I remember back in 2000, before I knew anything about politics, I was working at a residential treatment facility for adjudicated youth. One morning I arrived at work and as the boys were getting ready to start the day, I picked up the paper and read the headline “Suicide Bombers Attack USS Cole.”
Seventeen of my shipmates were killed by some low life terrorists on a suicide boats.
I read the article thinking about how many ports I had entered in the Middle East. I read it thinking about what these men were focused on. Liberty.
I had been out of the Navy for a little over 5 years, but I knew how it felt to pull into a port for some time off.
I wanted justice. Bill Clinton did nothing.
Nothing.
When Bush entered office, it wasn’t long before America was in a world war with Islamic radicalism. Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, the man behind the attack was captured and the CIA took it from there.
Then came Obama.
I still want justice for the sailors killed on the Cole.
The Obama administration has shelved the planned prosecution of Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, the alleged coordinator of the Oct. 2000 suicide attack on the USS Cole in Yemen, according to a court filing.
The decision at least temporarily scuttles what was supposed to be the signature trial of a major al-Qaeda figure under a reformed system of military commissions. And it comes practically on the eve of the 10th anniversary of the attack, which killed 17 sailors and wounded dozens when a boat packed with explosives ripped a hole in the side of the warship in the port of Aden.
In a filing this week in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, the Justice Department said that “no charges are either pending or contemplated with respect to al-Nashiri in the near future.”
Why not?
“It’s politics at this point,” said one military official who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss policy. He said he thinks the administration does not want to proceed against a high-value detainee without some prospect of civilian trials for other major figures at Guantanamo Bay.
At risk of writing something that I’ll regret, I’ll just stop writing now.
Earlier in his career, West also served under the Mistress of FAIL — Jamie Gorelick — as well as the impressive Janet Reno.
One would think that the actions of the Justice Department alone would give voters reason to think twice about voting for Obama in 2012, but the sad thing is, most of this will be forgotten by the masses in two years.
For the record, after over 2.2 million votes, 95% of respondents still support the Arizona law…on MSNBC.
Remember when the New Black Panther Party sent thugs to intimidate people at a Philadelphia polling place? Then they failed to show up, resulting in an automatic loss of their case, only to have the Obama/Holder Justice Department drop the charges for no reason?
I would say that’s voter intimidation. So did the Justice Department. At least under Bush it did. John Fund has the rest of the story:
In the first week of January, the Justice Department filed a civil lawsuit against the New Black Panther Party and three of its members, saying they violated the 1965 Voting Rights Act by scaring voters with the weapon, uniforms and racial slurs. In March, Mr. Bull submitted an affidavit at Justice’s request to support its lawsuit.
When none of the defendants filed any response to the complaint or appeared in federal district court in Philadelphia to answer the suit, it appeared almost certain Justice would have prevailed by default. Instead, the department in May suddenly allowed the party and two of the three defendants to walk away. Against the third defendant, Minister King Samir Shabazz, it sought only an injunction barring him from displaying a weapon within 100 feet of a Philadelphia polling place for the next three years—action that’s already illegal under existing law.
So, why did they just let it go? No one really knows.
J. Christian Adams, now an attorney in Virginia and a conservative blogger, says he and the other Justice Department lawyers working on the case were ordered to dismiss it.
“I mean we were told, ‘Drop the charges against the New Black Panther Party,’” Adams told Fox News, adding that political appointees Loretta King, acting head of the civil rights division, and Steve Rosenbaum, an attorney with the division since 2003, ordered the dismissal.
…
The Justice Department has defended its move to drop the case, saying it obtained an injunction against one member to keep him away from polling stations while dismissing charges against the others “based on a careful assessment of the facts and the law.”
But Adams told Fox News that politics and race was at play in the dismissal.
“There is a pervasive hostility within the civil rights division at the Justice Department toward these sorts of cases,” Adams told Fox News’ Megyn Kelly.
Adams says the dismissal is a symptom of the Obama administration’s reverse racism and that the Justice Department will not pursue voting rights cases against white victims.
“In voting, that will be the case over the next few years, there’s no doubt about it,” he said.
I’ve always hated that term, “reverse-racism.” It’s either racism or it’s not.
Here’s the interview Adams had with Megyn Kelly. He states he was told the case was dropped because, “Well, you know the Department has said that the facts and the law don’t support going forward on the case.”
Um, they had already won the case by default. What exactly did they have to lose? There was no reason to drop the case other than race. If there was, please explain it to me, because I’d really like to know.
During the 2008 election, a couple of members from the New Black Panther Party, not to be confused with the old Black Panther Party, who were a bunch of thugs masquerading as Marxists radicals, sat outside a polling station and tried their best to scare the Hell out of the voters.
It’s pretty open and shut. But here’s what happened:
The Department of Justice filed suit, the New Black Panther Party did not deny the charges, the court entered a default judgment and department lawyers were preparing a list of sanctions. Instead, lawyers at the Civil Rights Division were ordered to drop the lawsuit against the party and all but one defendant (who got away with an injunction that would not prevent him from repeating the same violation in the future). This was among the first indications that Eric Holder would use the Department of Justice in a biased way (here are some others).
What gives? There is no reason whatsoever for the Justice Department to do what it did. None.
So why did it do it? That’s what people have been trying to figure out, and Rep. Frank Wolf wants to know why the Justice Department Inspector General Glenn A. Fine is sitting on his hands. Wolf fired off a letter asking why Fine was doing nothing.
In response to a Republican lawmaker who requested a probe into dismissed complaints against the New Black Panther Party, the Justice Department’s Inspector General said he has been unable to investigate because he lacks the authority.
Justice Department Inspector General Glenn A. Fine wrote in a four-page letter to Rep. Frank Wolf of Virginia that Congress stripped him of the power to investigate all alleged wrongdoings within his department.
Congress stripped an IG of the power to investigate? What else does an IG do?
The Office of the Inspector General (OIG) conducts independent investigations, audits, inspections, and special reviews of United States Department of Justice personnel and programs to detect and deter waste, fraud, abuse, and misconduct, and to promote integrity, economy, efficiency, and effectiveness in Department of Justice operations.
Mr. Fine said in the letter, a copy of which was obtained by The Washington Times, that he understood Mr. Wolf’s desire to have his office review the matter “because of our independence.”
But while Mr. Fine had advocated expanding his jurisdiction to allow him to investigate all suspected wrongdoing within the department, Congress had not seen fit to do so.
“Unfortunately, unlike all other OIGs which have unlimited jurisdiction to investigate all allegations of waste, fraud or abuse within their agencies, the Department of Justice OIG does not,” he wrote. “For several years, I have expressed my position that Congress should change this jurisdiction.
My first question is what Congress did this? Followed closely by, why?
The order giving jurisdiction to investigate the actions of attorneys in the exercise of their legal authority – up to and including the attorney general – was first issued by Attorney General Janet Reno during the Clinton administration. The order was reissued by Attorney General John Ashcroft during President George W. Bush’s administration.
Because the order was later codified by Congress, it would require congressional action to change.
All 93 United States Attorneys knew they would be asked to step down, since all are Republican holdovers, and 16 have resigned so far. But the process generally takes much longer and had usually been carried out without the involvement of the Attorney General. Battles of the Past
Ms. Reno is under pressure to assert her control over appointments at the Justice Department.
At the time, Jay Stephens, then U.S. Attorney in the District of Columbia, was investigating then Ways and Means Chairman Dan Rostenkowski, and was “within 30 days” of making a decision on an indictment. Mr. Rostenkowski, who was shepherding the Clinton’s economic program through Congress, eventually went to jail on mail fraud charges and was later pardoned by Mr. Clinton.
Also at the time, allegations concerning some of the Clintons’ Whitewater dealings were coming to a head. By dismissing all 93 U.S. Attorneys at once, the Clintons conveniently cleared the decks to appoint “Friend of Bill” Paula Casey as the U.S. Attorney for Little Rock. Ms. Casey never did bring any big Whitewater indictments, and she rejected information from another FOB, David Hale, on the business practices of the Arkansas elite including Mr. Clinton.
Seems interesting that he would then restrict Inspector Generals from investigating the lawyers he appointed.
Fine said in 2008, he told Congress he needed more oversight power. Congress ignored him. So we get where we are today, with thugs bearing weapons can intimidate voters and the candidate they supported does nothing to punish it, or discourage it.
Back in November, a couple of New Black Panther Party members got all gussied up, grabbed their nightsticks and went out to a polling place in Philadelphia. While they were there, they allegedly tried to intimidate the voters and witnessed quoted them as saying, “You are about to be ruled by the black man, cracker!”
Here’s video of the two, including video of the billy club:
I would say that’s voter intimidation. So did the Justice Department. At least under Bush it did. John Fund has the rest of the story:
In the first week of January, the Justice Department filed a civil lawsuit against the New Black Panther Party and three of its members, saying they violated the 1965 Voting Rights Act by scaring voters with the weapon, uniforms and racial slurs. In March, Mr. Bull submitted an affidavit at Justice’s request to support its lawsuit.
When none of the defendants filed any response to the complaint or appeared in federal district court in Philadelphia to answer the suit, it appeared almost certain Justice would have prevailed by default. Instead, the department in May suddenly allowed the party and two of the three defendants to walk away. Against the third defendant, Minister King Samir Shabazz, it sought only an injunction barring him from displaying a weapon within 100 feet of a Philadelphia polling place for the next three years—action that’s already illegal under existing law.
So, why did they just let it go? No one really knows. But there is still action being taken:
The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights voted on Aug. 7 to send a letter to Justice expanding its own investigation and demanding more complete answers. “We believe the Department’s defense of its actions thus far undermines respect for rule of law,” its letter stated. It noted “the peculiar logic” of one Justice argument, that defendants’ failure to show up in court was a reason for dismissing the case: “Such an argument sends a perverse message to wrongdoers—that attempts at voter suppression will be tolerated so long as the persons who engage in them are careful not to appear in court to answer the government’s complaint.”
The commission noted that it could subpoena witnesses and documents if Justice doesn’t better explain its actions.
I would like to hear why this was just dropped, but I get the feeling the Justice Department’s response would be similar to me eating a small McDonald’s Sundae: it’s nice to have, but not really that satisfying.
