Ex-Justice Dept. Lawyer Says Whites' Rights Ignored

Comments (98)

Ex-Justice Dept Lawyer Says Whites' Rights Ignored

A former lawyer for the Justice Department claims that charges of voter intimidation against two New Black Panther Party members were dropped because the rights of white voters are often ignored and only minorities are protected by our nation's civil rights laws.

Former Justice Department attorney J. Christian Adams (pictured above) says the case, in which two New Black Panther Party members stood outside a polling place on election day in 2008 and hurled racial epitaphs, such as "white devil," proves an unwillingness to apply the laws equally.

The AP writes:

On Election Day 2008, King Samir Shabazz and Jerry Jackson dressed in black uniforms of the New Black Panther Party for Self-Defense, whose website recently made such statements as, "the white man has kept us deaf, dumb and blind, and used every `dirty trick' in the book to stand in the way of our freedom and independence." The men stationed themselves near the entrance to a polling place in a largely black neighborhood. Shabazz carried a nightstick. Their actions quickly came to the attention of police, who told Shabazz to leave but allowed Jackson, a certified poll watcher, to remain.

Shortly before President George W. Bush left office, the Justice Department filed a civil lawsuit against the two men, the New Black Panther Party and its leader, Malik Zulu Shabazz. The defendants never responded to the government's lawsuit, which had the same effect as a guilty plea. Before any penalties could be handed down - and after Obama appointed Eric Holder to run the Justice Department - charges were dropped against everyone but Samir Shabazz. The court prohibited him from displaying a weapon within 100 feet of any Philadelphia polling place through 2012.


The Justice Department has explained this decision by saying that Jackson was a certified poll watcher who did not carry any weapons, that the New Black Panther website denounced the actions in Philadelphia and that the group had no national plan to intimidate voters.


"To some, the civil rights laws are not meant to protect all Americans, they are meant to protect certain Americans," said Adams, who helped prosecute the Black Panther case. He is a conservative.

"There is a pervasive hostility within the civil rights division at the Justice Department toward these sorts of cases" where blacks are accused of discrimination," Adams added on Fox News.

First of all, the civil rights laws should apply to everyone. However, it's clear that minorities -- by an overwhelming margin-- are the most frequent victims of civil rights discrimination. It's like being a doctor and having one patient with cancer and another with a cold. I think most everyone agrees that patient with cancer should get more urgent attention than the patient with the cold.

That said, the Justice Department should pursue all viable civil rights cases. It just seems the department determined this wasn't a viable case. The same thing happened with the New York City shooting of Sean Bell, an unarmed black men. More than 50 shots were fired at Bell and his friends the day before his wedding. I didn't feel this outrage when the Justice Department declined to pursue civil rights charges regarding Bell's death.

The Bush administration was right to investigate what they saw as a possible civil rights violation; however, it's a little backwards that the Bush administration, which filed so few civil rights cases during its tenure, would ironically choose a reverse discrimination sort of case to pursue.

Under Attorney General Eric Holder, the Justice Department explained its decision to drop the charges. One of the men was a certified poll watcher who did not have weapons and new Black Panther Party officials denounced the actions of its members.

The Justice Department also determined that, unlike a lot of civil rights cases involving minorities, there was no national plan to intimidate voters. The cases that the Justice Department recently brought against mortgage lenders is a good example of a nationwide, far-reaching effort to violate individuals' civil rights.

Bringing attention to this one case to prove that the rights of Caucasians are not protected in this country is a bit of a stretch.


Of course, each situation should be judged on a case-by-case basis and the civil rights of all Americans should be protected.



Comments: (98)

Add a comment

Page 1 of 10

Add a Comment

Please keep your comments relevant to this blog entry. Email addresses are never displayed but they are required to confirm your comments. When you enter your name and email address, you'll be sent a link to confirm your comment, and a password. To leave another comment, just use that password."

Most Commented Articles

Daily Drama

The Best Clips From TV's Hottest Shows


More Daily Drama >>

Find a Message Board

Discover conversations on everyone from Barack to Beyonce. There are nearly 50 forums, so click on a category below and find the right one for you.