[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Sign-in]  [Mail]  [Setup]  [Help] 

Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

Keir Starmer reveals where his family is really from

(Real) 10 Non-Tax Policies In Trump's Megabill That Will Affect Americans

10 Non-Tax Policies In Trump's Megabill That Will Affect Americans

The Global Debanking Crisis Exposed! Banks Are Now Weapons Against Free Speech

Italian Government Warning of a Super Volcano

Tucker Carlson: Fox News & neo-cons are LYING about Trump and they’re keeping us in endless wars.

Tariff Windfall Drives Surprise $27 Billion US Budget Surplus In June

Tucker Carlson Reveals Who He Thinks Funded Jeffrey Epstein's Crimes

Russia's Dark Future

A Missile Shield for America - A Trillion Dollar Fantasy?

Kentucky School Board Chairman Resigns After Calling for People to ‘Shoot Republicans’

These Are 2025's 'Most Livable' Cities

Nicotine and Fish

Genocide Summer Camp, And Other Notes From The Edge Of The Narrative Matrix

This Can Create Endless Green Energy WITHOUT Electricity

Geoengineering: Who’s Behind It and How We Stop It

Pam Bondi Ordered Prosecution of Dr. Kirk Moore After Refusing to Dismiss Case

California woman bombarded with Amazon packages for over a year

CVS ordered to pay $949 MILLION in Medicaid fraud case.

Starmer has signed up to the UNs agreement to raise taxes in the UK

Magic mushrooms may hold the secret to longevity: Psilocybin extends lifespan by 57% in groundbreaking study

Cops favorite AI tool automatically deletes evidence of when AI was used

Leftist Anti ICE Extremist OPENS FIRE On Cops, $50,000 REWARD For Shooter

With great power comes no accountability.

Auto loan debt hits $1.63T. 20% of buyers now pay $1,000+ monthly. Texas delinquency hits 7.92%.

Quotable Quotes from the Chosenites

Tokara Islands NOW crashing into the Ocean ! Mysterious Swarm continues with OVER 1700 Quakes !

Why Austria Is Suddenly Declaring War on Immigration

Rep. Greene Wants To Remove $500 Million in Military Aid for Nuclear-Armed Israel From NDAA

Netanyahu Lays Groundwork for Additional Strikes on Iran: 'We Didn't Deal With The Enriched Uranium'


Editorial
See other Editorial Articles

Title: Reverend Jeremiah Wright: Anti-American Or A Man Speaking Truth To Power
Source: Huffington Post
URL Source: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lecia ... d-jeremiah-wright_b_91848.html
Published: Mar 17, 2008
Author: Lecia Shorter
Post Date: 2008-03-17 12:19:30 by Brian S
Keywords: None
Views: 1495
Comments: 92

There has been quite a furry over the past week concerning some admittedly controversial statements made by Senator Obama's pastor, Reverend Jeremiah Wright. Yet if we look at Rev. Wright's statements in full context, they are nothing more than a man speaking truth to power. Rather than acknowledge the truth about the dark past of America, and in some instances the present, we are quick to charge anyone who removes the veil of our history as being racist and/or anti-American.

African American religious leaders have historically combined sociology, theology and politics. In some instances, it has been done to inspire change, and in other instances, to inspire awareness. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. is a prime example. Yet he was considered an agent of change and is celebrated for his courage and involvement in the Civil Rights movement through non-violent means. Why now is Rev. Wright viewed differently and even vilified? Is it because Dr. King was more eloquent in his speech than Rev. Wright. No! The answer can only lie in the fact that Rev. Wright is the pastor of an African American presidential hopeful who has seemingly wooed white America by running a campaign that has made every effort to transcend racial divisiveness. In other words, if Senator Obama is removed from the equation, how interested is America in the veracity or inflammatory nature of the comments made by Rev. Wright?

The comments of Rev. Wright deserve a closer analysis in order to determine whether they are in fact racist and anti-American, or, is the media engaging in nothing more than sensationalism in an effort to diminish Senator Obama's cross cultural appeal.

