This is topic Charges Against Black Panthers Dropped by Obama JD in forum General Comments at The Ornery American Forum.


To visit this topic, use this URL:
http://www.ornery.org/cgi-bin/ubbcgi/ultimatebb.cgi/topic/6/13186.html

Posted by KnightEnder (Member # 992) on :
 
quote:
Charges brought against three members of the New Black Panther Party for Self-Defense under the Bush administration have been dropped by the Obama Justice Department, FOX News has learned.

The charges stemmed from an incident at a Philadelphia polling place on Election Day 2008 when three members of the party were accused of trying to threaten voters and block poll and campaign workers by the threat of force -- one even brandishing what prosecutors call a deadly weapon.

The three black panthers, Minister King Samir Shabazz, Malik Zulu Shabazz and Jerry Jackson were charged in a civil complaint in the final days of the Bush administration with violating the voter rights act by using coercion, threats and intimidation. Shabazz allegedly held a nightstick or baton that prosecutors said he pointed at people and menacingly tapped it. Prosecutors also say he "supports racially motivated violence against non-blacks and Jews."

The Obama administration won the case last month, but moved to dismiss the charges on May 15.

Click here to see FOX News video from the scene on election day.

Click to watch the incident on YouTube.

The complaint says the men hurled racial slurs at both blacks and whites.

A poll watcher who provided an affidavit to prosecutors in the case noted that Bartle Bull, who worked as a civil rights lawyer in the south in the 1960's and is a former campaign manager for Robert Kennedy, said it was the most blatant form of voter intimidation he had ever seen.

In his affidavit, obtained by FOX News, Bull wrote "I watched the two uniformed men confront voters and attempt to intimidate voters. They were positioned in a location that forced every voter to pass in close proximity to them. The weapon was openly displayed and brandished in plain sight of voters."

He also said they tried to "interfere with the work of other poll observers ... whom the uniformed men apparently believed did not share their preferences politically," noting that one of the panthers turned toward the white poll observers and said "you are about to be ruled by the black man, cracker."

A spokesman for the Department of Justice told FOX News, "The Justice Department was successful in obtaining an injunction that prohibits the defendant who brandished a weapon outside a Philadelphia polling place from doing so again. Claims were dismissed against the other defendants based on a careful assessment of the facts and the law. The department is committed to the vigorous prosecution of those who intimidate, threaten or coerce anyone exercising his or her sacred right to vote."

What? Doesn't that last sentence go against everything else reported in the article? [Confused] [Mad]

KE
 
Posted by Redskullvw (Member # 188) on :
 
The Justice Department does stand for protection of the right of citizens to vote. It even won its case- proving in trial that the men were guilty of voter intimidation.

The crux of the outcome however is racial. The NBPPSD could be counted upon to get out the vote for Democrats- and Obama- by what many at the time called outright intimidation and fear mongering. It was poopooed at the time by Obama's supporters. Obama is simply directing his JD to not uphold the law because in this case it was of direct advantage to his being elected and presumably he wants to make sure that in cities where the NBPPSD is powerful will again deliver vote blocks that will keep Obama in power during the next election.

Very cut and dry.

This is the "Change We Can Believe In" that about half of the voters voted for. I hope that you are all enjoying the progressive installation of a traditional fascist system. He took over your banks. He took over your mercantile exchange markets. He is about to take over your health care. And he is in the process of ensuring that the automotive industry becomes part of a corporative state structure where the government directly owns private firms while also assuring that the unionized labor groups are beholden to the continuation of government influence in exchange for 50% ownership of non-governmental stock.

It truly is breathtaking.
 
Posted by Greg Davidson (Member # 3377) on :
 
(1) The Obama DOJ has dropped prosecutions against both Democrats and Republicans

(2) Obama did not participate in the unsavory Democratic practice of handing out "walking-around-money" to assist in get-out-the-vote in Philadelphia. This may have cost him votes both in the primary and in the general election. If your diagnosis of his character is correct, why did he not spend some of his ample campaign cash in that time-honored (but disreputable) way of eliciting more votes?
 
Posted by D Pace (Member # 1493) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Redskullvw:
I hope that you are all enjoying the progressive installation of a traditional fascist system.

Red, of all people, are you enjoying it? [Wink]
 
Posted by cherrypoptart (Member # 3942) on :
 
I agree with Red. Surpise, surprise.

My new catch phrase for cases like this is quite simple:

This is what America voted for. If people didn't know it at the time, they should have. And maybe now some of them do.
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 99) on :
 
quote:
I hope that you are all enjoying the progressive installation of a traditional fascist system.
Are you? As our resident fascist, how do you feel about the implementation of policies you have endorsed for years?
 
Posted by KidB (Member # 3016) on :
 
Did you read the original charges?

Did you watch the video?

I'm guessing not.

Attorney General Mukasey (under Bush) filed for an injunction against three individuals involved in a particular incident.

As noted in the article:

quote:
The Justice Department was successful in obtaining an injunction that prohibits the defendant who brandished a weapon outside a Philadelphia polling place from doing so again.
The charges were dropped against the other two, probably because they didn't do anything.

Watch the video

You guys need better spin-dar.

Jeesh.

The videographer basically provoked the incident.
 
Posted by KnightEnder (Member # 992) on :
 
I was at work. Couldn't watch the video.
Wife and dogs are asleep now. Still can't watch the video, and can't sleep.

But I take the word of Fox News as gospel. I'm not going to take some commie liberal like you'se word over theirs!

KE
 
Posted by Redskullvw (Member # 188) on :
 
Tom

You should already know the answer.

And for those of you who don't know. It is a very bad development. Fascist systems wind up radicalized, marginalize certain classes, eliminate other classes, and almost virtually insure the end of viable democratic institutions. It is indeed a very effective form of government, but with very few exceptions, once a country adopts facist goverment theory and practice- it is highly doubtful that it will escape political and national disintegration.

As one of my professors pointed out nearly 20 years ago, America will likely vote itself into a peaceful fascist transition. And at the time he said it would be about 20 years before it happened.

Amazingly- he was right. Unfortunately he is still alive to see it.
 
Posted by flydye45 (Member # 2004) on :
 
Unfortunately, I'M alive to see it.

Edited to add: I am less concerned with this then I am the Census stuff, the buying and controlling corporations, the muscling banks to do whatever he wishes, his glad handing his cronies in ways against the Rule of Law etc.

He said that he's going to drop all this when the emergency stops. I've heard such things before in South America. And pooh poohing the issue does not remove the danger.

[ May 30, 2009, 09:11 AM: Message edited by: flydye45 ]
 
Posted by flydye45 (Member # 2004) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by KidB:
Did you read the original charges?

Did you watch the video?

I'm guessing not.


The videographer basically provoked the incident.

Yeah. He put the three thugs there, he gave the guy a stick. Sure! He went up and asked questions. When Michael Moore does it, it's 'gotcha journalism.' When the Right is exposing some questionable practice, it's provocation.

[ May 30, 2009, 09:11 AM: Message edited by: flydye45 ]
 
Posted by The Drake (Member # 2128) on :
 
You mean this huge change over the last administration was muscling telecoms to get data without warrants, the banking takeovers began, and federal troops gained greater authorization to be deployed domestically?

I tend to agree that we are headed for fascist government, but lets not pretend that voting for McCain would have somehow halted this trend.
 
Posted by Aris Katsaris (Member # 888) on :
 
Last administration used rape and murder as interrogation tools.

It's possible that Democrats are heading towards fascism too, but Republicans are going much faster in that direction.
 
Posted by KnightEnder (Member # 992) on :
 
Yes, I think we all agree, even our right leaning members (the ones that lean to the right of right [Wink] ) that the last administration sucked. NOW can we move on and be objective about the CURRENT administration?!!!

[Smile] Just kidding. I never used to could understand how the republicans could not let go of bashing Clinton, but now I see how addictive it is. Hate; keeps you warm. [Smile]

KE
 
Posted by flydye45 (Member # 2004) on :
 
Show me that telecoms were muscled. I can discuss Chrysler bondholders, GM bondholders, the banks, AIG, etc. We can talk about large sums given to political activists.
 
Posted by flydye45 (Member # 2004) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Aris Katsaris:
Last administration used rape and murder as interrogation tools.

Of course we do. Because it's SO easy to get answers out of dead people.

Thanks for playing.
 
Posted by flydye45 (Member # 2004) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by KnightEnder:
Yes, I think we all agree, even our right leaning members (the ones that lean to the right of right [Wink] ) that the last administration sucked. NOW can we move on and be objective about the CURRENT administration?!!!

[Smile] Just kidding. I never used to could understand how the republicans could not let go of bashing Clinton, but now I see how addictive it is. Hate; keeps you warm. [Smile]

KE

I'm still waiting for the haters to get a bit reflective about Obama's acceptance of Bush tactics. That penny has not dropped.

Of course, because he's charismatic, has a love affair with the press (is there ANY magazine he isn't going to be on the cover? I see him more then Chinamen have seen Mao), and has an emergency to exploit, well, I can just yawn and roll over. Bald Pandering with federal goodies. Nope. No problem here.

"Don't cry for me, Venezuuueeela..."
 
Posted by cperry (Member # 1938) on :
 
I've never heard anyone talk about reading as an addiction -- growing up, "She's reading a book" was about the highest praise my mom could give us. We weren't encouraged to go outside and play.

I have since found myself in certain periods of my life using the escape of novels equal to what I suppose alcoholics seek in booze.

Thanks for sharing this personal story; it's definitely got me doing some introspection.
 
Posted by Aris Katsaris (Member # 888) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by flydye45:
quote:
Originally posted by Aris Katsaris:
Last administration used rape and murder as interrogation tools.

Of course we do. Because it's SO easy to get answers out of dead people.
You're correct -- answers were never your motivation, your sadism was. Very well, I'm rephrasing this into "You used interrogation as an excuse for murder and rape."

You sound like my brother used to sound in regards to torture. "President Bush, Donald Rumsfeld, Condoleezza Rice and the rest of the administration must surely have known that America had nothing to gain and certainly a lot to lose from such treatment of prisoners in American hands"

I don't care WHY your administrations was as stupid as that. I am not interested in defenses based on your supposed cleverness. You're not clever, you're MORONS, therefore such argument don't apply.

I care about facts. And these facts are no longer disputable: you MURDERED and you RAPED. And you called it "harsh interrogation techniques".
 
Posted by Aris Katsaris (Member # 888) on :
 
quote:
I'm still waiting for the haters to get a bit reflective about Obama's acceptance of Bush tactics.
Yes, his refusal to reveal all photos to the press, denies me the small hope I would have had that America might possibly make an actual break from torture and rape. And that therefore attacks on American troops would no longer be morally justified.
 
Posted by The Drake (Member # 2128) on :
 
I won't go on about the previous admin, by request. [Smile] For flyde, just go back to the old threads about the Patriot act and telecommunications privacy and re-ignore them.

I just wish that the right would hold their people accountable, and the left theirs. The blind devotion and selective memory will lead some moderates to "switch sides" periodically, and accomplish nothing.
 
Posted by KidB (Member # 3016) on :
 
quote:
Yeah. He put the three thugs there, he gave the guy a stick. Sure! He went up and asked questions. When Michael Moore does it, it's 'gotcha journalism.' When the Right is exposing some questionable practice, it's provocation.


What's your problem? The Obama DOJ won the injunction against that guy.

As for the other two, I really think this is a mountain out of a molehill. Urban black neighborhoods have been home to various "Black Panther" style groups from time immemorial. That's what they have instead of cops. Because cops can't be bothered to keep things nice and lovey-dovey in the darker parts of town.

Usually - at least where I live (NYC) - there's a cop or two in front of the polling station when I go to vote.

Do you see any cops in that video? No, you don't. What you have, my friend, is a policing vacuum, which is why you get vigilante groups like that in the first place.

Honestly, if some white guy was a local who just walked in to vote, sans video crew, there would have been no problem. I ride the subway with Black Panther-type dudes just like those guys every day of my life. Those are not the guys I fear.

[ May 30, 2009, 02:35 PM: Message edited by: KidB ]
 
Posted by RickyB (Member # 1464) on :
 
"I'm still waiting for the haters to get a bit reflective about Obama's acceptance of Bush tactics. That penny has not dropped."

Why do you lie in such a blatant and ugly manner? Nearly every single regular liberal here has voiced disappointment over each and every such instance, most of us more than once. Why do you simply ignore reality in order to make a strawman attack? Are you really that pathetically desperate? That desperate to extract "admissions" we've already made without any external pressure whatsoever, but simply because it's how we actually feel?

The fading of the Repugnican party is really doing a number on your sense of self, huh? I feel for you. However, that doesn't mean I allow you to lie about me. So snap the **** out of it.

[ May 30, 2009, 04:11 PM: Message edited by: RickyB ]
 
Posted by RickyB (Member # 1464) on :
 
"Yes, his refusal to reveal all photos to the press,"

As has been printed out, the law in the US (and most countries, I'd wager) prohibits the publication of rape victim photos, so scoff all you want, but if that is indeed what's in the photos, there's a legal quandary here. I don't want to see photos, but I want the press to see them and describe what's in them, who's responsible and how they're being punished.
 
Posted by flydye45 (Member # 2004) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by RickyB:
"I'm still waiting for the haters to get a bit reflective about Obama's acceptance of Bush tactics. That penny has not dropped."

Why do you lie in such a blatant and ugly manner? Nearly every single regular liberal here has voiced disappointment over each and every such instance, most of us more than once. Why do you simply ignore reality in order to make a strawman attack? Are you really that pathetically desperate? That desperate to extract "admissions" we've already made without any external pressure whatsoever, but simply because it's how we actually feel?


You don't understand what I'm saying, so I'll ignore that last bit. One of your own, as much as one can be, has taken a look and accepted that which you opposed.

I have NOT said that you have changed your principles. I have stated that you have not reconsidered the necessity or effectiveness of these techniques. President "Present", who has more responsibility then clowns on the internet, is suddenly much more sympathetic to the plight Bush faced, even as he tries to have it both ways by excoriating him on these practices publically while he maintains them. Cheney is right.
 
Posted by flydye45 (Member # 2004) on :
 
Aris, you seem to not realize the difference between "policy" and "crimes." Murder and Rape are NOT American policy. That does not mean it hasn't occured.

But you are correct. I just LOVE to masturbate over the idea that some terrorist somewhere is being waterboarded. You called it in one. Certainly it isn't something I view as a tragic necessity. Nope. And if the WOT ends, I'll advocate replacing them with obnoxious Greeks. [Roll Eyes]
 
Posted by RickyB (Member # 1464) on :
 
I haven't reconsidered because I haven't been presented with any new facts to make me reconsider. The sole fact that a ruthless politician has changed his stripes upon becoming the creature of his job rather than the master of it, or having decided that doing the right thing would distract too much from the other urgent challenges, is not sufficient to make me change my mind, and indeed it would be pretty loathsome if it were - it would play right into the old "when your [my] guy does it, it's alright". It's not.

Check out my blog on Open Salon for two theories on why he's doing what he's doing, ASSUMING his heart is in the right place after all.

And I take back the harsh words if that was what you meant.

Oh - And Cheney is rarely right. If I was doing the correspondent's dinner and he was there, I'd be sorely tempted to serenade him with the last two stanzas from "Masters of War". Then again, he wouldn't be. He'd be cowering in his undisclosed location, wouldn't he?

[ May 30, 2009, 06:40 PM: Message edited by: RickyB ]
 
Posted by Redskullvw (Member # 188) on :
 
Ricky

That is one of the reasons I respect your opinions when it comes to politics. Yes you are liberal & you tend to project a viewpoint that all things are possible, but you also expect liberals to govern to the letter of that standard. Obama ran on a campaign that said we wouldn't have government secrecy and our policies would be so plain that any infractions by those who implement administration executive policy would be patently obvious.

Unfortunately for Obama, reality sets in and geopolitical realities and realpolitic present him with some ugly choices. I think he is right in following most of Bush's policies in the War on Terror. Window dressing definitional changes notwithstanding, Obama is facing the reality of the office.

You haven't changed your stance on these issues. But could you at least acknowledge that given what Obama now knows, and the fact he is continuing those policies in full measure, may indicate that whomever became President would be forced by reality to do the exact same policy?

And as to rape and murder being policy--- GIVE ME A BREAK.

That last wasn't for you Ricky.
 
Posted by flydye45 (Member # 2004) on :
 
Well said.

And I would add that Cheney called Obama on some of his muckraking, and Obama blinked. After Obama cherry picked revelations to denigrate the previous office holders, Cheney as much as said "Put it ALL out, even the stuff that exonerates us, if we are going to play fast and loose with national security."

Never seen such quick backpedaling. Which goes to show that I am at least partially incorrect on my assessment of Obama: He IS smarter then Pelosi, who is intent on digging herself deeper. So, the smartest guy to be President in living history follows the Bush doctrine. Nope. No cause for reflection... [Big Grin]

[ May 30, 2009, 08:47 PM: Message edited by: flydye45 ]
 
Posted by RickyB (Member # 1464) on :
 
Red, since you are being courteous I will refrain from any heat, and simply note that had I, or any other liberal, said "well, if Obama is doing it, that must mean there's a legit reason to do it", you and Fly and Mariner and Paladin andf every other conservative here would have a field day with the inherent hypocrisy of such a statement. Hell, G2 pretends that's what we're saying and has himself a fools field day as it is. [Smile]

So no. Like I said, barring a new ARGUMENT, backed with new relevant facts, I see zero reason to change my stance on the matter. I don't know Obama personally, have not "looked in his eyes and seen his soul", and any man capable of ascending to the Presidency is suspect by default.

Like I keep telling you guys about interest groups, organizations have their own agenda, which is not the full picture. The ACLU cares only about civil rights, to the extent that once in a while even I say "Yeah, I see where you're coming from, but I ain't going there, sorry."

However, the Presidency is not supposed to be like that. If the president has a reason for behaving in a manner inconsistent with his own promises and with the agenda of the vast majority of his supporters, he better make a case.
 
Posted by Aris Katsaris (Member # 888) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by flydye45:
Aris, you seem to not realize the difference between "policy" and "crimes."

You seem not to realize the similarity.

quote:
Murder and Rape are NOT American policy.
It's only American policy to let it happen, to not really care about if it happens, to cover it up when it does happen, and to insult those who
insist it happened.

Once upon a time you probably believed that torture wasn't American policy either.

quote:
That does not mean it hasn't occured.
Only that you don't give a damn that it has occured, as you repeatedly prove.

quote:
Certainly it isn't something I view as a tragic necessity.
You are certainly tear-filled when discussing torture, murder and rape. You are not merely mocking us bleeding-heart liberals who object to these.

quote:
Nope. And if the WOT ends, I'll advocate replacing them with obnoxious Greeks. [Roll Eyes]

Certainly a few decades back it was leftist Greeks and leftist South-Americans that were being tortured with the support and encouragement of America (you were more powerful back then and you usually outsourced the torture to quislings - you're weaker now and you need stain your own hands). Now it's Arabs and other muslim darkies. A few decades from now you may be torturing and raping Australians for all I know.

You think there will EVER come a time when you won't be thinking of torture, murder and rape as a sad necessity to defeat whatever threat you're claiming to be facing?

quote:

And as to rape and murder being policy--- GIVE ME A BREAK.

So, if it's not policy, how many soldiers have gone to jail for murdering and raping prisoners? Only the people that got revealed in public photos for Abu Ghraib abuse?

Gotta figure out why I'm so annoyed at no more photos being revealed. You never punish anyone if there's not some photo-frenzy attached.
 
Posted by Redskullvw (Member # 188) on :
 
"So, if it's not policy, how many soldiers have gone to jail for murdering and raping prisoners?"

What may amaze you is the fact that the USA military is noted for the extremes it goes to to neither harm civilians during combat nor adversely harm them during a time of military general government. We are noted as being exceptional in this. We are also noted for being exceptionally terse in our standards of military conduct. UNLIKE the overwhelming majorities of militaries in the world- we do charge and prosecute our own for ANY failures of military code and especially those instances where civilians are involved.

It is interesting to note that liberals as a general group deride two nation's militaries far more than any others- i.e. Israel & the USA. Yep- we got every single instance dragged out during the events in the War on Terror and Israel's invasion of Lebanon & Hamas being tossed about for 3000 rocket launches. We got every single ERROR brought to our attention.

Let us set something straight. When our troops murder or rape- they go to jail for a VERY long time. It isn't our policy to allow such acts.

You seem uniquely comfortable in your ability to criticiize and hold our nation to a standard that has never been met by any nation at any time. What the rest of the world finds incredible is not that OBAMA is the SAVIOR- rather that we hold our military forces to such unreasonable standards.

The rest of the world cares less about the civilians in the way.
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 99) on :
 
quote:
We are noted as being exceptional in this.
By whom? I mean, the British and Australians aren't looking to us for pointers on this.
 
Posted by Redskullvw (Member # 188) on :
 
The claims of barbarity being part & parcel of the policies carried out by the American military is the common fodder of the liberal media, watchdog groups like Amnesty International & Doctors without borders, terrorist movements like Hamas, Hezballah, & AlQueda, and even governments of the second and third world. Not to mention depending upon political season even other governments of the first world decry American actions as being ones based upon barbarity and needless force.

The screaming of our barbarism is commonplace enough to have even effected Ornery. For example look up Murdock and his replete series of threads where he proposed and advocated that the American military is simply killing a million Iraqis without even a moment's thought. And many of you here who still contribute joined the argument behind such claims. Charges of rape, murder, thievery, extortion, and common battery were all just part of how the vast majority of our military conducted itself day to day.

The fact is that our military was exceptional in that we didn't have the issues either the British or Australians had in terms of charges of abuse and brutality towards civilians to the degree and initiation they did. And it was their own domestic media that pushed for and demanded their withdrawals partly because there were rapes, murders, thievery, battery, and extortion being committed multiple times by their own forces. Whereas the American forces were not guilty of such things. Of course we were guilty of far worse by taking pictures of naked piles of men who were being humiliated in an attempt to stop the perception by the insurgents that being a member of jihad was without penalty.

Knowing that if you were caught you would be paraded in front of female Americans naked & forced to wear women's thong underwear had a massive crippling effect upon insurgents wanting to continue the fight. Even the issue of the trumped up and ultimately revealed to be a hoax example of what truly would have been violence towards a prisoner just barely would have crossed the lines of battery. Yet we tried, convicted, and imprisoned nearly 50 soildiers/sailors/& CIA agents for things that even our allies don't bat an eye at.

Fact is our military is an anomaly amongst the standing armies of the world, with the plausible exception of Israel, in that we do the least harm to civilians during engagements and deployments. It really is a record that has no equal compared to what has gone before in history. You want to know what our military holds dear and important about the issue, mission, and policies?

Try reading some of the stuff Stray wrote about how they treated civilians. He could easily have been a shoot first ask questions later kind of person. But he was surrounded by people who also thought the only way to be successful was to conduct engagements with the civilians in as peaceful a manner as possible even if it ultimately meant that that generosity and civility would be taken advantage of by an enemy which saw no problem killing civilians as long as some Americans died as well.

The School of the Americas taught soildiers from nearly every country in the world that the military should be a tool of last resort controlled by civilian laws. People come to us to learn how to have a civilian controlled military which doesn't routinely brutalize civilians.

Unfortunately, what we have tried to teach and routinely practice as a military has yet to catch on in the majority of the world. You want to talk rape & murder? Try looking into Sri Lanka, the Philippines, North Korea, Congo, Zimbabwe, Venezuela, Nicaragua, Zambia, Nigeria, Egypt, Lebanon, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, India- hell just about any other military currently engaged in the world to see REAL RAPE & MURDER as policy.

You know who conflates the almost incident free performance of the American military when dealing with civilians? People without perspective who find that the half dozen improper policy executions in regard to civilians comitted by Americans must be morally equivelent to the thousands of deaths and rapes daily commited by other militaries as policy goals.

I found a total of 8 American soilders who have been implicated in three rapes in Iraq since the war began. Two of the soildiers convicted were not even aware of the rape being done by people under their command but are still in jail because they did not control their men.

That speaks volumes as to our performance and destroys any argument that rape is a policy of the American military.

Of course finding concrete evidence of Americans murdering civilians is almost impossible due to the fact that googling "American Military murdering Iraqis" brings up so much left wing drivel that we have systematically "murdered" at least 1 million civilians that you can hardly find the three examples that were investigated and the one that was prosecuted but ultimately found to be baseless in Haditha.

I guess if you BELIEVE RAPE IS POLICY then the objective facts that rape is not policy don't matter. Nor does it matter that our behavior in not Raping and Murdering is seen as a concrete example of our weakness as far as our enemies are concerned, while also being an example of our uncontrolled imperialism when judged by our liberal media and politicians at home and amongst our allies.

http://www.globalpolicy.org/component/content/article/168/37155.html

Read this and then tell me how anyone can fairly claim Rape & murder are policy.
 
Posted by KidB (Member # 3016) on :
 
Red,

Here we have almost irrefutible proof that you do not read...anything.

QUOTING FROM YOUR LINK:

quote:


The United States and its allies claim they do everything in their power to prevent civilian casualties. Yet, there are many accounts of Coalition forces opening fire and killing Iraqi civilians in circumstances where there was no imminent threat of death or injury to the Coalition troops or anyone else. This is in clear breach of international human rights standards relating to the use of force. In many cases of patrols, house searches, and relentless bombing campaigns, military personnel have used lethal force in absolutely unjustified circumstances. Studies of civilian mortality in Iraq suggest that tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis have been killed in this way since the occupation began.[

In Iraq, where US Coalition forces see every man of military age as a potential fighter, and where fear and anger affect the behavior of troops, events like the Haditha massacre are all too likely to occur. According to US Major General Eldon A. Bargewell, "all levels of command [tend] to view civilian casualties, even in significant numbers, as routine and as the natural and intended result of insurgent tactics." "Statements made by the chain of command (…), taken as a whole, suggest that Iraqi civilian lives are not as important as US lives, their deaths are just the cost of doing business, and that the Marines need to get 'the job done' no matter what it takes," he concluded.[71]

This environment of extreme violence and impunity paves the way for murder, rape and atrocities. These acts are prohibited by The Hague Conventions and the Geneva Conventions and they constitute serious war crimes.


and

quote:
In most cases of serious misconduct and murder, soldiers directly involved have tried to cover up the crimes and often commanders have ignored evidence, failed to actively pursue even the most serious cases and made exculpatory public statements.
and

quote:
The military justice system has acted only very rarely to punish cases of murder and atrocities. Most such cases have never reached the point of a formal charge. Those cases in which a charge has been handed down have usually been dismissed at the preliminary administrative tribunal stage or at the later court martial phase. Or they have been settled at either stage with a very mild rebuke or punishment. Very few charges have included premeditated murder, even in such egregious cases as Haditha.


and

quote:
From the very beginning of the occupation, there have been excessive and unnecessary deaths at military checkpoints.[10] Civilian casualties occur even at stable and well-defined checkpoints. But most risky are those checkpoints that are set up in ways that make them hard for motorists to see in advance – set up temporarily and suddenly, or in unexpected places, or at night, or in bad weather, or on curvy roads with poor visibility.

