McCarthy – Civil Rights violations? Yes, on Zimmerman.

Editor’s Note – Civil rights violations on Trayvon Martin by Zimmerman? How about Zimmerman’s civil rights to a fair trial and ‘double jeopardy’? Will there be “triple jeopardy” a civil suit as well?

As each day goes by since the Zimmerman case ended in a ‘not guilty’ verdict, the rhetoric just rises and rises. Now its a civil rights case to so many who did not like the verdict. Therefore, they want another crack at Zimmerman – there must be a way to get that “white Hispanic” to pay for his sins – a theme based in emotion and zealotry. A theme many in the media continue to whip up as they employ words and phrases that are just not true yet raise the blood pressure of those who are ignorant of the law and act out of emotion.

As we pointed out yesterday, and as clear thinking jurists who know and understand the law point out, there never should have been a criminal case. The ‘Special Prosecutor’ appointed by Governor Rick Scott of Florida, Angela Corey, should have never been appointed in the first place because the legal system there was doing its job as well as any jurisdiction in the United States. Alan Dershowitz is openly calling for her disbarment.

Famed defense lawyer and Harvard law professor Alan M. Dershowitz is calling for a federal investigation into civil rights violations stemming from the George Zimmerman case — but he says the probe should focus on prosecutorial misconduct rather than on allegations of racial profiling and bias. (Newsmax)

Angela Corey and Eric Holder
Angela Corey and Eric Holder

We agree, Corey should be sanctioned and disbarred for her actions. She filed charges even though a Gran Jury was already scheduled that she cancelled and then she hid exculpatory information and other evidence from the defense. But that is not all. Now her ilk and the race-baiters of this age want Eric Holder to investigate and bring Federal Civil Rights charges against Zimmerman.

What about Zimmerman’s civil rights? There is no Federal interest in this criminal case, but there is a political interest. So now George Zimmerman faces ‘double jeopardy’!

He was tarred and feathered in the media, the DoJ actively helped organize protests against him, ‘community organizers’ descended upon him, politicians ratcheted up the heat, the President weighed in, the NAACP and the Black Panthers foamed at the mouth, and the man was declared guilty before he even went on trial.

Talk about civil rights violations. We also wonder why Rick Scott has been so quiet. Please read the words of a true legal expert, Andy C. McCarthy on the subject:

For Politicized Justice Department, Zimmerman ‘Civil Rights’ Case Is CIA Interrogators Case All Over Again

For those of us who are very proud of our service in the Justice Department – I was a federal prosecutor for nearly 20 years – there is nothing more appalling than seeing the attorney general of the United States heaping praise on, and joining in the machinations of, a race-mongering political demagogue such as Al Sharpton. As I’ve summarized before, Sharpton not only has a history of obstructing the administration of justice but was actively threatening, at the very time Eric Holder colluded with him, to “occupy” Sanford, Fla., if the state declined to file charges against George Zimmerman.

Alan Dershowitz – Noted Harvard Law Professor calls for Corey to be disbarred

In my two decades at the U.S. attorney’s office in New York, most of my best friends and many of the best prosecutors I knew were liberal Democrats. This made for lively debates when we’d go out for beers on a Friday night. But it had nothing to do with our performance of the job.

We all understood that our duty was to keep the politics out of the courtroom and out of law enforcement. And it wasn’t hard to do: It was what the judges expected of us, it was what we expected of the judges, and it was what ordinary citizens who serve on juries were told in every single trial — decide the case based on evidence, not passion, prejudice, fear or favor.

This ethos is being destroyed by Holder and the other movement progressives he has strategically installed in various DOJ policy-making posts (see, e.g., here). Indeed, it is being destroyed by the Obama administration more broadly, which is how you get an IRS bureaucracy – traditionally apolitical and independent – that now harasses and discriminates against conservative groups. That happens only one of two ways: Either the IRS bureaucrats were directed to politicize their mission or they felt encouraged to do so by the “community organizer” approach to governance quite consciously instilled by President Obama.

As I recounted over the weekend, after a Florida state jury acquitted Zimmerman on all counts in the shooting death of Trayvon Martin, Holder’s Department announced the resuscitation of its preposterous civil-rights investigation of Zimmerman. The main Obama/Holder precedent on which I’d rely to evaluate what’s going on – which is politics, not law – is Holder’s reopening, and later quiet dropping of, the investigation of CIA agents involved in the Bush-era enhanced-interrogation program.

Observe that what the Justice Department has announced is an investigation, not a prosecution. This is the same pedantic distinction Holder drew when he was caught misleading Congress in connection with the surveillance of Fox News correspondent James Rosen. Investigation is cost-free for Holder. The only one who gets harmed is Zimmerman, because he has to live in fear of prosecution, and the continued investigation means a continued spotlight which implies continued harassment by the hard Left. Holder only gets hurt if he actually tries to file charges – he will be humiliated if the grand jury refuses to indict or a jury (or the trial judge) laughs the case out of court.

As I argued last year when Holder did his Sharpton collaboration,

(a) the civil-rights statutes are of dubious constitutionality in terms of federal jurisdiction over intrastate activity by private citizens that involves no federal interest; and

(b) even if that were not so, a federal civil-rights case against Zimmerman would be weaker than the state murder case – if it is possible, there is even less evidence that Zimmerman intended to interfere with Martin’s enjoyment of a recognized federal civil right than that Zimmerman possessed the criminal intent required to sustain a murder conviction.

So when all is said and done, I believe the Justice Department will not indict Zimmerman, the trial would be too embarrassing for DOJ.

Nevertheless, it could be a long time before “all is said and done,” and in the meantime mere investigation is tactically shrewd for a political operator such as Holder. Recall that Holder, as an Obama campaign operative in 2008, stoked Obama’s Bush-deranged political base by promising a “reckoning” against Bush officials for purported war crimes.

Al Aharpton - remember Tawana Brawley?
Al Aharpton – remember Tawana Brawley?

Of course, there were no prosecutable crimes by the CIA and other officials – career prosecutors had scrutinized the allegations arising out of interrogations and determined that no colorable charges could be brought. Holder reopened the case anyway, continued the investigation for a couple of years, and then quietly dropped it.

The advantage for our Janus-faced attorney general was that he could promise Obama’s angry base that he was actively looking into matter while simultaneously telling Congress and the media that it was absurd to accuse him of harassing the CIA (and thus endangering our security) since he hadn’t actually brought any charges. This kept the issue alive, which was politically useful for the hard-left groups continuing to campaign against Bush, but spared DOJ the humiliation of a trial on a shoddy indictment.

Expect a reprise on Zimmerman. Holder tells the Left he is aggressively investigating; but tells Congress he is just poking around in a responsible way, hasn’t really done anything in the way of filing charges, and respects the verdict in Florida. No charges get filed, but the racial-grievance industry has a green-light to continue agitating, Zimmerman endures the anxiety and expense of a continuing threat of prosecution, and we all watch the spectacle of our justice system used as a tool of racial politics and political fundraising.

As some of us warned five years ago, to confirm Holder as attorney general was to guarantee politicized justice – that, after all, is what “social justice” is.


NDRP E.O. and the push to hold info on Americans longer, why now?

Editor’s Note – Like everyone else, SUA was peppered with questions regarding the Executive Order Obama released last Friday on the White House Web Site (see it here: Executive Order 12919) that amended the National Defense Resources Preparedness (NDRP) of the Defense Production Act of 1950.

Most thought immediately that Obama was preparing us for Martial Law, and in light of events over the past few years and his track record, all are watching with a leery eye.

The "Executive Order Pen", oft used, oft questioned - B. H. Obama

The following article gives us a good primer on what it is, and what it could mean. The writer does “don the tin-foil hat” as he calls it to draw some conclusions, and we could add many more, but you be the judge, especially concerning the timing.

But keep in mind that the DoJ is trying to extend the time information on Americans can be held, with the Attorney General being the arbiter over the process.

We at SUA have been calling for Eric Holder to resign or be arrested for his doings, so in totality, everything this administration does raises questions and doubts, especially concerning our civil rights. Read the whole story about keeping the intelligence files longer here, and this is the snippet that concerns us most:

Currently, the center must promptly destroy any information about U.S. citizens or residents unless a connection to terrorism is evident.

The new guidelines, which may be approved in coming days, have been in the works for more than a year, said officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the discussions.

The guidelines are likely to prompt concern from privacy advocates. Senior Justice Department officials said Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr., who must approve the guidelines, will ensure that privacy protections are adequate. Also, keep in mind the NDAA language recently passed about holding Americans.

Worried yet?

The Executive Order Controversy

By Joe Herring

American Thinker

On Friday, 3/16/2012, President Obama issued an executive order called “National Defense Resources Preparedness” (NDRP), posting it on the White House’s official website.

Almost immediately, the blogosphere exploded with the news.  Citizens began calling their TV stations, radio stations, and newspapers, demanding coverage.  At the time of this writing, the furor has yet to abate.

The NDRP traces its origin to the Defense Production Act (DPA) of 1950, which attempted to establish a framework for placing the nation on a “war footing” as quickly and in as efficient a manner as possible should events warrant.  In an age of highly industrialized warfare, the basic building blocks of military success are composed of mundane elements such as supply chains, resource availability, parts, access to raw materials, and skilled labor.

Over the years, the DPA has seen many revisions, and the executive orders issued to implement those revisions presupposed an imminent threat of war.  In 1994, then-President Clinton issued Executive Order 12919, which expanded the provisions of the DPA rather dramatically, declaring its applicability to peacetime.

The need for the DPA is legitimate.  A great deal of our energy infrastructure, utilities, and financial system are in fact entirely private enterprises, not public/government entities.  Getting the government running again in the event of a catastrophic attack is one thing, but not providing the same reconstitution effort for the privately owned elements of the nation’s infrastructure would still leave us without electric power generation, food distribution, etc.

In the event of cataclysmic war or a natural disaster of similar scope, we could not afford to wait on the private sector to recover at an ordinary pace with purely private funds.  Under such circumstances, the need would be urgent and the resources few.

The issue is how to balance the necessity of granting sufficient power to the only entity large enough to do the job — government — while still maintaining the private ownership and control of the means of production and the economy as a whole.

The Executive order issued by Obama on 3/16 is largely a restatement of the 1994 Clinton order with a few functional changes.  It moves the authority for implementing the provisions of the DPA from the director of FEMA to the Department of Homeland Security, which did not exist at the time of Clinton’s presidency.  There have been pedestrian additions of renewable energy sources, such as solar and wind, to the purview of the secretary of energy (as well as a curiously specific redefinition of bottled water as a “food resource” rather than a water resource), but nothing is particularly out of step with the order Obama’s EO supersedes.

So what is the problem?  Well, considering that the authority of the DPA has never been meaningfully exercised, and that the pre-emption of authority claimed by the Clinton-era EO 12919 has been similarly dormant, why would the Obama administration choose this particular time to update an obscure and unused authority?  It is this question many believe must be asked and answered, and sooner rather than later.

In an attempt to provide that answer, allow me to don an appropriately stylish tinfoil hat before I present a plausible scenario.

1) In early March 2012, Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta told the Senate Armed Services Committee that it is the position of this administration that international organizations such as NATO or the United Nations have at least as much, if not more authority to deploy U.S. troops, with or without congressional notice or permission.

2) A week later, the NAACP petitioned the U.N. Human Rights Council to involve themselves in our election process — specifically our November presidential election, in order to monitor the vote for instances of voter suppression.  It is the fantasy of the NAACP that laws requiring presentation of a photo ID to cast a ballot are in actuality thinly veiled efforts to keep the poor, elderly, and non-white populations from voting, presumably for Obama.

3) Attorney General Eric Holder has spent his tenure creating a hair-trigger system of race-conscious prosecutions, most notably in reference to cases involving voter fraud.  His previous employee, J. Christian Adams, has built a second career from simply exposing the injustice of Holder’s Department of Justice.

4) Most recently, Holder struck another blow against the concept of verifiable voting by forestalling Texas’s proposed Voter ID law, saying it “goes against the arc of history.”  Aside from the attorney general basing his decisions on perceived “historical arcs” rather than clear and established law, the end result is the same: the creation of an air of uncertainty surrounding the upcoming election.

Now (as I adjust my tinfoil hat to a jauntier angle), let me tie these points together.

By employing repetitive reporting of “uncertainty about the reliability of the presidential election tally” by the major media, compounded by expressions of the same uncertainty by administration officials, the left could install that narrative amongst the segments of the population that  pay little or no attention to the day-to-day practice of politics.

Could the NAACP then, with support from the Department of Justice and the administration, make the case to the U.N. that the election was in fact tainted, and subsequently persuade the member nations of the U.N. to declare the election invalid?  It is possible, and such a declaration is certain to bring chaos to the streets of every major city in our country, as well as a great deal of smaller ones.  To restore order, the president might need to deploy troops.  Should the Congress resist the move, the administration might simply appeal to the U.N., which could request/order the deployment of troops by a willing and complicit Secretary Panetta.

And of course, President Obama would simply continue in office, for the sake of stability, until this could all be sorted out.

Perhaps it now makes sense for the administration to have updated an unused executive order, preparing their legal argument and framework for the imposition of peacetime martial law.  Liberty, once lost, is seldom regained.

Yes, it is far-fetched, but it is also distressingly possible.  The sad fact in America today is that we have a president so disdainful of our foundational law and freedoms as to make the far-fetched seem queasily reasonable.

The timing of this executive order is jarring, even if the specific changes to the order are not.  The power it conveys is staggering and cannot be safely entrusted to a single branch of government, much less to a single man.  The Congress needs to reassert control over the exercise and implementation of the Defense Production Act before it can be utilized by a power-hungry cabal of leftists eager to fundamentally transform America.  There is a door no one has locked, and our home is not secure.  Close the door, lock it, and throw away that key.

The author writes from Omaha, NE and welcomes visitors to his website at

The Double Edged Sword – S. 1867 – Detention, Material Support

By Denise Simon – SUA Research Director

The 2012 Defense Authorization Bill 1867 (See summary here) just passed by the Senate was burdened with oodles of appropriations including one very important section that will keep the Guantanamo Detention Center open indefinitely. However, this is in complete conflict with the White House and the Department of Justice, and virtually nullifies the Executive Order to close it signed by Obama soon after his inauguration. Though, it is curious that despite that E.O., Guantanamo is still intact. The veto pen is coming.

In addition to the Guantanamo issue, other sections are argued to be turning the Constitution on its ear. With the mere push of a voting button in the House and Senate, and the possible signature of the President it is argued that many civil liberties will be lost. Foremost among these is the interpretation that American citizens could be held without trial if they are deemed to be of material aid to terrorist organizations by the military. No lawyers, judges, or grand juries, just indefinite incarceration at Guantanamo.

Political action organizations across the political spectrum are in a complete dither over this bill because it contains so much gray area language or to some, lacks the proper language to define certain aspects. Although absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, legal wranglers are claiming that Congress is deferring to the bench on too many issues.

Portions of this legislation of most concern for anyone paying attention are where it addresses the act of giving material or financial support to terror organizations and members. In recent years, there have in fact been several cases where American citizens were clearly guilty of these charges including John Walker Lindh, Anwar Al Walaki, Adam Gadahn, and Najibulla Zazi among many, many others.

Defense Appropriation Bill:

Consider for a moment the double edged sword this pending law represents with its many sections in question. It can on one hand be construed to be an extremely good tool for securing our nation, but at what sacrifice? Interestingly though, it may also become a very friendly legal tool to employ in a political fashion; one where certain actions recently taken by the administration could place them in legal jeopardy, and become a bludgeon to nail corrupt lawmakers and government employees in Washington DC.

Like most pieces of legislation, many lawmakers had not read the complete final version of the bills prior to voting and possibly would not have voted in the affirmative if they did. But all too often, naked ambition and/or political cowardice may have bred unintended consequences and this Defense Authorization Bill may just be a real blatant example. Those unintended and intended consequences may include the ability to take much stronger action on certain current administration personnel. To elaborate, let us begin with Eric Holder, Attorney General for the United States Justice Department.

Holder has a long history, along with many legal colleagues, where they have have provided counsel to terrorists around the world and those detained at Guantanamo, free to the inmate. Payment for counsel comes from donations or was provided pro-bono.

Covington and Burling is the law firm where Holder was a partner, and by giving that kind of aid, to non-citizen enemies of the USA, these new provisions could be construed to render future work in this regard as illegal. Holder’s old firm is a worldwide law firm, and works in partnership with many other law firms as well as the Center for Constitutional Rights, Sullivan & Cromwell, Manatt Phelps, American Constitution Society, Holland and Hurt among others. Are these firms now in jeopardy as well?


What is “material aid and support” as the letter of the law dictates?

From Legal Information Institute – US Code PROVIDING MATERIAL SUPPORT TO TERRORISTS § 2339A.

(b) Definitions.— As used in this section—

(1) the term “material support or resources” means any property, tangible or intangible, or service, including currency or monetary instruments or financial securities, financial services, lodging, training, expert advice or assistance, safehouses, false documentation or identification, communications equipment, facilities, weapons, lethal substances, explosives, personnel (1 or more individuals who may be or include oneself), and transportation, except medicine or religious materials;


Then there are the narco-terrorism networks that are proven to be cavorting with Hezbollah, but are not formally listed on terror lists, yet Holder allowed arms to be sold and moved through the FBI and the DEA to members of these drug cartels. Many think Holder already broke existing laws and should already be out of office, and/or in prison over the Fast and Furious scandal. That operation was a boondoggle to say the least, and if this Bill is signed, activity that allows weapons to fall into the hands of these ‘terrorists’ in the future will arguably land many agents and administrators in jail.

Other actions, by other departments are similarly situated and acted in very questionable ways as well. Recently, key government officials gave aid and comfort to the enemy through the actions of their office. This includes people like our Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton.

Clinton with Libyan Rebels

There is now ample evidence that she has spread money and support to the enemy, most notably to rebel Libyans who fought our troops in other lands under the al-Qaeda flag. Some may think that is a stretch, but it is definite aid and comfort to the enemy, regardless of political purpose according to the letter of the law, and certainly would be if this bill is signed. This is especially true since it did not have the blessing and approval of Congress or the White House.

  • Please note the Arms Export Control Act is the responsibility of the State Department.
  • The Taliban cannot be excluded either when it comes to the nefarious monetary policy of Hillary Clinton.
  • In the Middle East, the same quest and generosity is also applicable as Hillary Clinton giving money to the Palestinian Authority prisoners.

Moving to another facet of giving aid and comfort, we have the case of Timothy Geithner, Secretary of the United States Treasury. The Department of the Treasury in partnership with the State Department publishes the terror list and enforces or often chooses not to enforce the money transfers and global account restrictions through the Federal Reserve banks in coordination with the Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke.  Allowing domestic organizations and companies to wire money to foreign terror networks through any of the Federal Reserve banks occurs constantly and both Geithner and Bernanke are at the throttle controls by pacing, approving, and tracking these monies.

It should also be no surprise that the government runs a program called the Black Budget, which of course allocated money and spends it on missions and for causes that no one is supposed to know about. Congress allegedly does not have a hand in this cash cache but the dollars still move and countless agencies move it without full disclosure.  In addition, any member of the House or the Senate that is assigned to committees that have some oversight of government dollars in the aspect of foreign policy and national security vote to allocate and spend money as well, and often that lands in the hands of terror networks and members.

In summary, countless members of the United States government have a role in money distribution either by committee, by vote, and/or allocations that do not exempt them from the new concerns of this pending law under the 2012 Defense Authorization Act. Only the President and the Vice President can invoke Executive Privilege and in recent history it has been applied to those working at the White House, yet it has not been challenged that they get exemption from prosecution in regard to Border Agents or aiding and abetting known terror cells and members. If lawmakers want to play the game, it takes two to dance, and lawyers are available on both sides. We can use the same laws and rules to play as they use them as well.

Given the polar division of this country, embracing and using the U.S. Constitution to carry out laws and agendas, this pending law could and should work in our favor to force the will of the people upon the government as intended.  We are in the vortex of being victims of local and federal law being applied unlawfully against law-abiding citizens. The Defense Authorization Act clearly appears to have text that ups the ante once again on citizens.

We cannot forget that Federal employees are also citizens and should the un-intended consequences apply, and in fact are intended as a quiet mission, we may have yet a major lawful tool that could implicate Obama, Clinton, Holder, Geithner, and more by applying this law.  Legal scholars and courts may argue these aspects for a long time to come, but the very threat of their actions in financially supporting terrorists and networks, intentionally or otherwise may be a springboard to get their attention.

Key Links for additional reference:

  1. Named terror networks  
  2. American Jihad Terrorism, Congressional Report 
  3. Nigeria and Boko Harem
  4. Kerry Lugar aid to Haqqani conditions without conditions
Edited by Scott W. Winchell