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.
I hate every one and every thing; excepting present company of course.
Let’s sing along; shall we Buddha?
“I was just stating that Mike doesn’t hold a candle to you when it comes to insults.”
Aw shucks Gyges and I thought I was a regular wit and anyway he’s supposed to be The Buddha, who taught mildness in one’s dealings with their fellow man.
“(Until Mike called Jill Full of it)”
That was clearly meant to be an insult, but c’mon is that even really anything that one would equate as a real insult? No one here has ever told a friend or loved one that they were full of it? My model for real insults was the play Cyrano DeBergerac, in the dueling scene, now those were insults. My response here wasn’t even at Defcom status, why should it have been, we’re talking about a disagreement in viewpoints and not some line of political/moral principle being crossed?
Gyges,
No insult was taken.
MIke S:
“I’ve had tough debates with many of the regulars here, Mespo most recently and no one but you and some trolls have ever called me insulting.”
*********
I always think the other side is “insulting” when they’re wining the argument. Call it a personal flaw!!
BIL,
I try to come to the defense of who-ever I see is being unfairly branded, I’m sure anyone who reads the comments section of this blog will agree. We’ve both come to Jill’s defense on numerous occasions, and in this case I have to say that I’m in agreement you, I just can’t see the insult. (Until Mike called Jill Full of it).
I wasn’t passing judgment on you, you know I generally just skip your posts when you go into attack mode, but I understand your reasons. I was just stating that Mike doesn’t hold a candle to you when it comes to insults.
That Mike (like any of the regulars) is trouble goes without saying, but what I meant was “is in trouble.”
And that is still all I have to say about that.
“Mike Spindell,
You are as biased and partisan as any other ideologue, Republican or otherwise. You treat all contrary evidence as tainted, you twist facts, and you use ad hominem attacks more than any other regular does.”
“Mike is well aware that I like him, but his posts of late are just going to be something that I will skip for awhile.”
FFLEO,
That first quote is truly insulting and if you don’t want to read my posts that’s fine. However, you original post quoted at top showed a complete misreading of what I was saying and I find that more sad, than annoying.
I will stipulate that I’ve been known to shred trolls and that I don’t fight fair once it’s game on is well known. I do (generally) wait until they (the trolls) ask for it through either direct confrontation or tactical misstep although I will use prodding occasionally to determine if a borderline or unclear post is from an actual troll. I can be a vicious bastard, but I try not to draw blood needlessly. There have also been examples of me going to great lengths to diffuse conflict too. I’ve always tried to be as good a friend or as bad an enemy as people ask for with their behavior. That is the nature of my tao. However . . .
I’m not sure why Mike is trouble.
Sure, he’s disagreeing, but I’ve read that last post three times now and I still don’t get the insult. His reply was terse perhaps, but as one who can deliver a fairly serious mauling, I’m just not seeing it. Admittedly I am thicker skinned than most and under abnormal stress that could be keeping me from seeing it. Today was . . . today, but that is beside the point other than being relevant to my current state of mind and the perception of slight.
I’m not trying to start trouble between regulars either, all three of whom I like and respect for different reasons. No response is required from any of the parties involved. I just thought a comment was appropriate since I was invoked.
And that is all I have to say about that.
Jill,
You are full of it. There was nothing disrespectful of you in my post, nor was there an ad hominem attack.
“Finally, to say this reminds you of a war crime is to make insignificant almost every post you’ve written to document war crimes on this blog and I find the statement beyond amazing. The reason I say this is that this incident is not within a thousand miles of the least of the war crimes you’ve discussed.”
This is the only thing that I believe you might have taken umbrage at and it in no way insults you, but pays homage to your constant denouncing of war crimes, in which I’ve consistently agreed with you. For you to compare this to the actual war crimes committed is factually hyperbolic as in the below standard definition:
“hy⋅per⋅bol⋅ic
/ˌhaɪpərˈbɒlɪk/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [hahy-per-bol-ik] Show IPA
Use hyperbolic in a Sentence
–adjective
1. having the nature of hyperbole; exaggerated.
2. using hyperbole; exaggerating.
3. Mathematics.
a. of or pertaining to a hyperbola.
b. derived from a hyperbola, as a hyperbolic function.”
However, to say someone is being hyperbolic and to cite the instance, is not an ad hominem attack, nor a nasty statement by any stretch of the imagination. If this is not the cause of the insult then what specifically is Jill?
Am I not allowed to disagree with you? Am I not allowed to rebut your points? Am I not allowed to say that your argument is over the top? Who gave you the status of someone who can’t be disagreed with. This is the second time that you have accused me of insulting you, when I’ve merely disagreed with you and mildly at that.
Now I truly find your claiming insult to be in itself insulting and I agree with you to let people judge for themselves. This isn’t about whether we disagree on a certain point, it is about whether I was insulting in my disagreement with you, which by any stretch of the imagination is simply not true.
You seem to arrogate to yourself a special status in that people can’t disagree with you without it being insulting. I don’t believe you have a right to that status Jill and further if you are given it then it would go against the principles this site is based on. I’ve had tough debates with many of the regulars here, Mespo most recently and no one but you and some trolls have ever called me insulting. In the trolls case I was being insulting, in your case I wasn’t. You’ve read my stuff Jill, I am capable of being very insulting when the need arises. It’s not my style to be insulting with the regulars here and there is a body of work that proves it.
Gyges,
There comes a time, even among good friends, when it is best to avoid further discussion on certain topics to avoid stating something you regret. The adage, ‘There are some things you say that you just can’t take back; so, be careful of what you say’ applies to Mike Spindell and me, for now. Mike is well aware that I like him, but his posts of late are just going to be something that I will skip for awhile.
The ad hominem reference was against other regulars, with which Buddha does not engage, with one exception.
I originally posted this on the wrong thread (Karl Rove).
Gyges,
I agree that there are more important stories and here is one of them from Glenn Greenwald:
“This week, two more Guantanamo detainees — Khaled Al-Mutairi from Kuwait and Mohamed Jawad of Afghanistan — were ordered released by federal judges on the ground that there was insufficient evidence to justify their detention. The Washington Independent’s Daphne Eviatar notes this amazing fact: “In 28 of 33 Gitmo detainee cases heard so far, federal judges have found insufficient evidence to support keeping them in prison.” Virtually all of those detainees were held for many years without charges and with no opportunity for judicial review. Once they finally got into a court, federal judges (including Bush-43 appointed judges) in the vast majority of cases concluded there was virtually no credible evidence ever to justify their detention. Just consider what that fact, standing alone, means about what our Government has been doing.
The case of Jawad is particularly striking because he was a young teenager — possibly as young as 12 — when he was shipped to Guantanamo in 2002; unquestionably tortured; never accused of being a member of either Al Qaeda or the Taliban; barely saved after a suicide attempt in 2003; and then kept in a cage for seven years and counting with no charges. I wrote at length about Jawad’s case here, and Scott Horton summarizes some of the miserable lowlights of his case today here. As Andy Worthington reports, so unpersuasive was the case against Jawad — particularly once the “confession” he gave after being threatened with his own death and his family’s death were, over the objections of the Obama DOJ, excluded — that the federal judge excoriated the Obama DOJ with an unusually strident and hostile tone for attempting to continue his detention. Adam Serwer considers the implications of Jawad’s habeas victory, as well as the fact that the Obama DOJ may try now to indict him on actual criminal charges in order still to prevent his release even in light of the judge’s ruling…”
‘Birthers’ must be stopped
No matter how dumb, the people who are questioning whether Obama was born in the U.S. could eventually cause real problems.
By Bill Maher
July 31, 2009
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-maher31-2009jul31,0,622151.story?track=rss
FFLEO,
I know Buddha hasn’t been around much lately, but I would hope your memory isn’t so short as to think that Mike even comes close to approaching the level of ad hominem attacks that Buddha uses on those he views as trolls.
Does Mike use Ad hominem? Sure, so have you and I. Perhaps he views the evidence as tainted in this case because it IS tainted. I’ve Mike almost always considers the contrary opinion. Reread what Mike has to say on the matter, he is simply pointing out that this smells to high heaven. He’s not saying “Well those men shouldn’t be punished,” nor is he saying “I’m glad they were there.” He’s saying that the Strum und drang is being drummed up by people intentionally trying to discredit everything the Obama administration attempts.
We have TWO men at ONE voting center, and the one that was an overt threat was removed. Is that worth all the attention this is receiving? Really?
Mike Spindell,
You are as biased and partisan as any other ideologue, Republican or otherwise. You treat all contrary evidence as tainted, you twist facts, and you use ad hominem attacks more than any other regular does.
Mike S.,
Your argument is insulting and I will let what you said and what I said speak for itself.
Jill,
Gyges is correct you did mis-read what I said. Local law enforcement did go after these guys and they did their job. That would have been the end of it, but it wasn’t. Don’t you find it curious that the Washington Times own story stated that the blogger was called in by the Republican Party to video this.
“Unless you believe that white Republicans asked him to come to the poll that way and gave him a script for what he said”
First knowing the history of the NBPP I think it is highly likely they were paid, or told in advance to show up. Secondly, how did the Republican Party know in advance to tape there? Third, I just re-watched the tape and I didn’t hear the man with the club say anything inappropriate. What did you hear on the tape that I didn’t.
How did the party know that at this particular polling place there would be anything to video. Isn’t it interesting that the prominent Bartle Bull, whether pere or fils, was a Republican who happened to be poll watching? Senior is a Wall Street Lawyer and Junior is an author yet there one of them was doing their civic duty? Doesn’t it further interest you that the video guy taped nothing showing overt intimidation, the billy club guy was taken away, in terms of accosting voters entering to vote? Yet wasn’t around to tape the officers coming and taking the club guy away?
“No group, however small, nor any person, be it only one or two people should be allowed to intimidate voters. This somewhat reminds me of war crimes.”
The group, by the facts was not allowed to intimidate, nor is there any evidence except by the Republican operatives involved in this, that any one was actually intimidated, leaving this a well handled local matter. There is also no evidence that the NBPP did this anywhere else in the country.
The NBPP does not in fact support President Obama, or his campaign, so what exactly were they intimidating for?
Since it violated local laws and was restricted to one site in Philadelphia this was a local matter and not the purview of the DOJ. The Aryan Nation for instance and the KKK are large groups that operate in several states. The Republican Party is larger than both of them and operates nationwide. Finally, to say this reminds you of a war crime is to make insignificant almost every post you’ve written to document war crimes on this blog and I find the statement beyond amazing. The reason I say this is that this incident is not within a thousand miles of the least of the war crimes you’ve discussed.
“if you commit voter intimidation, be it with a gun or a pen, you are going to do time? For me, it is the latter.”
Jill there was no gun to begin with so that is a hyperbolic statement. Secondly, if you read the dismissed DOJ’s
recommendations that were asking for an injunction against the
baton wielder to stay away from polling places, not for jail time. They weren’t asking for jail time because they could not have made a case that wouldn’t have been thrown out of court by the judge.
“To me, the answer is, we go after those who committed war crimes. In this case, we have obvious voter intimidation by a weapon weilding person, who additionally is acting out of a black hate group philosophy.”
Jill, you are as aware as I am of the first Amendment. Given that are you in favor of the DOJ going after every dissenting group in the country, knowing well that that would include the Cindy Sheehan’s and Pink Panther’s as well as the NBPP?
“We also have a clear pattern of voter intimidation committed via lawyers and political strategists/operatives by the Republican party.”
Yes and as I pointed out to you the Bush DOJ went after none of that, but picked this forlorn and set up incident in Philadelphia to go after. Primarily because they could stereotype all black people with it.
Gyges,
I don’t think I misread what Mike said, but thanks for your input.
Jill,
You’re miss-reading what Mike has to say. Mike thinks these people should be punished. He just wants the right people to do the punishment. In this case he feels that the local officials are capable of handling it without the DOJ becoming involved.
Mike S.,
The man on the tape is saying what he means and wearing a military style uniform and carrying a club. Per se what he is wearing and the fact that he has a weapon is voter intimidation. Unless you believe that white Republicans asked him to come to the poll that way and gave him a script for what he said (and I don’t think you believe this), then he is responsible for his actions. No group, however small, nor any person, be it only one or two people should be allowed to intimidate voters. This somewhat reminds me of war crimes. There are a lot of people involved in war crimes, from both or neither party. So is the answer to ignore all of them, because there are so many, or do we go after those who committed war crimes? To me, the answer is, we go after those who committed war crimes. In this case, we have obvious voter intimidation by a weapon weilding person, who additionally is acting out of a black hate group philosophy. We also have a clear pattern of voter intimidation committed via lawyers and political strategists/operatives by the Republican party. “Some men rob with a gun, some men rob with a pen.” Is the answer to this problem to say that so many people are guilty that we can go after no one or is the answer that, if you commit voter intimidation, be it with a gun or a pen, you are going to do time? For me, it is the latter.
Come on down South, you will be shown how to vote or swim. Now the swimming in like NJ style swimming except you are hand cuffed no cement booties.