Associate Attorney General Thomas J. Perrelli overruled career lawyers at the Voting Section of the Civil Rights Division to drop a complaint against three members of the New Black Panther Party of intimidating voters in Philadelphia during November’s election — including one member Samir Shabazz who brandished a nightstick.
Career lawyers wanted sanctions against the Black Panthers who showed and had already won a default judgment against the men.
Acting Assistant Attorney General Loretta King reportedly recommended dropping the case to Mr. Perrelli who is third in command at the DOJ.
This has become a major story for conservative commentators — some of whom have taken it to an absurd degree to suggest that the Obama Administration is in league with the New Black Panthers. There may indeed to legitimate legal reasons for the decision, but on its face it is hard to discern why career staff would be overruled on this point. It is perfectly appropriate for political appointees to make decisions based on the policy priorities of the Administration. However, this is a straight-forward question under a federal statute. I do not know of any specific Obama policy that would undermine enforcement. This was a limited occurrence. However, the Justice Department seems to suggest this is not actionable conduct. At a minimum, there should be a fuller explanation of why this is not a violation and what are the limits for paramilitary groups parading in front of polling places.
Under the circumstances, the complaint seemed reasonable when it was brought in January, here. Under Section 11(b) of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which prohibits intimidation, coercion or threats against “any person for voting or attempting to vote.” The Department simply sought an injunction preventing any future deployment of, or display of weapons by, New Black Panther Party members at the entrance to polling locations. By dropping the complaint, the Obama Administration suggests that other groups could show up at polling places with such weapons and military-style uniforms. What if this were the Aryan Nation or Soldiers of God? Doesn’t brandishing a weapon have an intimidating effect on voters? I understand that the case was weakened by the fact that a police officer allowed at least one man to remain. However, it seems that the section was seeking a modest sanction to keep this group (or other groups) from showing up in paramilitary outfits and weapons.
MIke S the song and dance is over. He’s been in office over six months. What will you do, give him the full 4 years then look back. The guy makes decisions everyday and as many here including the owner of this blog who said he supported Obama, he stopped short of saying voted but I assume support means vote have come to realize there is no change. Maybe you should go back to the photoshop post of Obama and Bush and read that again. That in it self says everything.
Read Michael’s account of the poll watcher’s affidavit, especially these excerpts, sans the verbal comments not available in the video (*x* emphases are mine)
__________________________________
{Quote:
“Their clear purpose and intent was to *intimidate voters* with whom they did not agree. Their views were, in part, made apparent by the *uniform* of the organization the two men wore…”
“To me, the *presence* and behavior of the two uniformed men was an outrageous affront to American democracy and the rights of voters to participate in an election without fear. It would qualify as the most blatant form of *voter intimidation* I have encounters in my life in political campaigns in many state, even going back to the work I did in Mississippi in the 1960’s”
End Quote}
_________________________________
My opinion is their very presence was intimidating and they identified themselves as “security” (implying that they had some LE authority to be present). Any legitimate LEO holding his baton and moving it up and down as he spoke would have also been intimidating.
Such actions would have far exceeded proper LEO protocol at a polling place or anywhere else except in some riot situations where batons are sometimes drawn during an advance maneuver and at very few other legitimate times of allowable force. Any other improper display of a baton would have been grounds for disciplinary action. A baton or club is a weapon and LEOs is instructed how and when to use it as a tactical weapon within the *proper* ‘use of force continuum’.
It is of course easy to ignore that this was one incident by this group, countrywide and that the man with the billy club was removed by police. That really required a Justice Department intervention?
Michael,
By the way “Civil Rights activist” as Bill O’Reilly calls him works for Fox News and the Wall Street Journal among others. Possibly not the most reliable or unbiased of witnesses, Michael, but hey what does truth matter when you have a chance to cast aspersions on the President?
Jill,
“From what I can tell, you feel that Obama is a victim. He is a victim of vicious racism, but that isn’t all he is. He is also a victimizer. Certainly every person should speak out against the racism directed at Obama and any other person of color. It is also true that Obama has victimized persons of color himself. He is currently victimzing many people, both here and abroad. If you are consistent in your philosophy of wanting justice for those who are victims, you must speak out against the victims of Obama as well as when Obama is the victim of racism.”
I have spoken out, but before you accuse me of being a hypocrite, at what specific point before or after The President’s election have you given him a chance? To me this case is an example of what you in fact have been calling for, but has not happened quick enough for you. I have been consistent in my philosophy, but by the same token you have been consistent in your distrust of the man. You acknowledge he is a victim of racism, which by the way I have not stated, but you also after 6 months (actually right after Jan. 20th)you have been consistently attacking him.
In this one incident I have factually raised doubts about this whole issue and how it has been blown far out of proportion and made into something it wasn’t. Why aren’t you asking any questions on why this was one of the few voting rights complaints brought by the Bush DOJ, when a multitude of worse charge have been made? Perhaps, it is carrying because a Republican operative conveniently arrived on the scene to video the two black men, but left or didn’t video the removal of the man with the club. As far as Mr. Bull went I believe he was identified as a Republican Poll watcher, an author who works for FOX and the WSJ, conveniently on the scene. The whole thing stinks and it surprises me that you choose to ignore the odor, because it is true that you and I share very many political views.
FFLEO,
Straw poll, considering that we have two guys who are going to bring guns to their polling place? Also some others who are openly racist? How does that work? Just as you do I calls them as I sees them and to me this is a trumped up case and story, with no substance.
I don’t understand the outrage.
Anything goes if you’re a Democrat… voter frauid, voter intimidation, illegal contributions, etc.
Nothing new here… just Politics as Usual We Can Believe In.
Mike S I hate to say this but deep, deep, down inside you are a pole watcher. You will take your last breath defending this administration. At least the kool aid has begun to ware off on many here.
Jill thank you for your very honest and factual posts.
Straw poll: No more or less intimidating than a couple of good ol’ boys with ax handles. If I showed up at the polls and there was someone standing near the door with what I thought they could used as a weapon I’d call the police, you betcha’.
In that case I will agree that the troll posters are making truly racist statements. But I cannot agree that a man dressed in a military style uniform with a club is not, in and of itself, an example of voter intimidation. It’s great the police came and got him, but he should still do time for that act. I remember the Republican operative team who “rioted” outside the room when people were counting the votes in Florida. They were white. What they did was odioius, obviously intimdating and I believed they should have been arrested and done time for those actions. Voting is a precious right that ought not to be interfered with–no exceptions, no excuses. This man was intimidating and the vote counters were itimidating and they should be sent to jail-all of them.
Jill,
My critique wasn’t a generalized attack, but was limited to this issue alone.
Mike S.,
I have been racking my brains as to why the actions Obama takes, actions identical to Bush, often do not bother you. In many ways you and I have quite similar beliefs about society. I think that both you and Mike A. are very aware of racism, and I always read your both your posts, because I know you listen to the hate speech from the right wing (which by and large I don’t) so I take what you say about right wing racial hate speech seriously. I think it is grossly unfair of you to say that I am in the company of right wing racists because I say Obama is engaging in illegal and immoral actions. I have backed up my claims with reams of evidence. He is breaking the law and he is acting in an immoral manner. Your response to the evidence is to either ignore it or to say he’s not responsible some how, or he has to do it because Bush will kill him. You are entitled to those beliefs but I do not think they make sense or can be squared with evidence.
Certainly the Bush DOJ was notorious for very selective prosecution. Obama has affirmed most of Bush’s case arguments regarding domestic surveillence and detainee abuse. He will even propose the jailing of the innocent. We have financial crimes under Obama going unadressed with his current attempts to gut the small bit of oversight left to the public. We have torture in Gitmo and Bagram. We have ungoing unlawful domestic surveillence. We have the illegal arrest of immigrants. We have the illegal bombing of civilians in Afghanistan and Pakistan.
From what I can tell, you feel that Obama is a victim. He is a victim of vicious racism, but that isn’t all he is. He is also a victimizer. Certainly every person should speak out against the racism directed at Obama and any other person of color. It is also true that Obama has victimized persons of color himself. He is currently victimzing many people, both here and abroad. If you are consistent in your philosophy of wanting justice for those who are victims, you must speak out against the victims of Obama as well as when Obama is the victim of racism.
Mike,
Your right that the video did not show any intimidation, as the Huffington Post was quick to point out on Election Day. But that was not the sole thing the case relied on. The text below is quoted from an affidavit made by another pole watcher.
“In all of my experience in politics, in civil rights litigation, and in my efforts in the 1960’s to secure the right to vote in Mississippi through participation with civil rights leaders and the Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, I have never encountered or heard of another instance in the United States where armed and unfirmed men block the entrance to a polling location. Their clear purpose and intent was to intimidate voters with whom they did not agree.Their views were, in part, made apparent by the uniform of the organization the two men wore and the racially charged statements they made. For example, I heard the shorter man make a statement directed toward white poll observers that “you are about to ruled by the black man, cracker.” To me, the presence and behavior of the two uniformed men was an outrageous affront to American democracy and the rights of voters to participate in an election without fear. It would qualify as the most blatant form of voter intimidation I have encounters in my life in political campaigns in many state, even going back to the work I did in Mississippi in the 1960’s. I considered their presence to be a racially motivated effort to intimidate both poll watchers aiding voters, as well as voters with whom the men did not agree.” – Bartle Bull
I hope that we can return to an America where no voter feels intimidated at their polling place. Political appointees dropping convictions without explanation does nothing to further that goal.
Model 1066,
First off, you’re full of it, nobody in Denver traded crack in exchange for voter intimidation. Secondly, Denver county’s moving to an all mail ballot for 2009, so your xenophobia shouldn’t keep you from voting anymore.
Okay regulars, in all fairness to Mike Spindell, can we take a little *Straw Poll* after you view the video (a requirement)
The Straw Poll Question:
Do either or both of the 2 paramilitary-dressed men show or display any intimidation on their part in front of a polling place?
Yes
No
“The blatant, intimidating presence outside the polls of armed, uniformed thugs whose goal was to deter voting by their political opponents or terrorize voters into voting for their preferred candidates is something that the law already forbids; and there is overwhelming precedent of successful government prosecution of those who attempt to intimidate and/or terrorize.”
The birther movement begins to collapse, so now we have a new issue to distract. This was two men, one a legitimate poll watcher and the one with the club removed by police, but it will be blown into an armed insurrection by those uppity Black people and seems to be fanned by people I respect who’ve let their dislike of the President, overwhelm their common sense.
FFLEO,
“We want to thank President Obama and his administration for dropping charges against us that were vindictively brought by the Bush administration,” Malik Shabaaz told CNN. “We don’t condone any type of illegal activity at polling stations.”
There is nothing within that statement that would indicate that President Obama even knew about the case. Do some of your famed research and see who Malik Shabaaz and it will indicate that he made this as a statement to increase his importance. That’s what scammers do. Do you really think that the President would involve himself with a man like that, who even the original Black Panther Party denounces and says is a fraud.
I have to say in all seriousness and sadness, that if these kinds of mistruths from the likes of Karl Rove and Grover Norqvist are allowed to perpetuate themselves, even among good, reasonable people, than we will have someone directing violence at our President, because all of this is aimed at riling up the crazies and people like Rush and Glenn are beginning to hint at it.
Mike Spindell wrote:
_________________________________
“Secondly, the video just shows these two black and does not show any intimidation on their part,”
_________________________________
Come on Mike. Your bias is very transparent.
OK:
1) People have in the past, and still do, fight and risk death in order to freely elect their own governments. The right to vote without being threatened or intimidated is basic and un-negotiable in a free society and is protected by our Constitution.
2) Until January 20, 2009; it was the policy of the United States Government to support and defend that right to vote freely without intimidation; at home and abroad.
3) The blatant, intimidating presence outside the polls of armed, uniformed thugs whose goal was to deter voting by their political opponents or terrorize voters into voting for their preferred candidates is something that the law already forbids; and there is overwhelming precedent of successful government prosecution of those who attempt to intimidate and/or terrorize.
4) The decision to drop the case is openly admitted to be a political decision by the administration’s appointees to short circuit the prosecution. The conclusion that the law is being functionally suspended solely because the intimidation was carried out by supporters and possibly agents of this administration’s political campaign cannot be lightly dismissed and indeed to quote the header on this blog; Res ipsa loquitur.
5) It is a reasonable conclusion that if armed thugs are outside polling places in any future elections; that it is highly probable that they are agents of the administration and further that they will not be subjected to legal process for any crimes that they commit.
6) Any voter approaching such a polling place can assume that the “basic un-negotiable right” noted in #1 above is under direct attack.
7) Given the items above, and knowing that the “rule of law” has become somewhat nebulous in the United States over the last 7 months, it would also be reasonable for that voter to conclude that there is no effective legal process to remedy this attack on his rights or to offer protection from the same.
8) In the absence of a framework of legal protection, when basic Constitutional rights are abridged; the inherent right of self defense will come to the fore.
9) In some, not all, but some cases; voters will meet the threat of deadly force, with deadly force of their own.
10) This is not something that is beyond being foreseen by the geniuses of the administration. They will bear culpability for any blood that is shed. This may not be something unwelcome to them.
Subotai Bahadur
From the CNN (1st link) link in the article:
_________________________________
{Quote:
“We want to thank President Obama and his administration for dropping charges against us that were vindictively brought by the Bush administration,” Malik Shabaaz told CNN. “We don’t condone any type of illegal activity at polling stations.”
End Quote}
________________________________
So, Prez. O was directly involved in this administration of “justice”. Did he make his decision to tell the DOJ lawyers what to do over a few *beers* with the New Black Panther Party members? Perhaps that is why he does not want to release the White House Visitor logs of what PO calls the “People’s House”.
Seriously, this is very troubling and an injustice.
“FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Wednesday, January 7, 2009″
Jill,
You make my point Obama wasn’t in office yet, this was the Bush justice department. Secondly, the video just shows these two black and does not show any intimidation on their part, merely questioning why they were being photographed. One of the men was a legitimate poll watcher and the one with the nightstick was taken away by police. End of story. This was the only example that could be found of NBPP “intimidation” in the entire country on election day and wasn’t much of a story.
Now having known actual Black Panther Party Members back in the 60’s I was never a fan. I thought the organization was a scam, or a COINTELPRO stunt. This new group is actually using the Panther name, but is an offshoot of the Nation of Islam and so is ascam trading off the old name. The NOI by the way was suspected to be in the pay of J.Edgar Hoover’s FBI and had a relationship with the KKK. However, this whole story was a Republican political setup. The video was taken by:
“Stephen R. Morse, a blogger hired by Republicans to be at the polls and who videotaped the confrontation, said the NBPP members blatantly used racial insults on would-be voters and other poll watchers, telling one man, “Cracker, you about to be ruled by a black man.”taken from Washington Time Article.
If these people were truly intimidating voters the call to the police would have sufficed and in fact did since the man with the club was removed. This by the way was the same Justice Department that didn’t investigate the intimidation of black voters in Florida in 2000 and Ohio in 2004. Also it’s instructive to review some of the comments above:
“and have all charges dropped by O’bumbles’ homies.”
“I’m with you Matt…except I’ll be toting my Ruger .357, and I think the ghetto rats they round up here in Denver and pay with crack to keep whitey away from the voting booths will have to choose between their crack and their life.”
“does this mean I can carry a Glock when I go to vote next time?”
