• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

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

Objective Voice said:
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?
Click to expand...
It's only a big deal if someone thinks laws were created to be applied equally regardless of race, creed, color or religion. It that's not something that is worth much - you're correct - much ado about nothing.

Objective Voice said:
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...?
Click to expand...
So the law only now applies to large crowds of people and not to individuals? I think not. [/quote]

Whether or not anyone took them seriously is irrelevant. However, at least one person took it seriously as they recorded video of it. :shrug:


Objective Voice said:
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.
Click to expand...
This has nothing to do with Obama other than, it may be on Obama's suggestion that the DoJ dropped prosecution of this case - Obama is otherwise irrelevant to this story. Don't make this about something its not. This is about voter intimidation outside of a polling location. They broke the law. Both should have been prosecuted just as if they were KKK in full regalia with billie clubs - standing outside of the polling place... it's the same thing.

Any deviation based on color, organiation, etc... is a racist tinged decision. While equal protection under the law was added with the 14th amendment, equal application of the law must also be accomplished NOT MATTER what occurred and I think you agree - they broke the law, but justice was not served and these types of errors by the DoJ further divide this country racially as it appears as though race was a motivation. This prompts you, a black man to say "justice was served" and me a white man "justice was absent". Go back 50 years and the direct reverse was occurring every day. How is continued racism 50 years after civil rights moving us as American's forward? It's not. I didn't own slaves; my family came from what is now Serbia - poor Germans who moved there at the turn of the 19th century were indenture servents to the Yugoslavians and Hungarians who wanted them out and who treated them as dirt. You're baggage and the baggage that is being trotted out by the injustice of this case only serves to divide us as Americans. You should reject it. You weren't a slave, you weren't oppressed (depending on your age) and you have the benefits of almost everything MLK dreamed of during his life. Why take steps backwards? Doesn't make sense.

Objective Voice said:
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?
Click to expand...
Nothing wrong with passion, however when one identifies inequality in ANY manner, and then advocates it and calls it "justice", that's not doing the right thing.

Objective Voice said:
So, what would have been fair here?
Click to expand...
The DoJ should have criminally charged these two men and let the courts decide the verdict.

Objective Voice said:
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.
Click to expand...
So I guess he can do the same thing in 2012. And the other guy? Nothing.

Let's just say these guys were KKK members, and I'll apply your view to this, and the KKK members were in this locale in Philly --- intimidating black voters. Still okay with your application of what is fair - that this was "justice"? I wouldn't be.
 
Last edited:
VanceMack said:
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.
Click to expand...

LOL...Are you partically reading my post? I've mentioned that in each one (X3).

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.
Click to expand...

I hear ya and in general I agree. That's why I stated that overall the actions by the New Black Panther party members were really not that different from those of the Klan where voter intimidation is concerned except that it has been proven many times over that the actions of Klansmen have denied Blacks (and some minorities) their right to vote whereas that doesn't appear to be the case here. Still, I agree with you; if you're going to prosecute one (group or individual) for hate speech and intimidation tactics at polling places you better prosecute them all equaly. In this case, I don't think AG Holder went far enough, but...

Ockham,

Does the above answer the latter portion of your question?
 
Last edited:
Objective Voice said:
LOL...Are you partically reading my post? I've mentioned that in each one (X3).



I hear ya and in general I agree. That's why I stated that overall the actions by the New Black Panther party members were really not that different from those of the Klan where voter intimidation is concerned except that it has been proven many times over that the actions of Klansmen have denied Blacks (and some minorities) their right to vote whereas that doesn't appear to be the case here. Still, I agree with you; if you're going to prosecute one (group or individual) for hate speech and intimidation tactics at polling places you better prosecute them all equaly. In this case, I don't think AG Holder went far enough, but...

Ockham,

Does the above answer the latter portion of your question?
Click to expand...

Maybe its just a matter of pointing it out for emphasis. "GOLLY...we already got him to agree to NOT DO IT AGAIN UNTIL 2012...what more can we ask? We think thats adequate..."

Seriously??? Thats one of those "come on dude WTF" moments...
 
Objective Voice said:
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?
Click to expand...

Simply being in front of a voting area, with a weapon (police night stick), waving it and banging it - while in a military style getup coupled with the hate speech is intimidation. The plea you identified was in a civil case, I'm stating this is and should have been a criminal case via the DoJ - which they denied. This has nothing to do with "tit for tat" it's about equal application of the law no matter the color of skin. The real harm you ask about - is a continued racial divide and now settiing up a reversal of the 1960's. Nothing good can come of this. You want to continue justifying it to yourself, that's your problem. The DoJ did the WRONG thing, and whether these people were Black Panthers, the KKK, or Neo-Nazi's ... all three should be prosecuted under the law, equally and vigorously, WITHOUT regard of color, creed, religion... etc.

If you can't see that - you're the one with partisan blinders on wanting "tit for tat".
 
Objective Voice said:
In this case, I don't think AG Holder went far enough, but...

Ockham,

Does the above answer the latter portion of your question?
Click to expand...
It does answer it. Thank you.
 
texmaster said:
What other reason could there possibly be?



It has nothing to do with being "high and mighty" but your demand for proof when the video is in front of you made it clear.
Click to expand...

It doesn't HAVE to be anything else. But the fact is that there is no hard evidence (letters, e-mails, recordings, anything tangible) to prove they dropped it for Political reasoning. I AGREE that it is highly suspicious and I AGREE that it probably is corrupt. But that STILL doesn't change the fact that all we have is one man's testimony. And I don't believe that the testimony of ONE MAN should be the final factor to pass judgement. If that were the case then it would be to easy in this world to condemn anyone for anything and prove them guilty.
 
Frozengale said:
It doesn't HAVE to be anything else. But the fact is that there is no hard evidence (letters, e-mails, recordings, anything tangible) to prove they dropped it for Political reasoning. I AGREE that it is highly suspicious and I AGREE that it probably is corrupt. But that STILL doesn't change the fact that all we have is one man's testimony. And I don't believe that the testimony of ONE MAN should be the final factor to pass judgement. If that were the case then it would be to easy in this world to condemn anyone for anything and prove them guilty.
Click to expand...

When it's obvious to the layman, this can only have negatie consequences. Whether those consequences are political, social, moral, legal, etc... all, none, or a mix - is the point. Watch the video, listen to the hate speech - it's easy to discern what's occurring and that the DoJ not prosecuting was wrong. There's a poll out on DP showing that.
 
Frozengale said:
It doesn't HAVE to be anything else. But the fact is that there is no hard evidence (letters, e-mails, recordings, anything tangible) to prove they dropped it for Political reasoning. I AGREE that it is highly suspicious and I AGREE that it probably is corrupt. But that STILL doesn't change the fact that all we have is one man's testimony. And I don't believe that the testimony of ONE MAN should be the final factor to pass judgement. If that were the case then it would be to easy in this world to condemn anyone for anything and prove them guilty.
Click to expand...

But we don't just have one man's testimony. We have our own eyes and the law.
 
texmaster said:
But we don't just have one man's testimony. We have our own eyes and the law.
Click to expand...

Yes which is why you can INVESTIGATE the matter. But I hate to think of a world where one can be condemned by just the hearsay of one man.

And Ockham just because it seems "obvious" doesn't mean that it is the Truth. Once again I would hate to live in a world where just because it's possible to draw an "obvious" conclusion and they common man agrees that's enough to condemn them. I would hope you know that we can't make forgone conclusions when we don't know everything that happened.
 
Frozengale said:
Yes which is why you can INVESTIGATE the matter. But I hate to think of a world where one can be condemned by just the hearsay of one man.

And Ockham just because it seems "obvious" doesn't mean that it is the Truth. Once again I would hate to live in a world where just because it's possible to draw an "obvious" conclusion and they common man agrees that's enough to condemn them. I would hope you know that we can't make forgone conclusions when we don't know everything that happened.
Click to expand...

Oh for God's sake.

So if you have video if a man robbing a grocery store at gunpoint by your own argument you can't conclude that the DA in the case has a solid convinction at hand?
 
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.
Click to expand...

I guess I can't expect people to understand sarcasm on the internet. For more information: Why do you hate America?

All i'm saying is in the grand scheme of partisan politics, Joe got off pretty damn easy. Book deal, speeches, conventions...yea i'd say he's done alright for himself. It also pisses me off that every time I disagree with the conservative talk radio zombies i'm labeled a "liberal". I have no problems with liberals, but I come from a family of libertarians and have never voted for a democrat (or a republican) in my life. I've never understood why thats such a last ditch argument, does that mean that if you label your opponent a liberal, their opinion is somehow less valid?
 
texmaster said:
Oh for God's sake.

So if you have video if a man robbing a grocery store at gunpoint by your own argument you can't conclude that the DA in the case has a solid convinction at hand?
Click to expand...

Why would the DA want to make a conviction? Doesn't the DA defend the guy? Do you mean the Prosecutor? He's the one that wants to make a case against him isn't he? But either way I know what you're saying and yes he would have a very solid case against the guy. And like you said we have video evidence against the Black Panthers.... but the problem is that it's two separate issues here. The damning evidence against the Black Panthers is not damning evidence against the Justice Department. The accusation against them by one of their own is good enough evidence to investigate the matter, but it is not damning evidence. That's my point.
 
somepeoplesay said:
I guess I can't expect people to understand sarcasm on the internet. For more information: Why do you hate America?

All i'm saying is in the grand scheme of partisan politics, Joe got off pretty damn easy. Book deal, speeches, conventions...yea i'd say he's done alright for himself. It also pisses me off that every time I disagree with the conservative talk radio zombies i'm labeled a "liberal". I have no problems with liberals, but I come from a family of libertarians and have never voted for a democrat (or a republican) in my life. I've never understood why thats such a last ditch argument, does that mean that if you label your opponent a liberal, their opinion is somehow less valid?
Click to expand...

Your attitude is fuels the persona you display.

The very fact you said he "got off easy" screams liberal. He asked a question for God's sake and was pummeled for it. He didn't gain fame until AFTER the question and the media attacks. He wasn't an operative or spy. He was a guy who asked the president an uncomfortable question for someone taking a hard left candidacy.

And no it doesn't mean that you being a liberal lessons your opinion but it does expose your bias.
 
Last edited:
VanceMack said:
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?
Click to expand...

These are very small media outlets, nothing like the leviathan that is FNC beating the Jeremiah Wright narrative to death night after night. I mean, what do you expect? Do you want me to go out and do my own research, break the story perhaps? Of course I would have to link to some kind of media to prove a point like this. If they were national level it would be reported by MSNBC and probably no one else, but regardless I think guilt by association stories (not including where the candidate actually is a supremacist) are the bottom rung of attack politics and shouldn't be discussed by the mainstream news media. It's just a waste of time, who cares who Obama worked with as a professor, or who was at the same fundraiser with him? To me the people who say Obama is a racist because of Rev. Wright are just as bad as the birthers.
 
Frozengale said:
Why would the DA want to make a conviction? Doesn't the DA defend the guy? Do you mean the Prosecutor? He's the one that wants to make a case against him isn't he? But either way I know what you're saying and yes he would have a very solid case against the guy. And like you said we have video evidence against the Black Panthers.... but the problem is that it's two separate issues here. The damning evidence against the Black Panthers is not damning evidence against the Justice Department. The accusation against them by one of their own is good enough evidence to investigate the matter, but it is not damning evidence. That's my point.
Click to expand...

My God. The DA represents the people of the county or city he practices. Of course he wants a conviction for such an obvious crime.

I'll simplify it even more for you.

Did they block the entrace to the voting place? Yes according to several witnesses. Clearly breaking the law.

Did they have a weapon in their hand in front of a polling place? Yes obviously seen in the video. Clearly breaking the law.

There is no ambiguity.
 
texmaster said:
Your attitude is fuels the persona you display.

The very fact you said he "got off easy" screams liberal. He asked a question for God's sake and was pummeled for it. He didn't gain fame until AFTER the question and the media attacks. He wasn't an operative or spy. He was a guy who asked the president an uncomfortable question for someone taking a hard left candidacy.

And no it doesn't mean that you being a liberal lessons your opinion but it does expose your bias.
Click to expand...

In the grand scheme of things, I think conservatives are much more close-minded in their bias then liberals. At least most of the liberals I know are willing to question their own position, where as the conservatives I know are much more apprehensive to opposing views. But back on topic, I remember this whole Joe the Plumber fiasco very clearly as I was actually working for a news media outlet during the election (I won't say which because some people on here would label it as verrry biased ;)). Joe the Plumber was immediately ascended as John McCain's savior by Fox and Talk Radio, and by extension all the media outlets were talking about him. This heinous background check didn't happen until AFTER he became a conservative hero, and it was the conservatives who gave him fame for that one little question.
 
