Page 5 of 13 FirstFirst ... 34567 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 127

Thread: Ex-Official Accuses Justice Department of Racial Bias in Black Panther Case

  1. #41
    Sage
    VanceMack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:26 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    54,689

    Re: Ex-Official Accuses Justice Department of Racial Bias in Black Panther Case

    Quote Originally Posted by somepeoplesay View Post
    I didn't know you posted here Mr. Hannity. Guilt by association is often a last-ditch effort to distort someone's character, I thought most people learned that in high school? There are repeated examples of Republicans all over the country associating with far-right white supremacists (or being supremacists themselves), but you never hear anyone in the media playing this game with them.
    OK...2 things...

    1-I have to point out the obvious..you say the media doesnt 'play this game' with the republicans...then you cite three examples reported on BY THE MEDIA...
    and
    2-Do you think the media attention you already cited them as receiving would increase if those candidates were well known national level candidates running for president?

  2. #42
    Hippie Hater
    texmaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Dallas TEXAS
    Last Seen
    08-20-15 @ 01:17 AM
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    3,969

    Re: Ex-Official Accuses Justice Department of Racial Bias in Black Panther Case

    Quote Originally Posted by somepeoplesay View Post
    Haha yea ok, I don't classify myself as a liberal, but I do classify myself as a realist.
    Classify yourself however you like. Its not a mystery that you are a liberal after the comments you've made.

    So let me understand this argument, someone ran an illegal background check on Joe the plumber and this an example of the Democrats ruthless attack politics?
    They didn't just run a background check. They ran a check from government computers looking for dirt using their position inside a government organization. 18 in all. How can you pretend that isn't a big deal?

    I'm not going to play tit for tat with you, but the conservatives use some pretty muddy tactics too.
    I never said they don't but that doesn't justify your argument.

    Also, why do you hate America? Some argue that you hate America.
    I don't and never have. What evidence do you have of this? If you are going to make moronic statements at least have the courtesy of backing them up with facts.
    Last edited by texmaster; 07-08-10 at 11:24 AM.
    Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.

    John Adams

  3. #43
    Sage

    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Huntsville, AL (USA)
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:52 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    9,766

    Re: Ex-Official Accuses Justice Department of Racial Bias in Black Panther Case

    Let's look at the law and then review the complete circumstances surrounding what these New Black Panther members did - or rather what the one individual in question did - and then make a rational decision.

    The Voters Rights Act, Sec. 11(b) reads:

    (b) No person, whether acting under color of law or otherwise, shall intimidate, threaten, or coerce, or attempt to intimidate, threaten, or coerce any person for voting or attempting to vote, or intimidate, threaten, or coerce, or attempt to intimidate, threaten, or coerce any person for urging or aiding any person to vote or attempt to vote, or intimidate, threaten, or coerce any person for exercising any powers or duties under section 3(a), 6, 8, 9, 10, or 12(e).
    So, what did the one member in question of the New Black Pather party do? He utter hostile or otherwise threatening words directed at white voters outside a polling place in Philly:

    I hate white people! All of them! You want freedom, you gonna have to kill some crackers! You gonna have to kill some of their babies!
    He made these statements right outside a polling place and his words were directed at white voters. So, under the law he should have been prosecuted, right? Well, let's look at the specifics of the law again because as legal history has shown, words AND actions on both sides - the person doing the intimidating, threatening, coersion, etc, and those who allegedly are threatened - play a role here.

    ...intimidate, threaten, or coerce, or attempt to intimidate, threaten, or coerce...
    Clearly, his words were mean spirited, hateful and threatening. But who did he intimidate? Did he directly intimidate, threaten or coerce any white voter and stop them from casting their vote? Was any white voter denied their right to vote as a direct result of his words? (In other words, did any white voter turn away from the polling place because they were affraid of him or the New Black Pather members who were present?)

    I understand how some people view this incident. In all honesty, his actions really aren't that much different from white hate groups, i.e., the Klan or any of its knock-offs, who would do the same thing to blacks. But here's the difference...

    Throughout the history of the Black Pather party, no member has ever been prosecuted for violating Section 11(b) of the Voters Rights Act...until now. To put it another way, no voters rights or civil rights case made against members of the Black Pathers has ever been succesfully prosecuted whereby it was proven that their actions denied a white person his or her right to vote. So you ask, "How could I make the claim that these members were prosecuted? From the FoxNews article in the OP:

    The Obama administration initially pursued the case, winning a default judgment in federal court in April 2009 when the Black Panther members did not appear in court. But then the administration moved to dismiss the charges the following month after getting one of the New Black Panther members to agree to not carry a "deadly weapon" near a polling place until 2012.
    In otherwords, a plea bargain was reached, but you have to ask yourself why wasn't this case pursued to the fullest extent of the law? Well, consider that:

    a. No one was hurt.
    b. No voter was denied their right to vote.
    c. It's the individuals protected right to free speech; the only knock is he happen to make such a vile statement outside a polling place on the night of the Presidential election.

    Although there apparently is evidence that this wasn't the first time this has happened in recent history w/the New Black Pather party, there hasn't been any evidence to my knowledge (that has been made publicly atleast) that shows that any white voters were denied their right to vote. In fact, according to atleast one website that has covered this incident, some eyewiteness to the Philly account have stated that they saw white voters laughing at the individual who spoke. Clearly, no one was intimidate by his words, and that's the key here, folks.

    Before responding to this thread, I did some research and no better commentary as to how insignificant this issue is can be summarized better than the words from Abigail Thernstrom, the Republican vice-chair of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, who not only called this incident "small potatoes, but also considers it to be a "manufactured controversy" by his own party.

    From MediaMatters.com:

    Forget about the New Black Panther Party case; it is very small potatoes. Perhaps the Panthers should have been prosecuted under section 11 (b) of the Voting Rights Act for their actions of November 2008, but the legal standards that must be met to prove voter intimidation -- the charge -- are very high.

    In the 45 years since the act was passed, there have been a total of three successful prosecutions. The incident involved only three Panthers at a single majority-black precinct in Philadelphia. So far -- after months of hearings, testimony and investigation -- no one has produced actual evidence that any voters were too scared to cast their ballots. Too much overheated rhetoric filled with insinuations and unsubstantiated charges has been devoted to this case.

    A number of conservatives have charged that the Philadelphia Black Panther decision demonstrates that attorneys in the Civil Rights Division have racial double standards. How many attorneys in what positions? A pervasive culture that affected the handling of this case? No direct quotations or other evidence substantiate the charge.

    Thomas Perez, the assistant attorney general for civil rights, makes a perfectly plausible argument: Different lawyers read this barely litigated statutory provision differently. It happens all the time, especially when administrations change in the middle of litigation. Democrats and Republicans seldom agree on how best to enforce civil-rights statutes; this is not the first instance of a war between Left and Right within the Civil Rights Division.
    In the grand scheme of things, I'd have to agree with him. Again, I understand how polarized this incident has become; whites in particular want "tit-for-tat" justice, but really how does this compare with the voting rights denied of African-Americans since before the 15th Amendement, the Civil Rights Act and the Voters Rights Act were all passed? Believe me, I understand where many whites (and Conservatives) are coming from because as an African-American, I've been on that side of racial injustice. But when you really take the racial and partician blinders off, what real harm has this small trio of racially bias individuals done other than communicating a threat and uttering hate speech?
    Last edited by Objective Voice; 07-08-10 at 12:20 PM.

  4. #44
    Sage
    VanceMack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:26 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    54,689

    Re: Ex-Official Accuses Justice Department of Racial Bias in Black Panther Case

    [QUOTE=Objective Voice;1058844528]Let's look at the law and then review the complete circumstances surrounding what these New Black Panther members did - or rather what the one individual in question did - and then make a rational decision.

    The Voters Rights Act, Sec. 11(b) reads:



    So, what did the one member in question of the New Black Pather party do? He utter hostile or otherwise threatening words directed at white voters outside a polling place in Philly:



    He made these statements right outside a polling place and his words were directed at white voters. So, under the law he should have been prosecuted, right? Well, let's look at the specifics of the law again because as legal history has shown, words AND actions on both sides - the person doing the intimidating, threatening, coersion, etc, and those who allegedly are threatened - play a role here.


    Clearly, his words were mean spirited, hateful and threatening. But who did he intimidate? Did he directly intimidate, threaten or coerce any white voter and stop them from casting their vote? Was any white voter denied their right to vote as a direct result of his words? (In other words, did any white voter turn away from the polling place because they were affraid of him or the New Black Pather members who were present?)

    I understand how some people view this incident. In all honesty, his actions really aren't that much different from white hate groups, i.e., the Klan or any of its knock-offs, who would do the same thing to blacks. But here's the difference...

    Throughout the history of the Black Pather party, no member has ever been prosecuted for violating Section 11(b) of the Voters Rights Act...until now. Wait...you ask, "How could I make the claim that these members were prosecuted? From the FoxNews article in the OP:

    The Obama administration initially pursued the case, winning a default judgment in federal court in April 2009 when the Black Panther members did not appear in court. But then the administration moved to dismiss the charges the following month after getting one of the New Black Panther members to agree to not carry a "deadly weapon" near a polling place until 2012.

    In otherwords, a plea bargain was reached, but you have to ask yourself why wasn't this case pursued to the fullest extent of the law? Well, consider that:

    a. No one was hurt.
    b. No voter was denied their right to vote.
    c. It's the individuals protected right to free speech; the only knock is he happen to make such a vile statement outside a polling place on the night of the Presidential election.

    Although there apparently is evidence that this wasn't the first time this has happened in recent history w/the New Black Pather party, there hasn't been any evidence to my knowledge (that has been made publicly atleast) that shows that any white voters were denied their right to vote. In fact, according to atleast one website that has covered this incident, some eyewiteness to the Philly account have stated that they saw white voters laughing at the individual who spoke. Clearly, no one was intimidate by his words, and that's the key here, folks.

    Before responding to this thread, I did some research and no better commentary as to how insignificant this issue is can be summarized better than the words from Abigail Thernstrom, the Republican vice-chair of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, who not only called this incident "small potatoes, but also considers it to be a "manufactured controversy" by his own party.

    From MediaMatters.com:



    In the grand scheme of things, I'd have to agree with him. Again, I understand how polarized this incident has become; whites in particular want "tit-for-tat" justice, but really how does this compare with the voting rights denied of African-Americans since before the 15th Amendement, the Civil Rights Act and the Voters Rights Act were all passed? Believe me, I understand where many whites (and Conservatives) are coming from because as an African-American, I've been on that side of racial injustice. But when you really take the racial and partician blinders off, what real harm has this small trio of racially bias individuals done other than communicating a threat and uttering hate speech?
    Right...so the Klan can hang out in front of polling places in the upcoming election brandishing weapons and that will be A-OK with you. Got it...marking you down as supporting the Klan in their right to carry clubs and hang out in front of polling places as NOT voter intimidation.

  5. #45
    Sage

    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Huntsville, AL (USA)
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:52 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    9,766

    Re: Ex-Official Accuses Justice Department of Racial Bias in Black Panther Case

    No, I didn't say that. It's dispicable whoever does it, but when you look at the situation from the content and the spirit of the law, were any white voter's right to vote denied them?

    The Klan would be wrong for uttering hate speech and brandishing weapons, too, if done outside a polling place on election day, BUT under the law they have every right to say pretty much what they want to say. As long as their words or actions DON'T deny me or anyone else their right to vote, they can look and act as intimidating as they want!

    Believe me, I understand that this is a hard pill for many white people to swallow. As an American let alone an African-American male, I don't like what happened either, but it pales in comparison to what has been done to my people of the course of generations. Hence, the reason I can accept a plea bargain in this case becasue there has not been any evidence to prove that any white voter's right to vote was denied them or that any white voter was intimidated or felt threatened enough by their actions to turn away from the voting booths.

    Freedom of assembly, freedom of speech...

    Commuicating a threat is about all this amounts to. The individual in question was directed by the justice system not to carry a deadly weapon near a polling place until 2012. In my book, justice was served (but perhaps would have been better served if the idiot in question was issued a gag order as well, but like I said, "freedom of speech"...).
    Last edited by Objective Voice; 07-08-10 at 12:29 PM.

  6. #46
    Tavern Bartender
    Constitutionalist
    American's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Virginia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:42 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    76,306

    Re: Ex-Official Accuses Justice Department of Racial Bias in Black Panther Case

    You know it's more likely this guy is telling the truth then not. He has zero to gain by lying, and the fact that he was a DOJ employee on the case makes him an expert on it. Heresay or not, Holder is a incompetent partisan clown.
    "He who does not think himself worth saving from poverty and ignorance by his own efforts, will hardly be thought worth the efforts of anybody else." -- Frederick Douglass, Self-Made Men (1872)
    "Fly-over" country voted, and The Donald is now POTUS.

  7. #47
    Sage
    Guy Incognito's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Last Seen
    12-02-17 @ 07:43 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    11,216

    Re: Ex-Official Accuses Justice Department of Racial Bias in Black Panther Case

    Quote Originally Posted by American View Post
    You know it's more likely this guy is telling the truth then not. He has zero to gain by lying, and the fact that he was a DOJ employee on the case makes him an expert on it.
    Are you kidding? He has everything to gain by it, and nothing to lose. He's a former Bush crony with an axe to grind against Obama, and now he's got his fifteen minutes as a right wing hero, he'll probably get a cushy book deal out of it. The fact that he was a DOJ attorney during the Bush years does not show that he was an expert on anything except Bush loyalism.

  8. #48
    Noblesse oblige
    Ockham's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    New Jersey
    Last Seen
    01-27-17 @ 07:23 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    23,909
    Blog Entries
    4

    Re: Ex-Official Accuses Justice Department of Racial Bias in Black Panther Case

    Quote Originally Posted by Objective Voice View Post
    No, I didn't say that. It's dispicable whoever does it, but when you look at the situation from the content and the spirit of the law, were any white voter's right to vote denied them?

    The Klan would be wrong for uttering hate speech and brandishing weapons, too, if done outside a polling place on election day, BUT under the law they have every right to say pretty much what they want to say. As long as their words or actions DON'T deny me or anyone else their right to vote, they can look and act as intimidating as they want!
    That's incorrect - the law says the direct opposite. Intimidation at polling places or voting centers is against the law. Either the law applies to all or it applies to no one.

    Quote Originally Posted by Objective Voice View Post
    Believe me, I understand that this is a hard pill for many white people to swallow. As an American let alone an African-American male, I don't like what happened either, but it pales in comparison to what has been done to my people of the course of generations.
    What's a hard pill to swallow? What happened in the past is irrelevant - which was worse or which was not worse has no bearing on this occurance, nor (as you imply) does it excuse the Panthers for the intimidation.

    Quote Originally Posted by Objective Voice View Post
    Hence, the reason I can accept a plea bargain in this case becasue there has not been any evidence to prove that any white voter's right to vote was denied them or that any white voter was intimidated or felt threatened enough by their actions to turn away from the voting booths.
    Still irrelvant.



    Quote Originally Posted by Objective Voice View Post
    Freedom of assembly, freedom of speech...
    Still requires permits and any assembly with weapons at a voting place is illegal.




    Quote Originally Posted by Objective Voice View Post
    Commuicating a threat is about all this amounts to. The individual in question was directed by the justice system not to carry a deadly weapon near a polling place until 2012. In my book, justice was served.
    Justice was absent. You're view is tinged by racism and based on "pay back" for a history. The bitter pill to swallow is your - a person is individually responsible for their actions and applying "pay back" to a race of people with a certain color skin and calling the reverse actions "justice" is borderline bigotry. You should do some introspection.
    Last edited by Ockham; 07-08-10 at 12:35 PM.
    I think if Thomas Jefferson were looking down, the author of the Bill of Rights, on whats being proposed here, hed agree with it. He would agree that the First Amendment cannot be absolute. - Chuck Schumer (D). Yet, Madison and Mason wrote the Bill of Rights, according to Sheila Jackson Lee, 400 years ago. Yup, it's a fact.


