Jonathan Turley Op-Ed: "Obama: A disaster for civil liberties"

[Mira]

Op-Ed

Obama: A disaster for civil liberties

He may prove the most disastrous president in our history in terms of civil liberties.
By Jonathan Turley

September 29, 2011


With the 2012 presidential election before us, the country is again caught up in debating national security issues, our ongoing wars and the threat of terrorism. There is one related subject, however, that is rarely mentioned: civil liberties.

Protecting individual rights and liberties — apart from the right to be tax-free — seems barely relevant to candidates or voters. One man is primarily responsible for the disappearance of civil liberties from the national debate, and he is Barack Obama. While many are reluctant to admit it, Obama has proved a disaster not just for specific civil liberties but the civil liberties cause in the United States.

Civil libertarians have long had a dysfunctional relationship with the Democratic Party, which treats them as a captive voting bloc with nowhere else to turn in elections. Not even this history, however, prepared civil libertarians for Obama.

After the George W. Bush years, they were ready to fight to regain ground lost after Sept. 11. Historically, this country has tended to correct periods of heightened police powers with a pendulum swing back toward greater individual rights. Many were questioning the extreme measures taken by the Bush administration, especially after the disclosure of abuses and illegalities. Candidate Obama capitalized on this swing and portrayed himself as the champion of civil liberties.

However, President Obama not only retained the controversial Bush policies, he expanded on them. The earliest, and most startling, move came quickly. Soon after his election, various military and political figures reported that Obama reportedly promised Bush officials in private that no one would be investigated or prosecuted for torture. In his first year, Obama made good on that promise, announcing that no CIA employee would be prosecuted for torture. Later, his administration refused to prosecute any of the Bush officials responsible for ordering or justifying the program and embraced the "just following orders" defense for other officials, the very defense rejected by the United States at the Nuremberg trials after World War II.


for all of it go to:

latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-turley-civil-liberties-20110929,0,7542436.story

[ProSense]

1. Repeat:

Disaster?

Turley:

<...>

Obama failed to close Guantanamo Bay as promised. He continued warrantless surveillance and military tribunals that denied defendants basic rights. He asserted the right to kill U.S. citizens he views as terrorists. His administration has fought to block dozens of public-interest lawsuits challenging privacy violations and presidential abuses.

But perhaps the biggest blow to civil liberties is what he has done to the movement itself. It has quieted to a whisper, muted by the power of Obama's personality and his symbolic importance as the first black president as well as the liberal who replaced Bush. Indeed, only a few days after he took office, the Nobel committee awarded him the Nobel Peace Prize without his having a single accomplishment to his credit beyond being elected. Many Democrats were, and remain, enraptured.

<...>

WTF? Does Turley actually read what they writes? He can criticize the President for not doing more, but before calling the President a "disaster" and trying to imply that the President has done more damage than good, and using is race to bolster the claim, which is preposterous and disgusting, he needs to take heed of the facts.


The ACLU praised the Obama administration for ending Bush's torture policies

President Obama Signs Executive Order Widening Government Transparency

WH fact sheet on Guantanamo Executive Order and ACLU response

ACLU: Justice Is Served (Fair Sentencing Act made retroactive)

A Win for Free Speech: ACLU Recommendations Adopted by DHS!

[Name removed]

12. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[sabrina 1]

18. Here, in case you missed it:

ACLU criticizes killing of Anwar al-Awlaki, a U.S. citizen, calling it a ‘dangerous’ precedent"

“The government’s power to use lethal force against its own citizens should be strictly limited to circumstances in which the threat of life is concrete and specific, and also imminent,” Jaffer told Need to Know. “It’s a profound mistake to invest any president with the unreviewable power to kill any American citizen who he deems to present a threat to the country.”

Jaffer said the Obama administration had claimed broad war powers far beyond any granted to an American president in U.S. history, including in times of war. In the past, the authority to kill American citizens has been restricted to fixed geographical boundaries of conflict and to periods in which the U.S. was at war with a clearly defined enemy.

“The authority the administration is claiming is not an authority that is limited to the battlefield. In their view, the battlefield is anywhere, therefore terrorists can be found anywhere,” Jaffer said. “That’s dangerous.”

Jaffer also sharply criticized the administration for failing to live up to the expectations many civil liberties organizations had when Obama ran for president in 2008. Obama, Jaffer said, has continued many of the aggressive counter-terrorism policies embraced by the administration of George W. Bush, including the use of surveillance and other provisions of the “Patriot Act.”

Pretty much the same thing Turley is saying, and many others. People who stick to principles regardless of who is president deserve credit. It is never easy to do, but over time, they tend to vindicated as you cannot alter the truth and eventually it prevails. One day, I had hoped it would have happened under this president, all these Bush laws will be rescinded and those who operated under them and defended them, will not be treated well by history.

Meantime, I have a question for you. Did you support this when Bush was president? I am having a really difficult time getting an answer to this question. Because I do not remember a single democrat supporting this dangerous policy and am wondering where they are all coming from now. Or did they just change their minds?

[ProSense]

21. Here

"Here, in case you missed it"

...because you apparently did

How's Cheney?

[ProSense]

2. More

Turley: "He may prove the most disastrous president in our history in terms of civil liberties."

DOJ comes out swinging against DOMA

Obama administration sides with Edie Windsor in lawsuit against DOMA

'Don't ask, don't tell' fades away

Pentagon Gives Chaplains OK on Same-Sex Weddings

[Major Nikon]

17. One more example of many...

http://politics.salon.com/2011/05/30/justice_department_civil_rights_police/

[louis-t]

3. I don't know why any liberal host would have Turley on.

He refused to go on KO after awhile saying something about 'all that liberal crap'.

[MineralMan]

4. And here's a nice big unrec for Turley!

Would he prefer, perhaps, Ron Paul as President? Hmmm?

[Frosty1]

5. Subliminal messaging at its finest

[kelly1mm]

6. Pulicly admitting and crowing about assainating US citizens overseas

that are put on a kill list in the sole discretion of the President might just be thought of a a cilil rights disaster. Call me crazy ....

[ProSense]

7. Hmmmm?

"Pulicly admitting and crowing about assainating US citizens overseas"

Edit: "Pulicly admitting and crowing about" killing a terrorist...

More facts

[kelly1mm]

9. I wonder what terrorists will be on the next Republican President's kill list?

Maybe:
1) OWS members
2) Union activists
3) Liberals in general

Yep, that about covers it.

Maybe it is not a good idea to allow a President (any President) the ability to assassinate US citizens on his/her sole discretion.

[ProSense]

10. Hmmm?

I wonder what terrorists will be on the next Republican President's kill list?

Maybe:
1) OWS members
2) Union activists
3) Liberals in general

Yep, that about covers it.

Maybe it's time to stop grasping at straws. I mean, what does your concern about what a Republican President might do have to do with Obama killing a terrorist? Do you think a strong argument against killing a terrorist is made by comparing "OWS members," "union activists" and "liberals in general" to them? I'm sure the RW appreciates the attempt, but the comparison is beyond absurd.

Seven Face Terrorism Charges in N.C.

Too bad for al-Awlaki or bin Laden they weren't found hiding in someone's house in the U.S.

[kelly1mm]

11. It is called precedent. Look it up. nt

[ProSense]

14. That's

"It is called precedent. Look it up."

...called nonsense. All Americans are not terrorists.

[kelly1mm]

15. Right. Only the ones this President (and future Presidents) put on the list. nt

[polmaven]

20. Or maybe the ones

who belong to terrorist organizations and/or have plotted to kill Americans.

[Marr]

16. We have trials to determine whether a person is guilty or not.

We all realize that your idol decreed the man was a terrorist.

[SidDithers]

8. Good citizens check for duplicates...nt

Sid

[Mira]

13. I hate it when that happens. Thank you for the admonition and

trust me, I did, and nothing came up.
link?

[SidDithers]

19. Here you go...

Since the story was from Sept 29, the threads were also from then.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=439&topic_id=2028177
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=439&topic_id=2025035

Sid