Frozengale said:
Depends on what they preach. Wright is known for saying things that aren't exactly on the "Let's all be friends, Race doesn't matter" line of thinking. If I got stuff like that from the church I go to each week from the guy on the pulpit, I would think you an idiot not to question if I was racist or not after 20 years of that.
Click to expand...

Exactly, going to a church preaching liberation theology is the equivalent of going to a church preaching Christian Identity.
 
somepeoplesay said:
In the grand scheme of things, I think conservatives are much more close-minded in their bias then liberals. At least most of the liberals I know are willing to question their own position, where as the conservatives I know are much more apprehensive to opposing views.
Click to expand...

Color me shocked.

But back on topic, I remember this whole Joe the Plumber fiasco very clearly as I was actually working for a news media outlet during the election (I won't say which because some people on here would label it as verrry biased ;)).
Click to expand...

Again, color me shocked.

Joe the Plumber was immediately ascended as John McCain's savior by Fox and Talk Radio, and by extension all the media outlets were talking about him. This heinous background check didn't happen until AFTER he became a conservative hero, and it was the conservatives who gave him fame for that one little question.
Click to expand...

Bull****. The headline attacks were less than 24 hours. There wasn't time for this guy to be hoisted up by the right.

But considering your bias I'm not surprised you don't see that
 
Frozengale said:
Why would the DA want to make a conviction? Doesn't the DA defend the guy? Do you mean the Prosecutor? He's the one that wants to make a case against him isn't he? But either way I know what you're saying and yes he would have a very solid case against the guy. And like you said we have video evidence against the Black Panthers.... but the problem is that it's two separate issues here. The damning evidence against the Black Panthers is not damning evidence against the Justice Department. The accusation against them by one of their own is good enough evidence to investigate the matter, but it is not damning evidence. That's my point.
Click to expand...

the da is the prosecutor.
 
meh sorry I get confused sometimes. I just see DA and think Defense Attorney not District Attorney. That's where my confusion came from.

And you're right they have damning evidence against the Black Panthers. I have said this since my first post. They should charged for it and be put in jail/given heavy fines and all that jazz. But the case was dropped. Now here's were the switch-a-roo comes into play! See the people who dropped the case are NOT the Black Panthers they aren't the ones who showed up at polling stations to intimidate voters. So a video of Black Panthers intimidating voters doesn't really work as damning evidence against people who aren't the Black Panthers. Now if we had a recording of our friendly whistle-blower being told to drop the case because of political reasons, well THEN we would have damning evidence against them. But we don't, we have the word of one man. The word of one man is good enough to look into the whole situation because I agree it does reek of something sinister.... but the word of one man is not damning proof against them.
 
Objective Voice said:
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. 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:



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?
Click to expand...

Bla bla bla, you bolded, you copied/pasted it, and yet you still don't get it. "Attempt" is the key word. ;)
 
Frozengale said:
meh sorry I get confused sometimes. I just see DA and think Defense Attorney not District Attorney. That's where my confusion came from.

And you're right they have damning evidence against the Black Panthers. I have said this since my first post. They should charged for it and be put in jail/given heavy fines and all that jazz. But the case was dropped. Now here's were the switch-a-roo comes into play! See the people who dropped the case are NOT the Black Panthers they aren't the ones who showed up at polling stations to intimidate voters. So a video of Black Panthers intimidating voters doesn't really work as damning evidence against people who aren't the Black Panthers. Now if we had a recording of our friendly whistle-blower being told to drop the case because of political reasons, well THEN we would have damning evidence against them. But we don't, we have the word of one man. The word of one man is good enough to look into the whole situation because I agree it does reek of something sinister.... but the word of one man is not damning proof against them.
Click to expand...

As long as you see the obvious linkage I will agree we have no direct evidence that they did it for poliitcal reasons.
 
texmaster said:
As long as you see the obvious linkage I will agree we have no direct evidence that they did it for poliitcal reasons.
Click to expand...


That's what I've been saying for the last 8 pages.
 
Frozengale said:
That's what I've been saying for the last 8 pages.
Click to expand...

Not exactly. You fought me at every turn when I said we had proof of their breakage of the law then for some reason you went after the DA angle.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom