June 25, 2005

The Next Step on Anti-Lynching Bill

The next step on the anti-lynching resolution should be more than words, it should be back up by action in the Congress.

Talent wants federal unit to focus on civil rights killings
U.S. Sen. Jim Talent is calling for the creation of a Justice Department unit focused on unsolved civil rights era killings. [..]

Talent says both witnesses and suspects in such cases are aging. As they die, they take with them the last chance for justice.

"This would guarantee the attention necessary in these cold cases to learn the truth while the witnesses and the perpetrators are still around," Talent said. "And we would prosecute when possible."

Under Talent's plan, the Justice Department would coordinate with local and state authorities on old civil rights cases; an annual report to Congress would be made on the progress of investigations.

Talent hopes to introduce legislation creating the unit before the July 4 congressional recess.

"This isn't symbolic," Talent said. "This is the government trying to perform its law enforcement function."
I am leery about the motives behind Senator Talent call for a Justice Department unit focused on unsolved civil rights era killings, but Democrats in Congress should proposal something similar or support Senator Talent legislation.

This will put more heat on Senators who still can not support anti-lynching resolution. The Congress should be on the record if they support finding criminals and racist who committed terrorist acts against the American people.


At June 26, 2005 4:34 PM, Blogger Scott said...

hmm - didn't expect a response -

first, I was a little unclear - I didn't use "real conservatives" in connection with Republican political leaders -I was taking more about the normal people we all see on the street every day - people who are anti-choice (or voted for Bush for any other reason), but are repelled and disgusted by Karl Rove, Terri Schiavo, Tom DeLay, and everything else that's being done in their name. So it's my bad for not being clear in my post.

Second, am I a liberal? Don't know. I'm a partisan Democrat - since the first time I could vote (in 1976) I can count the times I've voted for a Republican on one hand - and those have been on a state or local level, when the person was an incumbent who had demonstrably done a good job. I'm actually more pragmatic than ideological. You and I probably agree on most issues, but differ on how to get there.

Third - with respect, I think your definition of "conservative" is the same as Karl Rove's definition of "liberal" - i.e. Karl Rove defines "liberal" with "everyone who doesn't agree with me" with "spawn of Satan." I think you're defining "conservative" the same way.

I think we'll get a lot further toward our goals - things like not invading other countries to win elections or show that our balls hang to our knees, not redistributing the wealth in this country to the rich get richer and the rest of just get old, not making second-class citizens out of gay people - if, instead of saying "if you call yourself a "real" conservative and you are disgusted[ed] at the GOP, then stop calling yourself a conservative, we say instead "if your disgusted at the GOP, then wake the * up and vote Democrat."

I just think we'll win more elections that way -

Like I say, I think was unclear in my first post, and I apologize.

At June 26, 2005 6:10 PM, Blogger Eloy said...

Thank you for your comments, Scott.


Post a Comment

<< Home