U.S. House denounces Abu-Jamal street name

[RO56]

U.S. House denounces Abu-Jamal street name
A resolution asks France to change the name of a suburb's street honoring the convicted police killer.
By Kimberly Hefling
Associated Press

WASHINGTON - House members last night passed a resolution denouncing a French city for naming a street in honor of convicted cop-killer Mumia Abu-Jamal.

"We must stand together as one and send a strong message to the world that cop-killers deserve to be punished, not to be celebrated," said Rep. Mike Fitzpatrick (R., Pa.), the Bucks County congressman who wrote the resolution.

The vote came a few days shy of the 25th anniversary of the slaying of Daniel Faulkner, a 25-year-old officer shot after he pulled over Abu-Jamal's brother on Dec. 9, 1981. Abu-Jamal, a onetime radio reporter and former Black Panther, was convicted in 1982 and sentenced to death.

Abu-Jamal's writings and taped speeches on the justice system have made him a cause celebre among Hollywood activists, foreign politicians, and some death-penalty opponents who believe he was the victim of a racist justice system.

In December 2001, a federal judge overturned Abu-Jamal's death sentence but upheld his conviction. Both sides have appealed that ruling.

In April, a street in St. Denis, a suburb in France just north of Paris, was named after Abu-Jamal.

The resolution asks the French government to step in to change the street name if St. Denis opted not to. The measure passed 368-31, with eight members voting present.

The vote was symbolic, since the U.S. Senate is not expected to take up the measure before Congress adjourns this week.

The police union in Philadelphia sent a representative to Washington on Wednesday and watched the vote closely, especially that of Rep. Chaka Fattah, a candidate for Philadelphia mayor. The union has promised to work against Fattah in the 2007 Democratic primary, because he supports giving Abu-Jamal a new trial.

Fattah said in a statement that despite being unconvinced that justice was served in the case, he voted for the resolution because "anyone who stands convicted of so terrible an offense is an affront to those who risk their lives on a daily basis to serve."

(Sorry, no cite. Came in an email to me)

[Twelve Volt Man]

I'm glad they voted like they did. And why in the hell would 31 Congress members vote against it? That said, doesn't our government have better things to do than vote on something that means nothing to the French government?

[Jay7376]

The measure passed 368-31

I would be really interested in knowing who the 31 politicians were:mad:

Edit:
God bless Google:

(all Democrats)
---- NAYS 31 ---

Abercrombie
Clay
Cleaver
Conyers
Cooper
Davis (IL)
Grijalva
Hinchey
Honda
Jackson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Kilpatrick (MI)
Lee
McKinney
Meeks (NY)
Nadler
Oberstar
Owens
Pastor
Payne
Rangel
Rush
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Stark
Towns
Udall (NM)
Velázquez
Waters
Weiner
Woolsey

Source

[Movementarian]

From house.gov:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/.../~c109VkbdBJ::
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/.../~c109LpY0pi::

And the votes:

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2006/roll527.xml

[MDEMT280]

Well, I'm glad to note that, of the 8 Representatives from Maryland (6 of whom are Democrats), 7 of the 8 voted in favor of this. The one who didn't bother to vote at all was one of the two Republicans.

[gringoscott]

As much as I think it's completely inappropriate to name a street after a cold blooded cop killer, how the heck is it any of our business what the freakin French do? It's their country to look like total a$$es in.

And we needed our politicians to denounce this? What a great use of government time.

[RO56]

how the heck is it any of our business what the freakin French do? It's their country to look like total a$$es in.

And we needed our politicians to denounce this? What a great use of government time.

It falls under foreign relations and international policy.

When other countries do things that conflict with the values and beliefs of the United States, such as allowing terrorist groups to thrive within their borders, train, and plot attacks against us, I would not expect our government to simply bury its head in the sand and ignore what is going on.

Similarly, if another country supported an internal policy of HELPING its citizens in their quest to break the law (e.g., OUR immigration laws), I'd expect my lawmakers to say something to them about it as well.

You say we have no business speaking our mind about what they do within their own borders, right? Well, then, why are we regularly subjected to listening to what other countries (e.g., via the United Nations) have to say about OUR internal policies, such as those on the death penalty and gun control?

As far as I'm concerned, when the issue at hand is of great importance, I EXPECT my government to stand up and say so.

And I don't know about you, but I consider the murder of a brave brother like Officer Daniel Faulkner as being of great importance, and I abhore the thought of anyone honoring a cold-blooded murderer by any means, regardless of what he or she has done SINCE committing the murder - and I EXPECT my government to take a stand against such acts.

What's next, the renaming le Louvre museum to le Tookie Williams museum?

[CCBlueMan]

Well, I'm glad to note that, of the 8 Representatives from Maryland (6 of whom are Democrats), 7 of the 8 voted in favor of this. The one who didn't bother to vote at all was one of the two Republicans.

YAY MD!

[chiefhuntr]

It falls under foreign relations and international policy.

When other countries do things that conflict with the values and beliefs of the United States, such as allowing terrorist groups to thrive within their borders, train, and plot attacks against us, I would not expect our government to simply bury its head in the sand and ignore what is going on.

Similarly, if another country supported an internal policy of HELPING its citizens in their quest to break the law (e.g., OUR immigration laws), I'd expect my lawmakers to say something to them about it as well.

You say we have no business speaking our mind about what they do within their own borders, right? Well, then, why are we regularly subjected to listening to what other countries (e.g., via the United Nations) have to say about OUR internal policies, such as those on the death penalty and gun control?

As far as I'm concerned, when the issue at hand is of great importance, I EXPECT my government to stand up and say so.

And I don't know about you, but I consider the murder of a brave brother like Officer Daniel Faulkner as being of great importance, and I abhore the thought of anyone honoring a cold-blooded murderer by any means, regardless of what he or she has done SINCE committing the murder - and I EXPECT my government to take a stand against such acts.

What's next, the renaming le Louvre museum to le Tookie Williams museum?

I have an idea what we should do with the french. It even starts with the first letter of their country.............:cool: