Philadelphia injustice: Investigate Holder
Attorney General Eric Holder has renewed rattling his saber about investigating the Bush administration's torture policy. Whether that's a trial balloon, as even some Democrats suggest, is not clear. But in any event, it's actually Mr. Holder who should be the subject of an investigation.
In a stunning move, Holder's Justice Department decided not to pursue the most serious charges against members of the New Black Panther Party for Self-Defense. They were accused of intimidating voters at a Philadelphia polling place on Nov. 4, 2008.
A Justice spokeswoman insists the facts did not back up all but one of the charges. But a video does.
It shows two Black Panthers "standing 10 to 15 feet from the polling station. The two men are seen standing shoulder to shoulder, dressed in black military-style uniforms, black berets and combat boots," reminds reporter Molly K. Hooper, writing in The Hill newspaper.
One of the men "tapped and pointed his nightstick in his hands at individuals," she recounted. Blind justice has new meaning.
Holder hasn't been responding to key House Republicans' calls for answers. But there is talk of hearings on the matter before John Conyers' House Judiciary Committee.
If Mr. Conyers' reneging on holding hearings into the ACORN scandal is any indication, however, there will be no hearings on the Panthers' shenanigans. And justice will be disserved. Again.
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments â either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.