[dirtboy]

The problem with continuing to operation under the treaties is, IMHO, they should be considered void as against public policy. They are a relic of a time where Indians were considered noble savages. Today, we aspire to treat our citizens equally and not put them in guilded "concentration camps."

They are still legal treaties. Do you advocate breaking a legally-binding treaty to promote your viewpoint here?

[Behind Liberal Lines]

They are still legal treaties. Do you advocate breaking a legally-binding treaty to promote your viewpoint here?

Yes.

Don't look so shocked.

Many once binding contracts are broken when determined to be illegal or otherwise violative of public policy.

One example would be deed restrictions that prohibited selling land to blacks. They were declared void as against public policy.

Another example would be the fact that President Bush (and most FR members) have no problem breaking the ABM treaty if it interferes with space based defense.

The Indian treaties may be legally binding, but they are, like racist deed covenants and the ABM treaty, relics of a bygone time and cause more harm than good.

Therefore, as I said, they should, be thrown as "void as against public policy"

[BlueLancer]

"Do you advocate breaking a legally-binding treaty to promote your viewpoint here?"

Well, it isn't as if we haven't done so before. I would say that we've got plenty of practice in that regard.