 
Posted by Aris Katsaris (Member # 888) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Redskullvw:
What may amaze you is the fact that the USA military is noted for the extremes it goes to to neither harm civilians during combat nor adversely harm them during a time of military general government.

You're better than the other superpowers. That's it. And that's it alone.

quote:
It is interesting to note that liberals as a general group deride two nation's militaries far more than any others- i.e. Israel & the USA.
No, it's leftists that as a general group do that. Not liberals: Most leftists in the world aren't
liberal, they're authoritarian.

quote:
Let us set something straight. When our troops murder or rape- they go to jail for a VERY long time. It isn't our policy to allow such acts.
Dilawar Murdered in a US prison. Highest sentence passed: 2 months.

Is 2 months what you call a "VERY long time"?

quote:
You seem uniquely comfortable in your ability to criticiize and hold our nation to a standard that has never been met by any nation at any time.
I don't consider you unique in villainy. All nations are utterly monstrous when dealing with non-nationals. All the more reason not to invade other nations.
 
Posted by Redskullvw (Member # 188) on :
 
KIDb

Here we have irrefutable proof that on this issue you cannot comprehend what you read.

Your first pulled quote points out the obvious- civilians die in combat zones especially combat zones where there is an insurgency that does not operate in accord with the Geneva Conventions. It is a theater of a global war, and to expect to see no casualties of civilians is both unreasonable and childish. But having pointed that out to you, does it make any substantiation to the charge we RAPE & MURDER as policy?

It does not.

That you ignored the few cases where there were indeed rapes or murders- as presented in this article you failed to comprehend- is being exceptional cases makes the rest of your pulled quotes meaningless. For you ignore what happens to commanders who attempt to cover up such extremely rare instances. You fail to acknowledge or comprehend that in the cases brought forth in the article, those who committed the acts wound up in a stockade or brig for what will be decades.

Why has the Military Justice System rarely had to act on such cases? While you imply it is because they simply want no part of prosecuting military service people, the reality as put forth in the article is that they have rarely acted because there have been only rare cases where our service people have committed such acts.

Have civilians been killed at control points? I suspect that no one would claim they have not. But agin, context needs to be applied. A road check point in Anbar Province was undoubtably a place of frequent and daily attacks. Every day people who looked like civilians walked or drove up to the check points and detonated bombs. It becomes a choice between taking measures to eliminate insurgents or allowing the insurgents free reign to attack civilians and military forces with impunity because we are fearful of ever getting an identification of a civilian wrong.

That would be simply unrealistic. In terms of the Geneva Convention, such deaths are acknowledged as being unfortunate but exonerable. You can't put every check point in the middle of a flat open road- for obvious reasons.

Again thanks for neglecting the substance of the article and failing to discover through lack of your own comprehension that RAPE & MURDER are not policy of the military or the issue that the civilian deaths that have resulted in the majority of cases are directly attributable to combat conditions and general collapse of civilian law & norms of activity during the time which preceded the article being written in early 2007.

It could be best summed up as an after action assessment when the insurgency had largely vanished, civilian control returned, and combat force use had become comparitively rare.

AK

Thank you for acknowledging the obvious. We ARE better than anyone else. We don't RAPE & MURDER as you claimed to be our intentional and standing policy. Thank you for also pointing out the obvious in that leftists who get championed by the Western World liberals tend to be authoritarian thugs who play lip service to liberal ideals. Then again this is an American based discussion where many American liberals are totally ignorant of that fact & bringing it up simply further clouds the issue.

The only thing we seem to agree on is that invading other nations creates the imperative of us vs them, where the "them" are the ones who suffer for our best interests.
 
Posted by KidB (Member # 3016) on :
 
quote:
Why has the Military Justice System rarely had to act on such cases? While you imply it is because they simply want no part of prosecuting military service people, the reality as put forth in the article is that they have rarely acted because there have been only rare cases where our service people have committed such acts.

Where does it say that in the article? Please quote me the passage where that contention is made, and I will issue an apologia without hesitation.

However, all I find is this:

quote:
Military commanders and courts have systematically referred to Haditha and other massacres as isolated cases. But the large number of such incidents suggests that the atrocities are systemic and have arisen from permissive rules of engagement and a broader culture of excessive violence, often condoned by commanders.


And then follows the section on cover-ups.

[ May 31, 2009, 07:17 PM: Message edited by: KidB ]
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 99) on :
 
quote:
The School of the Americas taught soldiers from nearly every country in the world that the military should be a tool of last resort controlled by civilian laws.
Um....This is a particularly twisted example. Do you need me to explain why?
 
Posted by Aris Katsaris (Member # 888) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Redskullvw:
Thank you for acknowledging the obvious. We ARE better than anyone else.

I said you're better than the other superpowers -- by which I mean China and Russia.

Lots of countries that are better than you, but they don't happen to be superpowers, and they don't tend to invade other nations.

quote:
We don't RAPE & MURDER as you claimed to be our intentional and standing policy.
You have a policy of not caring about them, as long as they happen against your prisoners. How many prisoners dead or raped?

quote:
Thank you for also pointing out the obvious in that leftists who get championed by the Western World liberals tend to be authoritarian thugs who play lip service to liberal ideals.
You're mixing the meanings of the words "liberals" and "leftists" again, as Americans always tend to do, simply because American liberals happen to be on the left of the American conservatives.

Besides the left-wing liberals (socialdemocrats) and the right-wing conservatives (I suppose I'd call them "corporatists"), there's the left-wing conservatives (communists) and the right-wing liberals (libertarians).

The sin of the Democrats is they've not expunged their authoritarian-tolerant portion. They're many, but half of them are rotten.

But the even worse sin of the Republicans is they've expunged their *liberal* portion. No abortion rights, no same-sex marriage -- no habeas corpus, no privacy rights, massive war-spending bill. Torture in the interrogations, and foreign invasions.

Because one party that hasn't expunged the villains, and the other party that has kept ONLY the villains, I'd rather favour the former.

I'd love it if American politics was about two parties one of them with social-democrat and the other with libertarian positions.

Instead there's the half-rotten party dueling the full-rotten one.
 
Posted by kenmeer livermaile (Member # 2243) on :
 
"We ARE better than anyone else."

Oh man, Jeebus got a whuppin' in store for you, chile.
 
Posted by JWatts (Member # 6523) on :
 
Justice Department whistleblower alleging racial bias, corruption, testifies today

quote:
Former Justice Department attorney, J. Christian Adams, will testify today before the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, as to why the department dropped a case against the Black Panthers, in what some have called the most clear case of voter intimidation since the Civil Rights era.

Adams, who resigned last month over the case, claims it was dropped for purely racial reasons, alleging bias and corruption.

Last year, Attorney General Eric Holder dropped charges against three Black Panthers, who were caught on video, trying to intimidate voters outside of a Philadelphia polling location on Election Day 2008.

Shabazz held a nightstick, pointing it at people. Prosecutors said he “supports racially motivated violence against non-blacks and Jews.”

Charges were brought against the Black Panthers by the Bush administration. However, the Obama administration dropped them in May 2009, settling instead, for an agreement with Shabazz to not carry a “deadly weapon” into or near a polling place until 2012.

Seriously? [DOH] It still boggles my mind that they would agree to allow carrying a “deadly weapon” into a polling place after 2011.

Hmmm... I wonder what the Obama Justice departments reaction would be if Tea Party members showed up to a Philadelphia polling place brandishing night sticks?

quote:
At the time of the incident, poll watcher Bartle Bull provided a sworn affidavit to the crime saying: “I watched the two uniformed men confront voters and attempt to intimidate voters. They were positioned in a location that forced every voter to pass in close proximity to them. The weapon was openly displayed and brandished in plain sight of voters.”

Bull also claimed that the Black Panthers tried to "interfere with the work of other poll observers ... whom the uniformed men apparently believed did not share their preferences politically.” He said that one of the black panthers told a white poll worker “you are about to be ruled by the black man, cracker.”

quote:
In June 2009, during testimony before a Senate panel considering new hate crimes legislation, Attorney General Eric Holder clearly suggested that any new laws passed would only apply to non-white victims.
So much for Justice being Blind. We're going from a Justice system based on law to a Justice system based on men.

Source
 
Posted by JWatts (Member # 6523) on :
 
Top Justice Dept. Official Lied Under Oath About Dismissal of New Black Panther Case, Ex-DOJ Lawyer Says

quote:
A former Justice Department attorney who resigned last month in protest of the Obama administration's handling of a voter intimidation case involving the New Black Panther Party accused a top Justice official of lying under oath about the circumstances surrounding the decision to drop the case.