One of the primary comments criticized by the media is that Senator Obama knows what it means to be a black man in an America controlled by rich, white people. Does the malfeasance lie in the fact that Senator Obama grew up as a black man in America or that America is controlled by rich, white people? Certainly it cannot be the former. It is irrefutable that George W. Bush and Dick Cheney are rich, white men in control of economic, social and political policy in America. The question then becomes, is it racist or anti-American to say that Ameica is controlled by rich, white people or is this a truth spoken to power?

Another comment which is more shocking than anything else is Rev. Wright's announcement that Senator Clinton can never know what it means to be a black man in America, and, she has never been called the "n" word. Yet, whether we are speaking of Hillary Clinton or any other white person of privilege in this nation, the fact remains they can never know what it has meant, or what it means, to be a black man in America. Neither can they know how deeply hurtful it is to be called the "n" word or worse yet to be treated as a member of the "n" class. Unfortunately, as progressive as we would like to consider ourselves, racism is alive and well in our society. We have made strives but we still have a long road ahead.

Interestingly, although Bill Clinton has been spoken of as the first black president of the United States, Rev. Wright said Bill Clinton did to black people what he did to Monica Lewinski, "he was riding dirty." In other words, Bill Clinton had an intimate relationship with a mesmerized young woman with no intention of treating her with dignity or respect. The impact of the three strikes laws on the African American community and funding of prisons to the detriment of education and healthcare is a prime example.

A close look at any state budget in this country will reveal that the majority of state resources are directed toward prisons to the detriment of education and other necessary state programs. Many states are experiencing critical budget crisis but they will not compromise where the prison systems are concerned. In the past five years alone, states have faced a combined $200 billion in budget gaps. Meanwhile, prisons continue to consume a larger portion of the state budget pie--$35 billion annually in 1999, up from $17 billion in 1990--rendering them a bigger target for budget cutters. From 1985 to 2000, prison budgets grew at six times the rate of higher education budgets. If imprisoned, the Black man provides jobs and economic opportunities for the white underclass. The three strikes law and mandatory sentencing is a good way of ensuring the prison system stays in business and correctional officers employed.

Another example is Bill Clinton's welfare reform which eliminated Aid to Families With Dependent Children and forced women into low paying jobs with no consideration for child care. Thus, a new category of the working poor.

Finally, Rev. Wright spoke of the lies of the American government. According to Rev. Wright, the American government lied about the connection of Al Qaeda to Saddam Hussein, the connection of 9/11 to Operation Iraqi Freedom, and weapons of mass destruction. Ironically, the goal of the Democratic Party is to unseat the current administration because of these very lies and the detriment they have caused to our economy and standing in the world. The remaining Bush supporters are among the rare few who choose to think otherwise. They (Sean Hannity) are also believed to be the originators of this controversy.

Once again, the American public is being duped. Unfortunately, Senator Obama is receiving the brunt of it all. He is now being charged as being associated with a racist and anti-American minister by white Americans and lacking allegiance by African American ministers. There has been no focus on John McCain's spiritual advisors or the Reverend Billy Graham who was heard on tape speaking against the Jewish people to former president Richard Nixon. Hopefully, Americans will look beyond the rhetoric and analyze Senator Obama's capacity to be president upon his record and ideological perspectives about the issues that really matter to this country. Subscribe to *Obama 2008*

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 82.

#1. To: Brian S (#0)

One of the primary comments criticized by the media is that Senator Obama knows what it means to be a black man in an America controlled by rich, white people.

Does anyone care how it feels as a lowest class white person living in an America controlled by rich white people????

Of course not.

Cynicom  posted on  2008-03-17   12:25:16 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#2. To: Cynicom (#1)

Exactly.

The Reverend's problem is that while he has a good rant which does included truth in it, he fails to offer lessons or solutions.

In that, he is a very bad preacher and pastor. He gets half the job done and neglects the other half so what you end up with is hate and discontent without a direction to channel it in.

A good pastor uses truth and current events as the base layer of a sermon to build up into the "and here is how you deal with it/lessons to learn/how to make it not happen again/how the Bible applies in the modern age" conclusion that gives the flock the tools and knowledge needed to handle what is outlined in the base (first) part of the sermon.

Unfortunately, the Reverend skips that last part.

mirage  posted on  2008-03-17   12:45:41 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#4. To: mirage (#2)

he fails to offer lessons or solutions.

That is incorrect.

Chicago's Trinity UCC is 'great gift to wider church family'

Located in the heart of Chicago's impoverished Southside, Trinity UCC's vast array of ministries include career development and college placement, tutorial and computer services, health care and support groups, domestic violence programs, pastoral care and counseling, bereavement services, drug and alcohol recovery, prison ministry, financial counseling and credit union, housing and economic development, dozens of choral, instrumental and dance groups, and diverse programming for all ages, including youth and senior citizens.

Before making inflammatory statements you might want to check the facts.

www.ucc.org/news/chicagos-trinity-ucc-is.html

robin  posted on  2008-03-17   13:15:28 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#7. To: robin (#4)

Before making inflammatory statements you might want to check the facts.

My facts are checked. What solution does the Reverend offer to stopping the war?

None.

mirage  posted on  2008-03-17   13:21:11 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#8. To: mirage (#7)

The Reverend's problem is that while he has a good rant which does included truth in it, he fails to offer lessons or solutions.

In that, he is a very bad preacher and pastor. He gets half the job done and neglects the other half so what you end up with is hate and discontent without a direction to channel it in.

Now you are being rather dishonest, there is nothing in your comments about his opinion about the Iraq war.

I gave you evidence of how his church has helped the community, so now you are trying to say he has done nothing to teach his church about the Iraq war.

Well you are wrong again.

War on Iraq IQ Test
REV. JEREMIAH WRIGHT / Trinity Pastor's Page 23feb03

Take the War on Iraq IQ Test
Do you know enough to justify going to war with Iraq?

Barack Obama's pastor Rev. Dr. Jeremiah Wright, Jr., pastor of Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago, gave this list of 53 questions to his congregation Sunday, February 23, 2003.

"Members of Trinity are asked to think about these things and be prayerful as we sift through the 'hype' being poured on by the George Bush-controlled media," Re. Wright wrote.

Here he is blaming the Bush regime for 9/11.

Pastor Reverend Jeremiah Wright Blames the u.s. for the Terrorist attacks on 9/11/2001

robin  posted on  2008-03-17   13:34:21 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#10. To: robin (#8)

A good sermon has the following parts to it:

Outline the problem you wish to address
Give Scriptural examples
Explain why this is a problem
Offer solutions for people to incorporate into their lives
Sets people on the path to incorporate this into their lives
Gives them the tools they need to bring forth these solutions into the world

A rant does some of this but fails to offer the latter bits. I've seen enough of these videos over the weekend that this particular fellow fails on the last bits.

Blaming Bush for 9/11 is one part of a sermon. Where is the rest?

Sorry, you can't defend a lot of what he's saying. "Blame whitey" is a non-starter. You are defending "United States of AmeriKKKa" and "Blame all white people for all your ills" with your comments. Since you defend this stuff, you give it credit for truth and are defending an unfounded and ridiculous assertion. If you're white, then you tar yourself by defending the man's comments.

The Reverend does not distinguish between people in many of his rants.

You cannot seriously be trying to defend that.

If you're defending his right to speak, that's one thing. If you want to call me a Klan member, then you just bought an enemy.

Do you understand the difference and that you're being invited to back off before you get in so far over your head you can't get out?

mirage  posted on  2008-03-17   13:49:59 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#11. To: mirage (#10) (Edited)

How is blaming the Bush regime for 9/11, "blame whitey"?

I guess you missed this part of my post.

War on Iraq IQ Test
REV. JEREMIAH WRIGHT / Trinity Pastor's Page 23feb03

Take the War on Iraq IQ Test
Do you know enough to justify going to war with Iraq?

robin  posted on  2008-03-17   13:58:34 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#14. To: robin (#11)

"Blame Whitey" is a staple of the Reverend's rants. You'll find that peppered throughout his commentary.

Again, are you defending his "blame whitey" comments as well as the others or are you defending his right to speak his mind?

There is a difference, you know.

I'm trying to get you to check the facts here if you can't tell. I did my homework, now its time for you to do a little more of your own. Once you're done, you're likely going to want to drop this guy as a cause to defend.

mirage  posted on  2008-03-17   14:17:24 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#16. To: mirage (#14)

So far your homework earns a D-.

I gave links to show you how incorrect your previous statements were. You of course, did not acknowledge any of it.

Have you ever heard of social injustice? It is not blame whitey, it is blame racism in the system.

I posted this to you on the other thread:

But recent research has kept the argument alive. A 2005 study by the Justice Department found that while Hispanic, black and white drivers were stopped by the police about as often, Hispanic drivers or their vehicles were searched 11.4 percent of the time and blacks 10.2 percent of the time, compared with 3.5 percent for white drivers. Data collected from state courts by the Justice Department also shows that a higher percentage of black felons than white felons receive prison sentences for nearly all offenses, and also that blacks receive longer maximum sentences for most offenses.

www.nytimes.com/2007/10/0...w&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

Even Dr. Paul has commented on this sort of injustice.

robin  posted on  2008-03-17   14:21:17 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#17. To: robin (#16)

Have you ever heard of social injustice? It is not blame whitey, it is blame racism in the system.

"Social Injustice" for the most part is a canard used by those who want someone else to give them a handout. It has no place in Christian Theology until someone finds a passage in the Bible that says "The rules apply to everyone EXCEPT government-sponsored victim groups."

If you want to blame racism in the system, are you referring to Affirmative Action, which is Government-Sponsored Racism in FAVOR of so-called "disadvantaged minorities"? If so, you label yourself as a racist, not that there is anything wrong with that, but wear the label proudly if you choose to go that route. Get a button that says "Throw Whitey to the back of the bus." See how well that works.

Socioeconomics and culture are the really big players; skin color is less so a player these days. Skin color is actually a minority of issues since we've been training police properly. It just gets the headlines because the news media loves a feeding frenzy and can't get their minds out of the 1960s and understand that the country has evolved.

Now...are you saying that people of color should be allowed to get away with things that others are not for "social justice" purposes? Would that not be racist on its face and unjust to other groups not so highly favored by your "social justice" theory? Or do you believe the law should apply equally to all people at all times?

Studies show that Hispanics tend to drive drunk more often than anyone else. Its a cultural thing. Should we limit the number of DUI arrests on Hispanics because Asians don't tend to drive drunk or should we set quotas where if you arrest a hundred Hispanics, you have to arrest a hundred Asians? Would that be fair? Should we go to quota systems and use Affirmative Action in murder trials? We let the killer go because we hit the quota?

I'm having problems trying to keep up with this stuff because it is unequal and makes little to no sense. Either we do something or we don't. Its binary. It is "yes" or it is "no." This half-assed stuff makes a mockery of equal protection under the law and bring Animal Farm two steps closer to reality.

The way to end racism is to end racism. Period.

The way to perpetuate it is to do what we have been doing and let canards like "social justice" where people are granted special favors run wild. You cannot make up for the ills of 500 years ago today. Those people are gone forever. What you can do is build a better tomorrow but that is impossible until people let go of historical grievances and decide to move forward into the future rather than being mired in the past.

mirage  posted on  2008-03-17   14:51:05 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#19. To: mirage (#17)

But recent research has kept the argument alive. A 2005 study by the Justice Department found that while Hispanic, black and white drivers were stopped by the police about as often, Hispanic drivers or their vehicles were searched 11.4 percent of the time and blacks 10.2 percent of the time, compared with 3.5 percent for white drivers. Data collected from state courts by the Justice Department also shows that a higher percentage of black felons than white felons receive prison sentences for nearly all offenses, and also that blacks receive longer maximum sentences for most offenses.

www.nytimes.com/2007/10/0...w&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

Even Dr. Paul has commented on this sort of injustice.

What part of this study do you not understand? It is well known and has been well documented in more than one study.

robin  posted on  2008-03-17   15:02:41 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#21. To: robin (#19)

What part of this study do you not understand?

I'm going to explain something to you here.

There is a difference between "equal opportunity" and "equal outcome" and these studies and you don't understand that difference.

Equal Opportunity means just that; everyone has the same chance at things. Equal Outcome is what you're talking about with "social justice" - these studies complain that "its unequal!" and are therefore calling for equal outcome.

But people are not equal. Cultures are not equal. Societies are not equal. True equality can never be achieved; all that can be achieved is equal OPPORTUNITY because people are different. They have different gifts, different sizes, and different abilities.

If I were to tell you that Hispanics drive drunk more than Asians, would you not expect a higher percentage of Hispanics to be convicted of a DUI? If you don't say "Why, if more Hispanics drive drunk, I'd expect more DUI stops on Hispanics" then you need to sit down and ask yourself why you don't expect more DUI stops on Hispanics if they have a greater tendency to drive drunk.

Think about it for a minute. If a group has a higher tendency to do something, then the police are going to stop more of them and less of someone else, right? Does that not make sense? It does to most people.

This is one of those "Duh" moments. Genetically, American Indians are alcoholics. They didn't evolve the ability to deal with alcohol and they didn't make it themselves. Would you not expect them to have problems with it once they were introduced to it? Thinking people would. Thinking people know that not everyone is the same.

Your study does NOT take differences among groups into account. It doesn't take into account that people and cultures are different. Behind the scenes, it tries to say "But we're all the same!" -- WE ARE NOT ALL THE SAME.

That is where your argument fails. People are different. Cultures are different. Equal Outcome is a non-starter. It simply does not work.

"Social Justice" demands equal outcome. It doesn't work because people are not all the same. It would only work if all people had the same background, the same education, the same genes, the same upbringing, etc.

It just doesn't work. Regardless of what Dr. Paul says, he misses the fact that Equal Outcome DOES NOT WORK. It never has and it never will until and unless all people are identical - the same - no variations between them.

That is why the argument fails.

mirage  posted on  2008-03-17   15:18:59 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#22. To: mirage (#21)

Therefore don't even bother to try to remove social injustice? That's absurd and just plain wrong.

robin  posted on  2008-03-17   15:25:50 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#25. To: robin (#22)

Therefore don't even bother to try to remove social injustice? That's absurd and just plain wrong.

It can't be done. Let me throw a situation out at you.

There are two people. One has an IQ of 60 and didn't finish grade school. The other has an IQ of 250 with a triple-PhD in physics, math, and mechanical engineering.

Which one becomes a rocket scientist?

"Social Justice" says that since there aren't too many low-IQ rocket scientists, you give the job to the guy with the IQ of 60 whether or not he can handle it.

What is more absurd? Recognizing that everyone has different talents or trying to make someone with an IQ of 60 a rocket scientist?

Do you start to see the problems with "equal outcome" which is what "social justice" mandates?

mirage  posted on  2008-03-17   15:36:55 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#27. To: mirage (#25)

This isn't about a career choice, this is about injustice in the judicial system.

robin  posted on  2008-03-17   15:42:22 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#39. To: robin (#27)

This isn't about a career choice, this is about injustice in the judicial system.

There is no difference in the argument.

Hispanics drive drunk in greater numbers than Asians. This is a well-documented fact.

Your argument is that we should not be arresting "as many" Hispanics even if they drive drunk in greater numbers.

Your argument calls for a quota system. We get to a certain number of criminals from an ethnic group and we stop arresting them.

That is an absurd argument and is just as absurd as expecting a 60 IQ person to be able to be a rocket scientist.

Its less about race and more about culture and attitude.

Think about this one.

T-Bone is black and lives in the inner city. He thinks going to school is 'white' so he skips class and eventually drops out. He then goes off and robs a liquor store because he can't get a job due to his lack of ability to do basic math, speak coherent English, and because he didn't finish high school.

T-Bone made a choice early on that led him down the path to committing armed robbery.

Should T-Bone go to jail or not? Did he not make his own choices that led to his ending up in a jail cell?

"Social Justice" says its not his fault. After all, T-Bone is black and its just not fair that he dropped out of school and ended up putting a gun in someone's face.

You say that T-Bone is not responsible for his own actions and call for "social justice" - why? He set himself up to fail. He made a decision after setting himself up to fail to go and rob the store.

Tell me why T-Bone should not be held accountable for his own actions. Did he not do it all himself? Did he not make his own choices in this? If not, who made the choices for him and then forced him to pull a gun on a clerk in a liquor store?

mirage  posted on  2008-03-17   19:02:57 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#40. To: mirage (#39) (Edited)

This has everything to do with racism in the criminal justice system. I have now posted this about 4 times on this thread. You refuse to read or acknowledge this.

Data collected from state courts by the Justice Department also shows that a higher percentage of black felons than white felons receive prison sentences for nearly all offenses, and also that blacks receive longer maximum sentences for most offenses.

www.nytimes.com/2007/10/0...w&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

robin  posted on  2008-03-17   19:08:26 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#41. To: robin (#40)

This has everything to do with racism in the criminal justice system. I have now posted this about 4 times on this thread. You refuse to read or acknowledge this.

I read it and rejected it. I've already told you that.

I have also told you that he problem is that these studies lump people in together and assume they are all the same.

People are not the same. Crimes are not the same. They need to be looked at on a case-by-case basis.

Let's take your quote and I'll show you what is wrong with it and why the generalization fails:

Data collected from state courts by the Justice Department also shows that a higher percentage of black felons than white felons receive prison sentences for nearly all offenses, and also that blacks receive longer maximum sentences for most offenses.

Okay, so let's take a murder. Defendant 'A' simply shoots the victim in the head and he dies. Defendant 'B' tortures the victim for three days, shoots the victim a dozen times, then sodomizes the body twice after the victim died as well as eating part of it.

Which one should get the longer sentence or should they get the same sentence because, after all, "its just murder."

Both are 'murder' and show up in the statistics as 'murder' - but Defendant 'B' gets a much longer sentence because the jury is absolutely horrified at what he did. Defendant 'B' stood up on the stand and described the stew he made out of the victim, suggesting that more salt was needed.

Where is that in the 'study'?

Now, tell me why Defendant 'B' should not get a longer sentence than Defendant 'A'.

mirage  posted on  2008-03-17   19:17:58 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#45. To: mirage, robin (#41)

tell me why Defendant 'B' should not get a longer sentence than Defendant 'A'.

Each has but one life to serve.

nolu_chan  posted on  2008-03-17   19:53:04 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#47. To: nolu_chan, mirage (#45)

I have more faith in the details of these studies than mirage has. mirage just assumes they are faulty, I do not.

Obviously if someone has committed more than one crime in the process of another, that will be matched with a similar on the other side of the color divide.

But mirage is desperate to make a very weak case, why I can only speculate.

Anyone who does a little research will find there are numerous studies, with the details to insure accuracy.

From another study....

The results of two new studies which underscore the continuing injustice of racism in the application of the death penalty are being released through this report. The first study documents the infectious presence of racism in the death penalty, and demonstrates that this problem has not slackened with time, nor is it restricted to a single region of the country. The other study identifies one of the potential causes for this continuing crisis: those who are making the critical death penalty decisions in this country are almost exclusively white.

From the days of slavery in which black people were considered property, through the years of lynchings and Jim Crow laws, capital punishment has always been deeply affected by race. Unfortunately, the days of racial bias in the death penalty are not a remnant of the past.

And here's another....

Crimes and Punishment: Blacks in the Army's Criminal Justice System

Naomi Verdugo44;

Are Blacks discriminated against in U.S. Army courts-martial? This article reviews the literature and presents original research to address this question. Other topics examined include the overrepresentation of Blacks in the Army courts-martial and soldiers' perceptions of the fairness of the justice system. 1 examined all aggravated assault charges heard in Army courts-martial during a 6-year period and found several striking differences. White defendants are far more likely to have a pretrial agreement (i.e., plea bargain) than are Blacks (69% vs. 5 I%), and hence, Whites are more likely to plead guilty (87%) than are Blacks (72%). These same patterns are found when all courts-martial, regardless of offense, are analyzed for the same 6-year period. Once a defendant enters the Army courts-martial system, there is no statistical evidence of discrimination. If discrimination occurs in this process, it will occur where command- ers have greater discretion (e.g., for less serious offenses, prior to deciding on courts-martial). Suggestions for further research are offered.

robin  posted on  2008-03-17   20:05:38 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#82. To: robin, mirage (#47)

While crimes must undergo scrutiny individually to mete out justice fairly, statistical studies can show that punishments are meted out to one group disproportionately to such an extent that it becomes statistically impossible to rationalize away as impartial justice based upon individual circumstances. The interpretation of individual circumstances is found to favor one group to an extent that an inherent unfairness is apparent.

-----

In military courts-martial, almost everyone tried is convicted. With different spanks for different ranks, senior people are usually dealt with without trial.

A court-martial is not meant to be fair. It is part of the Executive system, not the Judicial system. The convening authority chooses to have the charges tried. A jury is provided by the convening authority. The military provides a military Jag Corps judge. The convening authority may even provide a military Jag Corps defense counsel. Upon conviction one may appeal... to the convening authority.

From 1997-2000, including all forms of courts-martial, the U.S. Navy achieved a 96.7% conviction rate. In some years, a branch of service achieved a perfect 100% conviction rate for General Courts-Martial.

The reason for the existence of the military courts is the furtherance of good order and discipline, not the promotion of fairness or justice. A a Summary Court, there is no automatic right to counsel.

Held:
1. There is no Sixth Amendment right to counsel in a summary court-martial, since that proceeding is not a "criminal prosecution" as that term is used in the Amendment. ...

2. Nor does the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment require that counsel be provided the accused in a summary court-martial proceeding. ...

We have only recently noted the difference between the diverse civilian community and the much more tightly regimented military community in Parker v. Levy, 417 U.S. 733, 749 (1974). We said there that the UCMJ "cannot be equated to a civilian criminal code. ...

MR. JUSTICE STEWART dissents, believing that the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment requires that a defendant be accorded the assistance of counsel in a summary court-martial proceeding.

MR. JUSTICE MARSHALL, with whom MR. JUSTICE BRENNAN joins, dissenting.

We only recently held that, absent a waiver, "no person may be imprisoned for any offense, whether classified as petty, misdemeanor, or felony, unless he was represented by counsel at his trial." Argersinger v. Hamlin, 407 U.S. 25, 37 (1972). Today the Court refuses to apply Argersinger's holding to defendants in summary court-martial proceedings. Assuming for purposes of its opinion that the Sixth Amendment applies to courts-martial in general, the Court holds that, because of their special characteristics, summary courts-martial in particular are simply not "criminal prosecutions" within the meaning of the Sixth Amendment, and that the right to counsel is therefore inapplicable to them. I dissent.

-- Middendorf v. Henry, 425 U.S. 25 (1976)
Decision of the court by Rehnquist, CJ.

Thus, we find a Summary Court-Martial determined by the Supreme Court to be a disciplinary proceeding, rather than a judicial proceeding, with no requirement for presence of qualified legal counsel. Had they ruled otherwise on the Constitutional right to counsel, many years worth of summary courts would have been overturned on Constitutional grounds.

The right to counsel continues at a Special or General Court-Martial.

nolu_chan  posted on  2008-03-17   23:09:13 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


Replies to Comment # 82.

        There are no replies to Comment # 82.


End Trace Mode for Comment # 82.

TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest


[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Sign-in]  [Mail]  [Setup]  [Help]