“You mean Glenn Greenwald the sock puppet? Sorry but I’m not interested in anything he has to say. Integrity is a good thing and he has none.”
“This has become more and more the US a statist that certain thuggery allowed and endorsed by the Obama administration.”
Do you have any doubt that for these people it is really about having a Black man as President? The original JD action was a Republican set up and the dismissal came about because it was apparent. It’s been put out there by Sun Yung Moon’s in house paper and apparently people from all stripes are once again falling for the chicanery.
When does the request for a special prosecutor come about? The calls for impeachment? Finally, some nut with a Glock or a Ruger so agitated by this uppity Black man, might see a way out of his humdrum life and into the history books. You’re in poor company Jill and moreover you need to really read the story and follow the leads to see that it is just more of the same game used against Bill Clinton and that the case being tossed is actually a positive sign.
Can ANYONE please tell me how DOJ can “drop the Complaint” AFTER a ‘Guilty’ verdict has been entered against all 3 Defendants when they failed to appear for trial????????
USUALLY, under those circumstances (defendant failure to appear/guilty verdict entered) the next step is for the Prosecutor to request a bench warrant issue for the arrest of the criminal.
To me, the ONLY feasible explanation is the “fix was in” before trial and the defendants told (by someone at DOJ) they wouldn’t have to appear in Court since the matter was not going to be pursued.
I would LOVE the chance to sit across from these DOJ asshats and ask them “What exactly was the LEGAL basis for not pursuing this matter.
This blog post by Glenn Greenwald does make the govt. nervous. I posted it and it doesn’t even show up. Glenn Greenwald really goes to the heart of the problem with ignoring the rule of law. Here again, are his words:
“By the design of the Founders, most American political issues are driven by the vicissitudes of political realities, shaped by practicalities and resolved by horse-trading compromises among competing factions. But not all political questions were to be subject to that process. Some were intended to be immunized from those influences. Those were called “principles,” or “rights,” or “guarantees” — and what distinguishes them from garden-variety political disputes is precisely that they were intended to be both absolute and adhered to regardless of what Massing calls “the practical considerations policymakers must contend with.”
We don’t have to guess what those principles are. The Founders created documents — principally the Constitution — which had as their purpose enumerating the principles that were to be immunized from such “practical considerations.” All one has to do in order to understand their venerated status is to understand the core principle of Constitutional guarantees: no acts of Government can conflict with these principles or violate them for any reason. And all you have to do to appreciate their absolute, unyielding essence is to read how they’re written: The President “shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.” “[A]ll Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land.” “Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech.” “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause.” “No person shall be . . . deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” Even policies which enjoy majoritarian support and ample “practical” justification will be invalid — nullified — if they violate those guarantees.”
Glenn Greenwald brings real clarity to the issue of rule of law in his column today. Here’s part of it:
“By the design of the Founders, most American political issues are driven by the vicissitudes of political realities, shaped by practicalities and resolved by horse-trading compromises among competing factions. But not all political questions were to be subject to that process. Some were intended to be immunized from those influences. Those were called “principles,” or “rights,” or “guarantees” — and what distinguishes them from garden-variety political disputes is precisely that they were intended to be both absolute and adhered to regardless of what Massing calls “the practical considerations policymakers must contend with.”
We don’t have to guess what those principles are. The Founders created documents — principally the Constitution — which had as their purpose enumerating the principles that were to be immunized from such “practical considerations.” All one has to do in order to understand their venerated status is to understand the core principle of Constitutional guarantees: no acts of Government can conflict with these principles or violate them for any reason. And all you have to do to appreciate their absolute, unyielding essence is to read how they’re written: The President “shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.” “[A]ll Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land.” “Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech.” “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause.” “No person shall be . . . deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” Even policies which enjoy majoritarian support and ample “practical” justification will be invalid — nullified — if they violate those guarantees.”
I’m repeating this post as it seemed to bring out many trolls, I guess, because they hope no one will read it and think about it.