J. Christian Adams, now an attorney in Virginia and a blogger for Pajamas Media, told Fox News in an exclusive interview that aired Wednesday that Assistant Attorney General Thomas Perez provided false testimony in May to the United States Commission on Civil Rights, which is investigating the department's decision to drop charges against three members of the radical group in a case that the government won.

Perez told the commission that the facts and the law didn't support the case against the group.

"I know about the truth…and I know what the truth is and I know to say the facts and law don't support the Black Panther case is not true," Adams said, adding that Perez ignored his warnings not to provide false testimony.

"We made it very clear that continuing to say that the facts and the law don't support this case would not be consistent with the truth," he said.

Justice Department spokeswoman Tracy Schmaler called Adams' allegations "baseless."

"I don't think the department or the fine people who work there are corrupt, but in this particular instance, to abandon law-abiding citizens and abet wrongdoers constitutes corruption," he said.

Adams said he quit last month after the department ordered attorneys to ignore a subpoena from the commission.

"After being ordered not to comply with the lawful subpoena, after hearing the lies that are being said about the case, after the corruption that we had witnessed in the case, I just said that's it, that I resign and now I'm no longer there," he said.

Source
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 99) on :
 
Ah, Dave Gibson. Here's a guy who's been working on better couching his racist message for nearly a decade now. [Smile]

http://www.american-partisan.com/cols/2002/gibson/qtr3/0729.htm
 
Posted by JWatts (Member # 6523) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
Ah, Dave Gibson. Here's a guy who's been working on better couching his racist message for nearly a decade now. [Smile]

http://www.american-partisan.com/cols/2002/gibson/qtr3/0729.htm

Your post doesn't seem to have anything to do with this topic. What is the connection I'm missing or did you just post to the wrong thread?

Ahh, he was the author of the first source. Nevermind.

[ July 07, 2010, 01:08 PM: Message edited by: JWatts ]
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
Are there actually facts to contradict what the article said the Justice Dept did, or is Tom's ad homeniem supposed to close the argument?
 
Posted by JWatts (Member # 6523) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
Are there actually facts to contradict what the article said the Justice Dept did, or is Tom's ad homeniem supposed to close the argument?

Since the article Tom linked was from 2002, I don't think it has a lot of relevance to the current topic.
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
Tom's point seems to be that since the author taught a racist message 8 years ago (which seems true from the article) that we should not pay attention to any facts that he points us to now.

the video clips should speak for themselves, though, and if Fox misquoted the result, ie that the Obama administration dropped charges in May 2009, settling instead, for an agreement with Shabazz to not carry a “deadly weapon” into or near a polling place until 2012, they'd have been called on the carpet. Here is a Washington Times article on the topic. I also noticed some Fox News videoclips from a Democratic Party witness.


Okay, Shabazz. No more using weapons to intimidate voters at polling places, until Obama's next presidential election in 2012. [Eek!]

[ July 07, 2010, 05:13 PM: Message edited by: Pete at Home ]
 
Posted by Wayward Son (Member # 210) on :
 
On the other hand, Media Matters reports that:

quote:
Adams himself acknowledged during his Fox interview that his claims are based on hearsay...
and

quote:
It should be noted that no voter in Philadelphia has come forward to complain about intimidation stemming from the Black Panthers' presence at the polling station.
I would provide the link, but for some reason it keeps getting dumped because of a parenthesis hidden in the URL address. [Frown]

Still, those are two interesting tidbits that I'm sure are not emphasized in any of the Right-Wing Media.
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Wayward Son:
On the other hand, Media Matters reports that:

quote:
Adams himself acknowledged during his Fox interview that his claims are based on hearsay...
and

quote:
It should be noted that no voter in Philadelphia has come forward to complain about intimidation stemming from the Black Panthers' presence at the polling station.
I would provide the link, but for some reason it keeps getting dumped because of a parenthesis hidden in the URL address. [Frown]

Still, those are two interesting tidbits that I'm sure are not emphasized in any of the Right-Wing Media.

[Mad] Did you bother to read the Washington Times Article that I just provided you, or to watch the attached video?

Hint: not by Adams. Not hearsay either:

quote:
The incident - which gained national attention when it was captured on videotape and distributed on YouTube - had prompted the government to sue the men, saying they violated the 1965 Voting Rights Act by scaring would-be voters with the weapon, racial slurs and military-style uniforms.

Career lawyers pursued the case for months, including obtaining an affidavit from a prominent 1960s civil rights activist who witnessed the confrontation and described it as "the most blatant form of voter intimidation" that he had seen, even during the voting rights crisis in Mississippi a half-century ago.

Not hearsay, Wayward. Video and sworn affadavit.

If this were a Republican Prez making the same limp deal with a KKK member who brandished a nightstick outside a polling place during an election, how would you feel about such blithe dismissals?
 
Posted by Wayward Son (Member # 210) on :
 
The hearsay that Adams is alledged to have admitted to is not the facts of the incident--which no one disputes, AFAIK--but probably has to do with his charge that Prerez lied or the reasons why the case was dropped. I haven't listened to the interview myself, so I can't say for sure. But I am pretty sure it is not the estblished facts of the case.

The video certainly looks bad, but you have to wonder why no voters complained about it, considering how bad it looks. If a KKK guy brandished a nightstick in front of a poling place, do you think that no one but an out-of-state observer would complain? [Wink]
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Wayward Son:
If a KKK guy brandished a nightstick in front of a poling place, do you think that no one but an out-of-state observer would complain? [Wink]

Today, no. Back when the KKK were politically correct and convenient to the powers that be, like in the days when President Wilson was singing praises of the KKK-friendly "birth of the nation, quite possibly yes.

quote:
AFAIK--but probably has to do with his charge that Prerez lied or the reasons why the case was dropped. I haven't listened to the interview myself...
Neither have I. Don't see how that would be needful. I'm astonished that you would not admit that "an agreement with Shabazz to not carry a “deadly weapon” into or near a polling place until 2012" is a complete joke, given the video and affadavit evidence. The indisputable facts are enough to toss up very big red flags.
 
Posted by kenmeer livermaile (Member # 2243) on :
 
I would like to read a summary of the court arguments.

I would also like to know why no one left the polling place and didn't come back with some baseball bats.
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
No court arguments, Kenmeer. Prosecution dropped charges. This was a stipulated agreement between the prosecution (the AG's office) and the defendant, Shabazz, a leader of a supremacist organization so maliciously racist that the Black Panther's founder, Huey Newton, has disowned it. There's no court argument when the court just rubber-stamps an agreement between both parties. But career attorneys in the AG's office protested the deal, and some quit over it.

quote:
Originally posted by kenmeer livermaile:
I would also like to know why no one left the polling place and didn't come back with some baseball bats.

Because not everyone has enough political connections to commit such crimes with impunity.

[ July 07, 2010, 10:15 PM: Message edited by: Pete at Home ]
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
Another reason there would be no court argument, Kenmeer .... the prosecution controls the evidence that comes before the court. Here, Obama's political appointees overruled the carreer lawyers in the Justice Department, and prevented the key evidence from even going before the judge. See bottom of this linked page:

quote:
The complaint said the three men engaged in "coercion, threats and intimidation, ... racial threats and insults, ... menacing and intimidating gestures, ... and movements directed at individuals who were present to vote." It said that unless prohibited by court sanctions, they would "continued to violate ... the Voting Rights Act by continuing to direct intimidation, threats and coercion at voters and potential voters, by again deploying uniformed and armed members at the entrance to polling locations in future elections, both in Philadelphia and throughout the country."

To support its evidence, the government had secured an affidavit from Bartle Bull, a longtime civil rights activist and former aide to Sen. Robert F. Kennedy's 1968 presidential campaign. Mr. Bull said in a sworn statement dated April 7 that he was serving in November as a credentialed poll watcher in Philadelphia when he saw the three uniformed Panthers confront and intimidate voters with a nightstick.

Inexplicably, the government did not enter the affidavit in the court case, according to the files.

Top of the next page:
quote:
"In my opinion, the men created an intimidating presence at the entrance to a poll," he declared. "In all my experience in politics, in civil rights litigation and in my efforts in the 1960s to secure the right to vote in Mississippi ... I have never encountered or heard of another instance in the United States where armed and uniformed men blocked the entrance to a polling location."

Mr. Bull said the "clear purpose" of what the Panthers were doing was to "intimidate voters with whom they did not agree." He also said he overheard one of the men tell a white poll watcher: "You are about to be ruled by the black man, cracker."


 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 99) on :
 
quote:
Tom's point seems to be that since the author taught a racist message 8 years ago (which seems true from the article) that we should not pay attention to any facts that he points us to now.
No. My "point" was that I've always found Gibson amusing. He's a racist prat, and he's been struggling for years to come up with ways to convince people that he's not a racist; he's just reacting to all the racism he sees around him. He's a poor white man being oppressed!

*laugh* I had the dubious pleasure of running into him once or twice in a former life, so frankly it's always funny to see him dancing to the same tune in article after article. It's seriously the only issue he cares about, and his motives are so transparent that it's painful. I can only assume that someone called him on his racism back in college and he never got over it; he's certainly dedicated his entire adult life to proving that everyone's a racist except him. [Smile]
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
Ah, then JWatts was right, and I apologize for accusing you of being relevant. [Razz]

In this country, anyone exposed to the news eventually becomes a racist of one stripe or another. Many blacks racist against whites as a reaction to past racism of whites, some whites racist as a counter-reaction, other whites racist against whites in order to prove they aren't racist, some blacks racist against both whites and blacks and hispanics, in different ways, Immigrants who imported different forms of racism from their own countries. At least never to my recollection denied that he was racist. JB. Too bad he never reached the next step of trying to see past it.

[ July 07, 2010, 11:21 PM: Message edited by: Pete at Home ]
 
Posted by kenmeer livermaile (Member # 2243) on :
 
"Because not everyone has enough political connections to commit such crimes with impunity."

Crime is impunious (recombinant word graft alert)by nature, yes? Not to dispute your point; I get what you're saying. But, you know, just one big beefy bubba coming up with a giant grin on his face and a bat in each hand, walking straight for them bruthahs. Would've made a priceless video to see 'em drop and run.
 
Posted by stayne (Member # 1944) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
He's a poor white man being oppressed!

Tom, I must be you a moment. (Puts on Tom hat) White men cannot be oppressed?
 
Posted by kenmeer livermaile (Member # 2243) on :
 
Tom's point, I think is that they can *also* be racist.
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
"He's a poor white man being oppressed!"

Tom, is what Kenmeer just said your point, i.e. that Gibson might be both racist and oppressed in America? Or were you suggesting, as Stayne inferred, that it's unlikely that anyone can be persecuted for being white in America?
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 99) on :
 
It's unlikely that white people complaining of reverse racism have been oppressed, certainly. [Wink]
 
Posted by cherrypoptart (Member # 3942) on :
 
That's the accusation against the justice department, that they feel the same way in seeing that black voter intimidation against whites isn't worth bothering about. So when we see people making the same claims here it just goes to show that it wouldn't be farfetched to believe that the position isn't that uncommon.
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
Kenmeer, I think you've given Tom too much credit here.

quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
It's unlikely that white people complaining of reverse racism have been oppressed, certainly. [Wink]

So here here, where a white Democratic poll watcher is threatened wuth a nightstick and told now you know how it feels to get ruled over by the black man, you say, probably not oppression, because he's white and complaining?

Watch the video on the link. The KKK doesn't even do stuff like this anymore.

quote:
"In my opinion, the men created an intimidating presence at the entrance to a poll," he declared. "In all my experience in politics, in civil rights litigation and in my efforts in the 1960s to secure the right to vote in Mississippi ... I have never encountered or heard of another instance in the United States where armed and uniformed men blocked the entrance to a polling location."

Mr. Bull said the "clear purpose" of what the Panthers were doing was to "intimidate voters with whom they did not agree." He also said he overheard one of the men tell a white poll watcher: "You are about to be ruled by the black man, cracker."

In case anyone gets confused by the word "overheard," that is NOT hearsay. It's direct testimony for the fact that these thugs were attempting to intimidate people. (The statement would be hearsay if we were using it as evidence for the claim that the man spoken to was actually a "cracker" who was about to be ruled by the black man," but that's not the point here.)

quote:


He called their conduct an "outrageous affront to American democracy and the rights of voters to participate in an election without fear." He said it was a "racially motivated effort to limit both poll watchers aiding voters, as well as voters with whom the men did not agree."

The three men named in the complaint - New Black Panther Chairman Malik Zulu Shabazz, Minister King Samir Shabazz and Jerry Jackson - refused to appear in court to answer the accusations over a near-five month period, court records said.

So they didn't even bother to show to court to confront the charges. "The court had already entered a default judgment against the men on April 20," but the Obama admin got the court to reverse the conviction and dropped charges in exchange for this joke of a deal.

Does anyone seriously argue here that the Obama admin hasn't coddled a racial supremacist group that supported him in the election?

Republicans should move to impeach the attorney general.

[ July 08, 2010, 09:57 AM: Message edited by: Pete at Home ]
 
Posted by Wayward Son (Member # 210) on :
 
quote:
Does anyone seriously argue here that the Obama admin hasn't coddled a racial supremacist group that supported him in the election?

Republicans should move to impeach the attorney general.

Depends what you mean by "coddle." [Smile]

I don't know enough about this situation--and I don't have the time or inclination to do much research--so I won't argue in support of Obama's Administration on this issue.

But I did notice when looking up those Media Matters quotes that this has gone viral in the Conservative Blogosphere. All the major players--Rush, Laura, Hannity, etc.--have jumped on the bandwagon, plus dozens of websites. And when that's happened in the past, it typically has come to nothing.

I bet that within one month, a reasonable explanation will be provided for the Justice Department's decision. (Reasonable for most people, that is. [Smile] ) I also predict that, not only will Republicans not impeach the Attorney General, but no official investigation will be made. The Administration's explanation will be accepted, and this will die down except for the partisans who will try to keep it alive through endless repetition.

I mainly believe this because, in this country, those in power very, very rarely do anything as blatant as this is proported to be. The Obama Administration is under no illusion that it can flaunt the law with impunity, especially for some half-baked inner-city radicals. It doesn't jive with reality.

A more reasonable explanation, IMHO, is that the Conservative Media is omitting certain mitigating facts to make the Administration look worse than it is. They have done this before; this could certainly be another case.

Admittedly, I have no facts to back up this assertion. But those who are getting hot under the collar because of this blatant disregard for the law, chill. Come back in a month and see what the situation is. I bet that it will be far less blatant that it is today.

Criswell predicts! [Smile]
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 99) on :
 
quote:
So here here, where a white Democratic poll watcher is threatened wuth a nightstick and told now you know how it feels to get ruled over by the black man, you say, probably not oppression, because he's white and complaining?
I say, yes, it's unlikely. I'm sure it occasionally happens. I'm equally sure it's not an endemic thing that we need to throw up, as a certain journalist whose name has already been mentioned tends to do, as proof that all the real racism nowadays is against white people. [Smile]
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:
So here here, where a white Democratic poll watcher is threatened wuth a nightstick and told now you know how it feels to get ruled over by the black man, you say, probably not oppression, because he's white and complaining?
I say, yes, it's unlikely. I'm sure it occasionally happens. I'm equally sure it's not an endemic thing that we need to throw up, as a certain journalist whose name has already been mentioned tends to do, as proof that all the real racism nowadays is against white people. [Smile]
Dodge and straw man. I'm talking about this specific case, in light of sworn testimony and a video whicn I've provided you with.
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
http://www.newblackpanther.com/intro.html

Funny, looks like the guy actually got suspended from the New Black Panther party. Odd that the organization itself imposed a harsher penalty than the justice department. What a joke for the administration.

Combine that with Eric Holder's attempt to remove white people from hate crime protection (much in the spirit of what TomD is preaching here), and things look very bad for the Obama admin.

It's really too bad, because racial issues are the point where I really did have most hope for Obama. I thought he was beyond that sort of inanity.
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
Unequal protection violates Romer v. Evans, incidentally, and Obama's man Holder seems to want to institutionalize unequal protection. This case is just the tip of the iceberg; the hate crimes bill is a much bigger chunk of it. The failure of the left MSM to report on this is fairly shocking.

Setting aside the constitutional issues, if you want to stop hate crimes against minorities, then you should NOT want to enact unequal laws that build natural resentment in the majority.
 
Posted by JWatts (Member # 6523) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Wayward Son:
...Conservative Media is omitting certain mitigating facts to make the Administration look worse than it is....

Admittedly, I have no facts to back up this assertion.

[Roll Eyes] Seriously? You do realize that your are pretty much admitting that facts don't matter to you.
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
quote:
I bet that within one month, a reasonable explanation will be provided for the Justice Department's decision.
Do you really think that one month is reasonable for them to need to respond to something like this?

Like you, I'm bothered by the lack of center and left input on this matter. I don't like to reply on blogs and Fox for a story. But there's video footage, and a witness that seems very credible, so I'm not willing to just dismiss this based on source bias.

Not seeing anything back from the left on Holder's purported stance on unequal hate-crimes laws.

I do respect that youv'e at least admitted that if the facts are what they are purported to be, that it's an outrage. That distinguishes your position from Tom, who seems to take the position that it's probably no big deal because the targets are white.

quote:
I mainly believe this because, in this country, those in power very, very rarely do anything as blatant as this is proported to be. The Obama Administration is under no illusion that it can flaunt the law with impunity, especially for some half-baked inner-city radicals. It doesn't jive with reality.

A more reasonable explanation, IMHO, is that the Conservative Media is omitting certain mitigating facts to make the Administration look worse than it is. They have done this before; this could certainly be another case.

YES, that was my response too. But then ... where is the response from the left and from the rest of the MSM? Just the fact that the right is making these accusations is in itself newsworthy. The lack of timely response evokes suspicion.

I want to be wrong about this. But there should have been a response to this by now.

[ July 08, 2010, 02:10 PM: Message edited by: Pete at Home ]
 
Posted by Wayward Son (Member # 210) on :
 
quote:
[Roll Eyes] Seriously? You do realize that your are pretty much admitting that facts don't matter to you.
No, facts matter. But I've seen too many instances where Conservatives (and some Liberals) make a huge deal of an incident, only to have facts emerge later that mitigates the apparent outrageousness of the situation.

Facts very much matter. I am just waiting for all the facts to come out. My nose tells me that there are some that haven't been mentioned yet.

quote:
Do you really think that one month is reasonable for them to need to respond to something like this?
I expect a response much earlier than that. Of course, the response will then be challenged, then the challenge will be challenged, etc., etc.

A month should be enough time for the dust to settle and all the facts and distortions have been sorted out.

quote:
Like you, I'm bothered by the lack of center and left input on this matter. I don't like to reply on blogs and Fox for a story. But there's video footage, and a witness that seems very credible, so I'm not willing to just dismiss this based on source bias.
Also remember that this is an old story. This thread started over a year ago. Perez all ready answered questions over the original incident and the Justice Department's response.

It is only the new accusations--that Perez lied under oath--that are new, and needs to be addressed. How quickly do you expect them to respond? They are probably waiting for Adams to testify before crafting their response.

The incident is old, but the perjury charges are new, and that's what is fueling the outrage right now. A little time will bring out more facts--facts that Fox may be ignoring. I predict that this will happen again.

I very well may be wrong. But I've seen too many outrages like this that turned out to be overblown to get caught up in it right away.

Time will tell.
 
Posted by JWatts (Member # 6523) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Wayward Son:
[QB]
quote:
[Roll Eyes] Seriously? You do realize that your are pretty much admitting that facts don't matter to you.
No, facts matter. But I've seen too many instances where Conservatives (and some Liberals) make a huge deal of an incident, only to have facts emerge later that mitigates the apparent outrageousness of the situation.

Facts very much matter. I am just waiting for all the facts to come out. My nose tells me that there are some that haven't been mentioned yet.

That seems a fair position.
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 99) on :
 
quote:
I'm talking about this specific case...
Yeah, it's obvious. I think it's equally obvious that I'm not. Frankly, I don't know enough about this specific case to form an opinion on it.

quote:
Just the fact that the right is making these accusations is in itself newsworthy.
Yes, that's almost exactly how slurs work. "It's newsworthy because we're talking about it!"
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:
I'm talking about this specific case...
Yeah, it's obvious. I think it's equally obvious that I'm not. Frankly, I don't know enough about this specific case to form an opinion on it.

quote:
Just the fact that the right is making these accusations is in itself newsworthy.
Yes, that's almost exactly how slurs work. "It's newsworthy because we're talking about it!"

It must be so frustrating to you that America's news input isn't limited to stories that you think are beneficial to the public mind.
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 99) on :
 
quote:
It must be so frustrating to you that America's news input isn't limited to stories that you think are beneficial to the public mind.
Specifically, it frustrates me that all it takes to manufacture a "scandal" or a "controversy" is two pundits willing to announce that there's a scandal or controversy. The line "some people say/think" is horribly, horribly misused nowadays to absolve newscasters of the need to actually verify the truth of any information before reporting on it; if it's true that people are saying it, you can report that it's being said without having to actually go to the inconvenience of validating the content of the message. This makes it very, very easy to get a bit of slander out into the public discourse; all it takes is the announcement that, hey, someone else is talking about it.
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:
It must be so frustrating to you that America's news input isn't limited to stories that you think are beneficial to the public mind.
Specifically, it frustrates me that all it takes to manufacture a "scandal" or a "controversy" is two pundits willing to announce that there's a scandal or controversy. .
If you acquire any evidence whatsoever that this is what happened here, please wake me up. [Frown]
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 99) on :
 
Why does it apparently frustrate you that I continue to not speak to the specifics of a case I have repeatedly said I don't know well enough to discuss in the specific? Certainly the specifics of this case do not make it any harder to expose the danger of a claim like "Just the fact that the right is making these accusations is in itself newsworthy."

Surely you are not now demanding that we only talk about the things you find interesting.
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
Talk about what you like. But please stop pretending that what you're talking about somehow constitutes a meaningful reply to what I said. Here, there's video and affadavit testimony, not from a right-wing source. It deserves a response.
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
Here it is from MSNBC

Gonna call that, and the Washington Times, right wing blogs?
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 99) on :
 
quote:
But please stop pretending that what you're talking about somehow constitutes a meaningful reply to what I said.
I'm not sure where you think I claimed I was meaningfully replying to you...?
 
Posted by Wayward Son (Member # 210) on :
 
Here's an interesting fact that has not been emphasized by the Conservative Media:

quote:
The men stationed themselves near the entrance to a polling place in a largely black neighborhood. Shabazz carried a nightstick. Their actions quickly came to the attention of police, who told Shabazz to leave but allowed Jackson, a certified poll watcher, to remain.
Now while I would find two black men dressed in Panther's uniform intimidating, apparently the police did not think so at the time. Otherwise they would have required both men to leave.

So with the police deciding at the time that Jackson was not sufficiently intimidating, and with no one filing charges of intimindation, isn't there reasonable doubt that Jackson did not actually intimidate people near the polls?
 
Posted by Greg Davidson (Member # 3377) on :
 
I was invited to come and visit this thread, and I must admit it is a slog going through this much material. I like Wayward's response the best - this seems like real extremist ugliness, but at the same time I remember many posts regarding the sting on ACORN, and when further facts came out, there was no recovering those previous hours of our lives spent on an incomplete and inaccurate description of what had actually occurred.

I am also suspicious of J. Christian Adams who I believe was involved with the largely imaginary crusade against voter fraud (Republicans removed many tens of thousands of voters from rolls in defense against purported voter fraud that, upon investigation, let to only a handful of demonstrated convictions of people voting. So using the fear of a largely imaginary crime against democracy, they committed the same act against democracy on a scale hundreds of times larger).

Pete's MSNBC citation is MSNBC citing an AP story, so his real question is whether AP and the Washington Times are right wing blogs. In fact, the Washington Times has been a right wing propaganda source since its founding, but not so with the AP.
 
Posted by hobsen (Member # 2923) on :
 
The thread title is ambiguous as it could refer either to charges against the Black Panthers as a group or against these two individuals. In practice it seems unlikely anyone could have proved the Black Panthers as an organization told these men to take weapons to a polling place, even if the act itself was clearly improper. As to the resolution, enthusiastic amateurs get carried away and commit illegal acts in every election, and this misconduct seems to have been halted by the police when they observed it. So far as I am aware, the usual outcome then is for a court to order the offender not to do it again - and if he does so in the next election, a court will likely be less sympathetic. That is what happened this time. And I see no reason Obama himself should be involved with a violation of election law of so little consequence.

[ July 09, 2010, 02:03 PM: Message edited by: hobsen ]
 
Posted by Wayward Son (Member # 210) on :
 
But you forget, hobsen, that the Bush Administration was quite gung-ho on prosecuting these men to the fullest extent of the law.

And, as we all know, there can only be nefarious reasons for the Obama Administration to not continue Bush Administration policies... [Smile]
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Greg Davidson:
I was invited to come and visit this thread, and I must admit it is a slog going through this much material.

Not that much. Short video clip and skim of 5 pages from 3 different articles, which I've highlighted here.

quote:
Originally posted by Greg Davidson:
I like Wayward's response the best - this seems like real extremist ugliness, but at the same time I remember many posts regarding the sting on ACORN, and when further facts came out, there was no recovering those previous hours of our lives spent on an incomplete and inaccurate description of what had actually occurred.

I am also suspicious of J. Christian Adams who I believe was involved with the largely imaginary crusade against voter fraud (Republicans removed many tens of thousands of voters from rolls in defense against purported voter fraud that, upon investigation, let to only a handful of demonstrated convictions of people voting. So using the fear of a largely imaginary crime against democracy, they committed the same act against democracy on a scale hundreds of times larger).

Pete's MSNBC citation is MSNBC citing an AP story, so his real question is whether AP and the Washington Times are right wing blogs. In fact, the Washington Times has been a right wing propaganda source since its founding, but not so with the AP.

My real question in inviting you was the flaming jackass test that you were discussing with others on the other thread. From your response, I'd say you only seem to let that your partisanship take you to reasonable suspicion; you don't dismiss the story outright. You're willing to let facts overcome your bias. So while my refence is untimely, and not to the right people (sorry), I do certify you as not a flaming jackass. (That's in response to Greg's question on another thread, otherwise it would be an illicit motive inference).

I hope you distinguish a conservative news source like WA times or even Fox News from an actual right wing blog. But I was glad to have MSNBC and AP in as a source. I hope to see better sources on the Fox claims re Eric Holder.

I concede that Tom is right that I misstated matters when I said that the fact that Fox is reporting this should be newsworthy. What I meant is that if any source with as many viewers as Fox News is reporting such serious accusations, then it behooves moderate and leftist sources to either report on or respond to those accusations, particularly if they are backed or opposed by substantial evidence and testimony.

For example, on the Toronto G20 thread, Tommy brought up one woman's video allegation that Toronto police had threatened to gang rape her, but this was only available or discussed on utube and on left-wing blogs. Just as here, I said that I'd prefer balancing confirmation on mainstream and moderate or conservative news sources (since the accusation came from far left), but that her statements sounded credible, and that the lack of news attention to her accusation seemed troublesome. Since the woman's claims involved threats and assaults on many other women demonstrators in custody, it seems that news sources should have done follow up, and the absence of attention to such serious claims bothered me.

Do you agree, that if the facts turn out to be what these articles say they were, that a call for impeachment against Holder would not be absurd? I ask simply if you recognize that these facts if verified would provide *legitimate* grounds for such an action, not whether you think that it's *sufficient* to impeach or whether you would support impeachment.
 
Posted by Wayward Son (Member # 210) on :
 
quote:
Do you agree, that if the facts turn out to be what these articles say they were, that a call for impeachment against Holder would not be absurd?
Once again, I don't think the facts of the case are in dispute. These guys stood in front of a polling place. One was armed. The police came, told one guy to go away (which he did), told the other to be nice. A poll watcher from New York witness this, complained that it was voter intimidation.

This is agreed to by all.

What is in dispute is why the Obama Administration decided not to fully prosecute these guys. That is the only reason anyone is talking about impeachment. And that is a question, not about facts, but about judgement.

As you well know, before a DA prosecutes a case, he first determines if he has a good chance of winning; if the crime fits the charge; and if there is not more important cases that would be better utilization of his limited resources. A "no" to any of these would be legitimate grounds to drop a case, or at least deal for a plea bargan.

There is some question as to how much these guys actually intimidated voters, since no voter apparently has filed a complaint (or charge), and the police decided at the time to allow one of them to continue to stand at the poll. One of the guys has all ready had a judgement ruled against him for the crime. And, as hobsen indicated, what these guys did may not be that unusual during elections. This case simply may not merit prosecution because of weak evidence, punishment for it under a lesser offense, and lack of significance.

It's a judgement call.

What has not been shown so far is any indication that this case was dropped because of "neferious" reasons, such as payback for election support. The only reason given I've heard so far is "there couldn't be any other possible explanation."

But I just provided three possible explanations!

So the only reason to attempt to impeach Holder--other than if some actual evidence of impropriety emerges, rather than circumstantial evidence--is because none of the reasons I just gave, and none that Perez et al. provide, rings true.

But that will take a lot more than just the facts of this case.
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
quote:
As you well know, before a DA prosecutes a case, he first determines if he has a good chance of winning; if the crime fits the charge; and if there is not more important cases that would be better utilization of his limited resources. A "no" to any of these would be legitimate grounds to drop a case, or at least deal for a plea bargan.
And I also know well, as you should, that this wasn't an issue here since there was already a default conviction against the defendants. The prosecution ran back and changed charges after the default, which was a complete coddling freebie however you look at it.

Furthermore the Prosecution kept the affadavit evidence from the court.
 
Posted by Wayward Son (Member # 210) on :
 
Here's a $64 question: if the actions of these guys were so outrageous, odious and illegal that some believe Holder should be impeached for dropping the civil charges against them, why were criminal charges never on the table?

The decision not to prosecute them on criminal charges was made only a few weeks after the election--and weeks before Obama took office--by the Bush Administration. Only civil charges were started.

Wouldn't something this blatant warrant criminal charges, too? [Confused]
 
Posted by JWatts (Member # 6523) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Wayward Son:
Wouldn't something this blatant warrant criminal charges, too? [Confused]

Absolutely not. Some buddies and I plan on emulating this model at polling stations in the near future. Purely to maintain the integrity of the process, of course. [Wink]

Just to be in compliance with the Obama administration, we'll just dress up in paramilitary clothing, but leave the night sticks at home. Though we'll bring some large umbrella's just in case it rains.

[ July 14, 2010, 01:20 PM: Message edited by: JWatts ]
 
Posted by Wayward Son (Member # 210) on :
 
quote:
Just to be in compliance with the Obama administration, we'll just dress up in paramilitary clothing, but leave the night sticks at home.
Why blame this on the Obama Administration? The decision not to press criminal charges was made by the Bush Administration. Shouldn't they shoulder the blame for that?
 
Posted by JWatts (Member # 6523) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Wayward Son:
Why blame this on the Obama Administration? The decision not to press criminal charges was made by the Bush Administration. Shouldn't they shoulder the blame for that?

Blame, what blame. You can't hold those poor oppressed minorities to the same standard as civilized folks. It would have been cruel and oppressive to criminalize their justified reactions. They can't be held responsible for their behavior.
 
Posted by Wayward Son (Member # 210) on :
 
quote:
You can't hold those poor oppressed minorities to the same standard as civilized folks. It would have been cruel and oppressive to criminalize their justified reactions. They can't be held responsible for their behavior.
And this is exactly the problem we had with the Bush Administration, isn't it? They just wouldn't hold minorities accountable. [Smile]
 
Posted by Michelle (Member # 3237) on :
 
There was also a report of one of the charged member of the Black Panthers, threatening and intimidating another assigned poll watcher, warning him to stay home. The other poll watcher was a black republican, and this was part of the evidence.
 
Posted by JWatts (Member # 6523) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Wayward Son:
And this is exactly the problem we had with the Bush Administration, isn't it? They just wouldn't hold minorities accountable. [Smile]

No, the problem we had with the Bush administration was that they brought charges against these individuals who were just trying to lawfully protect their polling precinct from the evil depredations of Republicans and crackers. [Wink]
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Wayward Son:
Here's a $64 question: if the actions of these guys were so outrageous, odious and illegal that some believe Holder should be impeached for dropping the civil charges against them, why were criminal charges never on the table?

could be cronyism, could be fear. Remember we're talking about an election 08 battleground state.
 
Posted by Wayward Son (Member # 210) on :
 
quote:
Could be cronyism, could be fear. Remember we're talking about an election 08 battleground state.
Fear seems a bit of a stretch, since any charges were made after the election (and after Bush lost).

If it was cronyism, does that make the Bush Administration as culpable as the Obama Administration? Or perhaps more culpable, since it was a more serious charge that they buried?
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Wayward Son:
quote:
Could be cronyism, could be fear. Remember we're talking about an election 08 battleground state.
Fear seems a bit of a stretch, since any charges were made after the election (and after Bush lost).

Federal charges. Feds tend to be less vulnerable, and also less concious of their vulnerability.
 
Posted by Wayward Son (Member # 210) on :
 
So these guys' behavior is not a criminal act under Federal law, and they can only be charged in civil court? [Confused]

I thought Perez testified that criminal charges were considered back in December 08 or January 09.
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Wayward Son:
So these guys' behavior is not a criminal act under Federal law, and they can only be charged in civil court? [Confused]

Who said that?
 
Posted by Wayward Son (Member # 210) on :
 
No one. I assume that there could have been criminal charges under Federal statutes.

But when you said, "Federal charges. Feds tend to be less vulnerable, and also less concious of their vulnerability," I assumed you meant that any criminal charges would have been under local or state statutes.

Let's run through the timeline again. These guys staked out the entrance to a polling place in early November. The police were called; they asked one guy to leave; they allowed one to stay; they charged no one.

A poll watcher complained. The Feds looked at the case in December or early January. They decided not to press criminal charges on these guys. Instead, they decided to press civil charges.

Obama was sworn in and Holder became D.A.

Court date came and went on civil charges and these guys didn't show up. Summary judgement against them. Perez et al looked at the charges and punishment, asked them to be reduced/dropped. Judge OKs it.

Adams, attorney for the Feds, quits because he dislikes how office is being run.

Questions arise over handling of incident. Big to-do in Conservative Media. Accusations of Obama Administration playing favorites with Black Panthers. KE starts this thread.

Congressional inquiry. Perez testifies. Things are quiet for a few months.

Adams asked to testify. Says he has hearsay evidence of Obama Administration showing favoritism for Black Panthers. Big to-do in Conservative Media. This thread resurrected.

So my current question is, if the Obama Administration showed such great favoritism toward the Panthers that doubts about its integrity and even impeachment of Holder are warranted, why did the Bush Administration not persue criminal charges in the first place?

Where there no criminal charges that could have been persued? (Perez apparented indicated that they were some that could have been.) Was the evidence so scant that charges probably would not have stuck (which might explain why Holder, Perez et al decided to reduce/drop the civil charges)? Or was there some nefarious reason like those implied for the Obama Administration (or, perhaps, even more nefarious, since they refused to persue more serious charges? [Eek!]

Personally, I right now favor the second scenario. As bad as the videos are, there is scant evidence beyond it that would hold up in court. So the Obama Administration decided to reduce/drop the civil charges and have done with it. But the Conservative Media, always on the lookout for any scandal possible, decided that this proved Obama favors the Blank Panthers and decided to make a huge deal out of it.

But that's just my paranoia talking. [Smile]

So why did the Bush Administration ignore criminal charges? And if the Obama Administration reduced/dropped the civil charges for nefarious reasons, shouldn't we consider the Bush Administration having even more nefarious reasons for ignoring the more serious criminal charges? [Wink]
 


Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1