I posted the old video of members of the New Black Panther Party intimidating people at a Philadelphia polling place a couple of years back. As my readers now know, the Holder Justice Department dropped the case even though they were being given a summary judgement.
Here is a new video that has surfaced of one of those thugs, a guy named King Samir Shabazz at a Philadelphia street fair.
What has happened to the Department of Justice that I served for almost 25 years? What kind of corruption and racism has taken over at this agency under Eric Holder? I had a pretty good idea that Holder was corrupt when he ramrodded those dubious pardens through DOJ in the last days of the Clinton presidency, but this is outrageous. Combine that with his decision to sue Arizona, and one can only conclude that racial politics are driving this administration. What is so tragic is that, in the end, it will only hurt racial relations in this country.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
12 comments:
I hope that every American, regardless of where he lives, will stop and examine his conscience about this and other related incidents. This Nation was founded by men of many nations and backgrounds. It was founded on the principle that all men are created equal, and that the rights of every man are diminished when the rights of one man are threatened. All of us ought to have the right to be treated as he would wish to be treated, as one would wish his children to be treated, but this is not the case.
I know the proponents of this law say that the majority approves of this law, but the majority is not always right. Would women or non-whites have the vote if we listen to the majority of the day, would the non-whites have equal rights (and equal access to churches, housing, restaurants, hotels, retail stores, schools, colleges and yes water fountains) if we listen to the majority of the day? We all know the answer, a resounding, NO!
Today we are committed to a worldwide struggle to promote and protect the rights of all who wish to be free. In a time of domestic crisis men of good will and generosity should be able to unite regardless of party or politics and do what is right, not what is just popular with the majority. Some men comprehend discrimination by never have experiencing it in their lives, but the majority will only understand after it happens to them.
Benito,
What is you say is well-stated, but I am not sure if you are responding to the article about this man Shabazz or the Arizona law.
If you are referring to Shabazz then my response is that this man represents a virulent form of racism himself.
Of course, you can argue that he is a product of America's historical maltreatment of black people. I am not unaware of that. I am in my 60s, and I remember the way things used to be.
The fact remains, however, that Shabazz today is free to vote. He is not free to stop others from voting. What Shabazz and his entire organization represents is a form of hatred and a return to the way things were 50-60 years ago. Note what he said to the black guy with the white woman.
That is racism.
If you are referring to the Arizona immigration law, then pls let me know and we can discuss that also. I think I have a unique perspective since I am married to a Mexican woman.
I was confused as well. Who is he chiding?
Personally, I don't buy the argument that the majority is not be trusted because we were late on several civil rights issues. Things change and America is very different than it was 50 or 60 years ago. John Stossel had a terriffic program that had this as one aspect in "What's So Great About America". For one thing there is more inter-racial dating and marriages than in most of the world.
As a more general case though, the fact of the matter is that everything changes over time and because of that everything about the past would be wrong in comparison. People do what they think best at the time. They elect the wrong person for example sometimes. That doesn't mean we should discount the collective wisdom of the majority. Here we correct course and besides that there is no better alternative than the majority opinion.
No you've got my blood up Gary. I am familiar with some of those pardons Clinton signed in late 2000. While the one that got all the headlines, the expatriate millionaire, was dubious, some of the others were people who never should have been tried. The fact that you worked for DEA, and put people behind bars who were a real hazard to all of us, would not necessarily blind you to the fact that the penchant of U.S. attorneys for routinely filing "conspiracy" charges along with substantive charges often leads to innocent people who live next door to a genuine criminal's second cousin, getting twenty year sentences. Ditto for wives who maybe should have asked their husband's where the money to pay the rent was coming from, but had been divorced for five years, and a whole host of other horror stories. That doesn't even get to people guilty of one illegal act, who are sentenced for a vast enterprise over ten years that they had no knowledge of. Clinton should have pardoned many MORE such, who were guilty only by association.
OK, back to the "new black panther." These guys are chumps, hoodlums, and egotistical idiots, but they are not the black ku klux klan. They lack either the sophistication, or the work ethic, or the substantial support in high places, to be anything of the kind.
They couldn't get on a soap box and reach high enough to kiss the rear end of a real Black Panther -- I've known a few of the latter. You can always tell a "new black panther" by the words "Black Community News Service" on their pathetic attempts to revive the Panther newspaper, which said "Intercommunal News Service." Yeah, real Panthers reached out to working class "white" communities, particularly, but not exclusively, Appalachian immigrants to northern industrial cities.
The chump you are making such a fuss about was feeding his ego by posturing that the election of a president who shared his skin color (which he had done nothing to bring about) would usher in an era of Black Rule, which he was entirely incompetent to deliver on. We all know the likes of Al Sharpton could never be elected president -- we don't live in a country like Guyana or Fiji, where two evenly balanced ethnic groups compete to grab the reigns of government for a term or three. Which is good.
The punk should have been led away by the local police and charged with disorderly conduct, possibly public drunkneness, and carrying a club near a polling station. He's feeding his ego right now off of what a threat you think he was. He doesn't rate. Eric Holder understands that.
Siarlys,
I disagree. First of all, I worked with US Attorneys offices for 25 years. I found them to be concsciencious when it came to indicting people. The check in the system is that they don't want to take cases they might lose. Sometimes that was frustrating to us. Yes, there are a few overzealous prosecutors, like the Duke rape case as an example. They were the exception.
In DEA, we used conspiracy extensively because drug traffficking organizations are by their nature a conspiracy. The Conspiracy law under Title 21 USC we used was an effective tool for prosecuting those at the upper levels who never touched the drugs.
So what is the legal definition of Conspiracy? ( I used to teach the course in DEA Training (state and local ). You need two or more people who agree to commit a crime. After that, at least one the others commits an "overt act" in furtherance of the crime.
Lets say A B and C engage in a conspiracy to smuggl;e drugs from Mexico-then sell the drugs to D.
A finances the money for the travel to mexico and buy the drugs.
B and C then buy a ticket to Mexico. (Overt act). Technically, the conspiracy is complete at that point. So C and B go to Mexico (overt act), buy the drugs from E who knows they are destined to the US. (overt act). They smuggle the drugs back into the US where A directs them to deliver to D and collect the money.
Conspiracy. Who can be prosecuted? A-B-C-D-E.
That's a simplified explanation of how drug conspiracy works. Note that A never touched the drugs.
In my experience, it worked fairly. I never saw an innocent person charged.
On the other hand, Italy had a law called Mafia association. It cast a very wide net and was based largely on wiretaps. I was always of the opinion that an innocent person could be unfairly charged under their version of the conspiracy law.
Siarlys,
I disagree. First of all, I worked with US Attorneys offices for 25 years. I found them to be concsciencious when it came to indicting people. The check in the system is that they don't want to take cases they might lose. Sometimes that was frustrating to us. Yes, there are a few overzealous prosecutors, like the Duke rape case as an example. They were the exception.
In DEA, we used conspiracy extensively because drug traffficking organizations are by their nature a conspiracy. The Conspiracy law under Title 21 USC we used was an effective tool for prosecuting those at the upper levels who never touched the drugs.
So what is the legal definition of Conspiracy? ( I used to teach the course in DEA Training (state and local ). You need two or more people who agree to commit a crime. After that, at least one the others commits an "overt act" in furtherance of the crime.
Lets say A B and C engage in a conspiracy to smuggl;e drugs from Mexico-then sell the drugs to D.
A finances the money for the travel to mexico and buy the drugs.
B and C then buy a ticket to Mexico. (Overt act). Technically, the conspiracy is complete at that point. So C and B go to Mexico (overt act), buy the drugs from E who knows they are destined to the US. (overt act). They smuggle the drugs back into the US where A directs them to deliver to D and collect the money.
Conspiracy. Who can be prosecuted? A-B-C-D-E.
That's a simplified explanation of how drug conspiracy works. Note that A never touched the drugs.
In my experience, it worked fairly. I never saw an innocent person charged.
On the other hand, Italy had a law called Mafia association. It cast a very wide net and was based largely on wiretaps. I was always of the opinion that an innocent person could be unfairly charged under their version of the conspiracy law.
PS to Siarlys,
Had Shabazz et al been white thugs intimidating black voters at a polling place, don't you think that any Justice Department in the last 40 years would have prosecuted them criminally? Isn't that why the Voting Rights Act was passed.
PS To Siarlys,
The New Black panther Party may not compare to the original, but they are organized. Their spokesperson is a Howard law school graduate and now lawyer named Malik Shabazz. He is a whole lot smarted than his Philly namesake, but you should hear him. He has often appeared on that old bug-a-boo, Fox News and been interviewed by hannity and Michelle malkin. He is a racist. This group has also acted as bodyguards for Cynthia McKinney. They made many anti-Semitic slurs after she was defeated for Congress a few years back. I confronted her on that when she came to UCI in 2009. You can view the video on this blog.
I'm not surprised that Malik is interviewed by Malkin and Hannity. These vultures need each other, like George W. Bush and Osama bin Laden needed each other (two privileged children of millionaires squaring off on the world stage).
Now, back to more substantial things. I too am a student of conspiracy law, particularly Justice Jackson's concurring opinion in the Krulewitch case (336 US 440), and Justice William Howard Taft's concerns dating to 1925 about mis-use of the term. Common law goes back to the Court of Star Chamber, and hasn't been much modified since.
You are wrong about the "overt act." As long as each person charged with conspiracy commits an over act, consciously intended to further the conspiracy, I don't have much problem. I have reservations about someone who knowingly aids the conspiracy on one isolated occasion being subject to sentencing for the entire scope of the operation. I have major problems with kingpins getting light sentences because they know the law and can get credit for snitching on minor subordinates, who get life sentences because they don't know anything to trade for leniency.
But most of all, the definition of conspiracy in Title 21 omits mention of an "overt act," which federal courts have expounded to mean no overt act is required. That, by the way, was an error of omission committed by Tip O'Neill, anxious to boost his re-election campaign by vamping off the death of Len Bias. Now do you see why I have contempt for liberals?
Siarlys,
First of all, comparing Malik Shabazz to malkin, Hannity with Bin Laden and Bush is ridiculous. During the malkin-Shabazz interview, he referred to those "white folks you love so much" (to Malkin). She told him off in response.
Overt Act, Like it or not, the law states that once the agreement is made and one person committs an overt act, the offense is complete. Co-conspirators don't have to know each other -which is very common in large drug operations. If you don't like that portion, lobby to have it changed.
Yes, there is no technical requirement for an overt act under Title 21 (US Drug Law) as there was in the original general conspiracy law. yet, it would be futile to try and get a US Attorney to take such a case. In DEA cases, 99% of the time, the actual substitative drug offense had occurred in the past, but may or may not have been seized at the time. Like a murder crime, it can still be reconstructed and if proven prosecuted. That's where conspiracy comes in.
Finally, you say something about kingpins making deals to convict their underlings. When you have a large organization and you are trying to "flip" someone, that has to be done with care. The objective is to give up a a
little fish to get the bigger fish-not the other way around. Yet, often the ideal person to flip is one who is at at least midlevel because they know more.
To use an analogy, I would never make a deal with a Hitler to testify against a Himmler for a break. I am not saying that police sometimes make deals with the wrong person, but I sure tried to exercise care in that area.
To summarize, I really believe the conspiracy law has been used responsibly. Surely you will be able to dig up a couple of exceptions, but they will be just that-rare exceptions.
Rare? The exceptions are legion. I'll take for granted that you would never do such a thing. I'll try to get some names together, but I need to rewatch some old video tapes to compile them.
Prosecutors are clueless, and panting for convictions, whatever they have to do to get them. Drug dealers can get a lenient sentence for claiming that a customer's innocent niece knew what her aunt's errand was. Drug dealers KNOW the way to get off cheap is to be ready to turn their small fry. I believe Justice Rehnquist described this phenomenon as an example of the law of unintended consequences.
Malik talked about you white people and Malkin told him off? Yeah, that's what they all get paid to do. I would have told him "Ain't nobody white except lepers and albinos -- II Kings 5:27." I would also have noted that he is part European, I am part Africa, and we are just about all part Native American. Then I would quote some James Baldwin.
Please, these characters deserve ridicule, not hysteria and fear.
Do I sound hysterical?
Ridicule? You obviously didn't read Shabazz's celebrity endorsement post.
Post a Comment