and what was that punishment again? Right... stay away from the polls until the next election. That's not a punishment. That's a fucking invitation to do it again! It wasn't "stay away from the polls for 10 years." It was "stay away until 2012." Gee, what happens in 2012? I wonder... There was no fine, there was no jail time, there was NOTHING.

Quote :

"and it seems to fit the crime in this case"

yes, but only in your mind because you don't think whites have civil rights that are worth anything.

7/13/2010 9:12:12 PM

Fines and jail time would be VERY unusual punishment considering past voting rights issues, particularly those involving individuals.

Why, in aaronburro's opinion, should these guys be prosecuted more harshly than other voting rights act violators? What's different about them to him I wonder...

It's weird too that someone who claims to be a libertarian would argue for the book to be thrown at someone for a victimless crime... it's almost like you are not actually a libertarian, you're just a partisan hack.

And of the supposedly 300 or so New Black Panther party members dispatched to "watch polls" for the election, 1 of them was being an asshole by brandishing a night club, was videotaped for it, mocked by the entire Internet, removed from the polling place by police, and successfully prosecuted under section 11b of the voting rights act, and given a slightly harsher punishment than the only other person (that i could find) to be charged under the same section of the voting rights act, and aaronburro is outraged because he feels slighted as a white male. You couldn't be more of a joke if you tried.

And it seems he is banned indefinitely from brandishing weapons at polling places:
http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/electionlaw/litigation/documents/BlkPants-Judgmt-5-18-09.pdf

[Edited on July 13, 2010 at 9:36 PM. Reason : ]

7/13/2010 9:29:03 PM

Quote :

"Why, in aaronburro's opinion, should these guys be prosecuted more harshly than other voting rights act violators? What's different about them to him I wonder..."

nice strawman buddy. I'm not saying they should be punished any harsher. if anything, I'd say that anyone guilty of voter intimidation should face jail time. continue, though, with your absurdity.

Quote :

"successfully prosecuted under section 11b of the voting rights act"

how is one "successfully prosecuted" when the charges were dropped?

7/13/2010 10:11:09 PM

Quote :

"Manufactured scandal: Right wing's phony allegations against the Justice Department July 07, 2010 11:13 am ET — 73 Comments J. Christian Adams' accusations that President Obama's Justice Department engaged in racially charged "corruption" in the New Black Panther Party case do not stand up to the evidence. Adams is a right-wing activist tied to the Bush-era politicization of the Justice Department who has admitted he lacks first-hand knowledge of the events he is discussing, and his claims fall apart given the fact that the Obama DOJ obtained judgment against one defendant, while the Bush DOJ declined to pursue similar allegations in 2006."

http://mediamatters.org/research/201007070020

7/13/2010 10:23:23 PM

^^ LOL

See this thread: http://www.thewolfweb.com/message_topic.aspx?topic=598437

^ Adams in his congressional testimony doesn't come remotely close to accusing Obama or the Obama administration of racial corruption. I'm not quite sure where this characterization of his testimony came from (actually, I can hazard a guess on who spun it this way...), but he actually seems like a very honorable, respectable person, and his resignation is a loss for the DOJ I think.

edit: it looks like he has taken a more combative stance since his testimony

[Edited on July 13, 2010 at 10:36 PM. Reason : ]

7/13/2010 10:23:53 PM

so, because bush allegedly did a shitty job it excuses Obama from dropping charges in an open and shut case?

btw, the mediamatters link is little more than ad-hominem with one Bush case sprinkled in that isn't exactly relevant. A holstered weapon versus a guy showing a weapon and slamming it in his hand? yeah, not even comparable.

7/13/2010 10:25:45 PM

[Edited on July 13, 2010 at 10:31 PM. Reason : ]

7/13/2010 10:30:54 PM

http://www.usccr.gov/NBPH/05-14-2010_NBPPhearing.pdf

Quote :

"This is the matter referenced in a 11 recent GAO report that examined a number of cases 12 brought by certain sections of the Civil Rights 13 Division during the Bush administration. 14 Moving to the matter at hand, the events 15 occurred on November 4th, 2008. The Department became 16 aware of these events on Election Day and decided to 17 conduct further inquiry. 18 After reviewing the matter, the Civil 19 Rights Division determined that the facts did not 20 constitute a prosecutable violation of the criminal 21 statutes. The Department did, however, file a civil 22 action on January 7th, 2009, seeking injunctive and 23 declaratory relief under 11(b) against four 24 defendants. 25 The complaint alleged that the defendants violated Section 11(b) because 1 they attempted to 2 engage in and engaged in both voter intimidation and 3 intimidation of individuals aiding voters. 4 Although none of the defendants responded 5 to the complaint, the Department had a continuing 6 legal and ethical obligation to ensure that any relief 7 sought was consistent with the law and supported by 8 the evidence. 9 Based on the careful review of the 10 evidence, the Department concluded that the evidence 11 collected supported the allegations in the complaint 12 against Minister King Samir Shabazz. The Department, 13 therefore, obtained an injunction against defendant 14 King Samir Shabazz, prohibiting him from displaying a 15 weapon within 100 feet of an open polling place on any 16 Election Day in the City of Philadelphia or from 17 otherwise violating Section 11(b). 18 The Department considers this injunction 19 to be tailored appropriately to the scope of the 20 violation and the constitutional requirements and will 21 fully enforce the injunction's terms. 22 Section 11(b) does not authorize any other 23 kinds of relief, such as criminal penalties, monetary 24 damages, or civil penalties. 25 The Department concluded that the allegations in the complaint 1 against Jerry Jackson, 2 the other defendant present at the polling place, as 3 well as the allegations against the national New Black 4 Panther Party and its leader, Malik Zulu Shabazz, did 5 not have sufficient evidentiary support. 6 The Department reviewed the totality of 7 the evidence in the applicable law in reaching these 8 decisions."

BTW, Obama didn't take office until Jan. 20, 2009

7/13/2010 11:00:19 PM

Quote :

"Fines and jail time would be VERY unusual punishment considering past voting rights issues, particularly those involving individuals."

Where you are basing this assertion from?

How can you not think that a person or persons involved in voter intimidation/electoral fraud should get more than "stay away from polling place until next election"? There should be prison time and/or a fine as punishment.

7/14/2010 9:13:07 AM

Why the silence from The Post on Black Panther Party story?
By Andrew Alexander
Ombudsman
Sunday, July 18, 2010

Quote :

"Thursday's Post reported about a growing controversy over the Justice Department's decision to scale down a voter-intimidation case against members of the New Black Panther Party. The story succinctly summarized the issues but left many readers with a question: What took you so long? For months, readers have contacted the ombudsman wondering why The Post hasn't been covering the case. The calls increased recently after competitors such as the New York Times and the Associated Press wrote stories. Fox News and right-wing bloggers have been pumping the story. Liberal bloggers have countered, accusing them of trying to manufacture a scandal. But The Post has been virtually silent."

Quote :

"The Post didn't cover it. Indeed, until Thursday's story, The Post had written no news stories about the controversy this year. In 2009, there were passing references to it in only three stories. That's prompted many readers to accuse The Post of a double standard. Royal S. Dellinger of Olney said that if the controversy had involved Bush administration Attorney General John D. Ashcroft, 'Lord, there'd have been editorials and stories, and it would go on for months.' To be sure, ideology and party politics are at play. Liberal bloggers have accused Adams of being a right-wing activist (he insisted to me Friday that his sole motivation is applying civil rights laws in a race-neutral way). Conservatives appointed during the Bush administration control a majority of the civil rights commission's board. And Fox News has used interviews with Adams to push the story. Sarah Palin has weighed in via Twitter, urging followers to watch Fox News anchor Megyn Kelly's coverage because 'her revelations leave Left steaming.' The Post should never base coverage decisions on ideology, nor should it feel obligated to order stories simply because of blogosphere chatter from the right or the left. But in this case, coverage is justified because it's a controversy that screams for clarity that The Post should provide. If Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. and his department are not colorblind in enforcing civil rights laws, they should be nailed. If the Commission on Civil Rights' investigation is purely partisan, that should be revealed. If Adams is pursuing a right-wing agenda, he should be exposed. National Editor Kevin Merida, who termed the controversy 'significant,' said he wished The Post had written about it sooner. The delay was a result of limited staffing and a heavy volume of other news on the Justice Department beat, he said. Better late than never. There's plenty left to explore."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/16/AR2010071604081.html

7/19/2010 10:24:52 PM

Quote :

"Where you are basing this assertion from? How can you not think that a person or persons involved in voter intimidation/electoral fraud should get more than "stay away from polling place until next election"? There should be prison time and/or a fine as punishment. "

I linked several times to the past cases on the DOJ website involving voting rights issues.

7/19/2010 10:33:51 PM

Quote :

"There's plenty left to explore."

7/19/2010 10:47:19 PM

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/09/24/voting-rights-official-calls-black-panther-dismissal-travesty-justice/

testimony in Congress today about the DOJ ignoring cases unless the victims are minorities. Thanks for changing things, Obama!

i'll now sit here and wait for the obama worshipers to defend not upholding the law.

9/24/2010 1:12:37 PM

One of the leaders wants all blacks to move to 5 southern states and create a country within a country.

BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

let me breathe...


BAHAHAHAHA

this is just dumb dumb dumb...I don't think he will be allowed to speak much more representing that group.

7/11/2016 4:13:08 PM