40 acres and mule" which was part of Shermans orders, was never made good on either.

Not sure how you can separate the two of these.

Wiki link



The award—a land grant of a quarter of a quarter section (one square mile) deeded to heads of households presumably formerly owned by land-holding whites—was the product of Special Field Orders, No. 15, issued January 16, 1865 by Maj. Gen. William T. Sherman, which applied to black families who lived near the coasts of South Carolina, Georgia and Florida. Sherman's orders specifically allocated "the islands from Charleston, south, the abandoned rice fields along the rivers for thirty miles back from the sea, and the country bordering the St. Johns river, Florida." There was no mention of mules in Sherman's order, although the Army may have distributed them anyway. Federal and state homestead grants of the time ranged from 1/4 section up to a full section.

After the assassination of President Abraham Lincoln, his successor, Andrew Johnson, revoked Sherman's Orders. It is sometimes mistakenly claimed that Johnson also vetoed the enactment of the policy as a federal statute (introduced as U.S. Senate Bill 60). In fact, the Freedmen's Bureau Bill which he vetoed made no mention of grants of land or mules. (Another version of the Freedmen's bill, also without the land grants, was later passed after Johnson's second veto was overridden.)

By June 1865, around 10,000 freed slaves were settled on 400,000 acres (1,600 km²) in Georgia and South Carolina. Soon after, President Johnson reversed the order and returned the land to its white former owners. Because of this, the phrase has come to represent the failure of Reconstruction and the general public to assist African Americans.



Perhaps we could at least teach this in history.

It was obvious that you didn't even know about it.

You know, it's funny how our gov trys to coverup things.

And especially here on ATS I would expect better than that.



[edit on 8-8-2008 by Quazga]



posted on Aug, 8 2008 @ 02:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Scorched Earth
reply to post by Quazga
 


You claimed they were reparations. Reparations and being accountable for mismanaging funds are 2 separate things.

This isn't payment for something in the past, this is payment for screwing up and not practicing proper accounting methods. The same type of judgement gets issued all the time in tons of civil cases.

As for your question about blacks, it doesn't need an answer. You know. You just want to split politically correct hairs.


I think they should just be happy with what they have. Any other nation would have simply wiped them all off the map.



posted on Aug, 8 2008 @ 05:23 PM
link   
Funny, but Canada didn't wipe them off the map.

The Australians didn't kill off the remaining Aborigines.

Plenty of native populations in Brazil, etc.

I could go on, but hopefully you get the point.

[edit on 8/8/08 by xmotex]



posted on Aug, 8 2008 @ 06:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Quazga

I hate to disagree with you, but the legally binding obligation of "40 acres and mule" which was part of Shermans orders, was never made good on either.


Perhaps we could at least teach this in history.

It was obvious that you didn't even know about it.

You know, it's funny how our gov trys to coverup things.

And especially here on ATS I would expect better than that.





Since when does a General settle matters of state? This would have had to go through Congress and then the President. It's great to learn history, but it is also good to learn Civics.

Over 100 years and we are still fighting redistribution of wealth.



posted on Aug, 8 2008 @ 06:15 PM
link   
Since America spends around $700 million a day on the war, I don't think this will hurt them too much. I'm sure they'll come up with some excuse of why they can't pay though.


War Costing $720 Million Each Day, Group Says
By Kari Lydersen
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, September 22, 2007; A11

CHICAGO, Sept. 21 -- The money spent on one day of the Iraq war could buy homes for almost 6,500 families or health care for 423,529 children, or could outfit 1.27 million homes with renewable electricity, according to the American Friends Service Committee, which displayed those statistics on large banners in cities nationwide Thursday and Friday.

The war is costing $720 million a day or $500,000 a minute, according to the group's analysis of the work of Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph E. Stiglitz and Harvard public finance lecturer Linda J. Bilmes.

The estimates made by the group, which opposes the conflict, include not only the immediate costs of war but also ongoing factors such as long-term health care for veterans, interest on debt and replacement of military hardware.

"The wounded are coming home, and many of them have severe brain and spinal injuries, which will require round-the-clock care for the rest of their lives," said Michael McConnell, Great Lakes regional director of the AFSC, a peace group affiliated with the Quaker church.

The $720 million figure breaks down into $280 million a day from Iraq war supplementary funding bills passed by Congress, plus $440 million daily in incurred, but unpaid, long-term costs.

www.washingtonpost.com...



[edit on 8-8-2008 by ben420]



posted on Aug, 8 2008 @ 06:29 PM
link   
reply to post by EverythingYouDespise
 


Get over what??? The damned government signed contracts with soverign nations here and used the money like they're own personal candy store. Our government have ignored every single contract and treaty they signed with our first nations! This isn't the first time they have been taken to court. The last time the government promissed to make payments to the fund and ignored the agreement. Just another way monies owed to people are used the way the congress critters felt like. Absolutly horrendous.





top topics
 
3
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join