  9. #49
    Sage

    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Huntsville, AL (USA)
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:52 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    9,766

    Re: Ex-Official Accuses Justice Department of Racial Bias in Black Panther Case

    Again, I'm not saying that what transpired on either side was right. What the New Black Pather member said was wrong and dispicable. AG Holder not prosecuting these individuals (or atleast the one who utter the intimidating hate speech) to the fullest extent of the law wasn't right either, but when you look at the totality of the situation, does it really amount to a helluva whole lot to be all up in arms over? If it had been a massive crowd of Black Pather members standing outside the polls making hateful speeches, uttering hateful words I'd grant you this was something to truly get upset about. But it wasn't and it doesn't appear that anyone took these men seriously. So...?

    People who oppose Pres. Obama are more up in arms over this because of their particianship (and very likely in some cases racial biasness). It's not about equal justice. Let's just call it as it truly is. This issue has reached a fevor pitch because many believe Pres. Obama to be racist...more partical to Blacks and minorities than to whites. The way I see it, there's nothing wrong with being passionate about members of your race or other minority groups receiving "fair and equaly treatment and a standard of living" that has been denied them over the years. Of course, we're talking about the President here. So, that does make it different. Still, I can understand his position on racial injustice and unequality and support same as long as he is fair about it.

    For example, I have an Hispanic coworker who's very passionate about her people. But that doesn't make her a racist. It simply means she wants what's right and fair for her people and won't just standby when she feels they are being oppressed or treated unjustly. Is the perceived position by the President on racial inequality towards Blacks and other minority groups that different?

    I realize this is taking the thread in a different direction, but honestly IMO that is the underlying basis of this thread...racial equality and fair treatment to all.

    So, what would have been fair here?

    IMO, no weapons near polling places, a gag order when assembling within 50 feet of polling places at the next Presidential election (2012) and 30-days in jail (or 6 months probation from violating any civil ordinance equivalent to communicating a threat.) To me, that would have been fair.
    Last edited by Objective Voice; 07-08-10 at 01:01 PM.

  10. #50
    Sage
    VanceMack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:26 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    54,689

    Re: Ex-Official Accuses Justice Department of Racial Bias in Black Panther Case

    Quote Originally Posted by Objective Voice View Post
    No, I didn't say that. It's dispicable whoever does it, but when you look at the situation from the content and the spirit of the law, were any white voter's right to vote denied them?

    The Klan would be wrong for uttering hate speech and brandishing weapons, too, if done outside a polling place on election day, BUT under the law they have every right to say pretty much what they want to say. As long as their words or actions DON'T deny me or anyone else their right to vote, they can look and act as intimidating as they want!

    Believe me, I understand that this is a hard pill for many white people to swallow. As an American let alone an African-American male, I don't like what happened either, but it pales in comparison to what has been done to my people of the course of generations. Hence, the reason I can accept a plea bargain in this case becasue there has not been any evidence to prove that any white voter's right to vote was denied them or that any white voter was intimidated or felt threatened enough by their actions to turn away from the voting booths.

    Freedom of assembly, freedom of speech...

    Commuicating a threat is about all this amounts to. The individual in question was directed by the justice system not to carry a deadly weapon near a polling place until 2012. In my book, justice was served (but perhaps would have been better served if the idiot in question was issued a gag order as well, but like I said, "freedom of speech"...).
    Who knows? Perhaps. Perhaps there were some old frail white folk that saw those menacing black folks spewing hate rhetoric and popping a club into their hand deecided not to vote. Does it matter? Voter intimidation is voter intimidation. You prosecute it and do your danmdest to ensure it never happens again, or you minimize it, excuse it and ensure that it does. Just dont be surprised when next time around there are some menacing skinheads...complete with jackboots, bats and chains hanging out at polling places. Just...you know...expressing their rights. And dont you dare say a ****ing word if they do. And I fully expect you to be very vocal if the AG decides to arrest those folks and prosecute them.

    Oh...BTW...did you get the Justice Departments concession as their reason to dropping the case? Dude promised to not hang out in front of polling places with a deadly weapon again...until 2012....The next presidential elections.
    Last edited by VanceMack; 07-08-10 at 01:30 PM.

Page 5 of 13 FirstFirst ... 34567 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •