Panel Urges Federal Probe Following ‘Grave’ Testimony in Black Panther Case July 15, 2010
Posted by seeineye in : Politics , 1 comment so far
The commission probing allegations that the Justice Department wrongly abandoned a case against the New Black Panther Party has formally called for a federal investigation into claims that the department’s Civil Rights Division will not pursue black defendants.
In a letter sent Wednesday to Assistant Attorney General Thomas Perez, the chairman of the bipartisan commission said testimony last week from an ex-Justice official raised “grave questions” about whether the division is “color blind” in its enforcement of the law.
“This testimony raised serious concerns as to whether the Civil Rights Division’s enforcement policies are being pursued in a race-neutral fashion and further calls into question the department’s decision to change course in the New Black Panther Party litigation,” Chairman Gerald Reynolds wrote.
Former Justice attorney J. Christian Adams testified last week before the commission that his former employer not only abandoned the Black Panther voter intimidation case for racial reasons, but had instructed attorneys in the division to ignore cases that involve black defendants and white victims.
Perez told the panel in May to bring any such claims “to our attention” if there’s evidence — Reynolds wrote Wednesday that in light of the testimony, the Justice Department should follow up.
Reynolds also voiced concern about the Justice Department’s “intransigence” in providing witnesses to testify and urged the department to allow former voting section chief Christopher Coates to appear before the panel. Adams repeatedly said last week that Coates’ testimony would be critical to the investigation.
The probe stems from an incident on Election Day in 2008 in Philadelphia, where members of the New Black Panther Party were videotaped in front of a polling place dressed in military-style uniforms and allegedly hurling racial slurs while one brandished a night stick.
The Bush Justice Department brought the first case against three members of the group, accusing them in a civil complaint of violating the Voter Rights Act. The Obama administration initially pursued the case, winning a default judgment in federal court in April 2009 when the Black Panther members did not appear in court. But then the administration moved to dismiss the charges the following month after getting one of the New Black Panther members to agree to not carry a “deadly weapon” near a polling place until 2012.
Malik Zulu Shabazz, chairman of the party, told Fox News last week that the actions caught on video “were outside of organizational policy” and that the party does not “condone” the behavior. But he said the issue was being “overblown.”
The Justice Department said in a statement last week that the Civil Rights Division determined “the facts and the law did not support pursuing claims” against the two other defendants and denied Adams’ allegations.
Critics Question Why Obama Administration Doesn’t Crack Down on Sanctuary Cities July 15, 2010
Posted by seeineye in : Politics , add a comment
Now that the Obama administration is suing Arizona over its tough immigration law, some critics are asking why so-called sanctuary cities are getting a pass for ignoring federal immigration law.
There are more than 50 sanctuary cities in the U.S. Supporters of such policies say they want the local police to focus on solving crimes and leave the immigration work to the federal authorities.
“What sanctuary cities are saying is, we are not going to preempt the federal government. It’s the federal government’s responsibilities,” said Rep. Luis Gutierrez, D-Ill.
Sanctuary cities are not a new idea. They’ve been around for decades and no administration – Democrat of Republican – has really gone after them.
But the Obama administration is going after Arizona for its new law that permits officers to ask about a person’s immigration status during the course of other law enforcement duties, such as a traffic stops. Opponents say the law promotes racial profiling and is unconstitutional. But supporters deny those charges.
“The Arizona law is in compliance with federal law,” said Rosemary Jenks, director of government relations at Numbers USA. “The Justice Department should stay out of it. They should be encouraging Arizona to be enforcing the laws. Secondly, they should be enforcing federal immigration law, which means challenging cities and states that have sanctuary policies.”
The Justice Department sees it differently, saying Arizona is unconstitutionally interfering with the federal government’s role in immigration control.
“There is a big difference between a state or locality saying they are not going to use their resources to enforce a federal law, as so-called sanctuary cities have done, and a state passing its own immigration policy that actively interferes with federal law,” Justice spokeswoman Tracy Schmaler said.
But to those who support the Arizona law and oppose the idea of sanctuary cities, that seems like a cop-out.
“The administration has shown again and again it has no intention of enforcing federal immigration laws,” Jenks said.
