[Justice Seeker]

This perfectly explains my thoughts about Barack Obama. Obama said that he would restore the rule of law- but at the same time while he makes some efforts to close out the horrible policies of the Bush regime... but then at the same time he promotes a lot of them. If Obama is not at fault for this and he can't control what his administration thinks- as commonly objected to this- isn't that even worse? Shouldn't Obama have control over what his administration thinks- and what his executive thinks? If Obama does nothing about restoring the rule of law- then he owns these problems. I have no problem with having a differing opinion than Obama on domestic policies- and I think he's made some strides with our foreign policy (while at the same time launching an aggressive special-ops campaign around the world, and, still intervening militarily in other countries), but on civil liberties he's taken one step forward and two steps back.

Quote

From the point of view of civil libertarians, the Obama administration has been an exercise in frustration, with every hopeful sign followed by failures to live up to its own promises.

The ACLU has just issued a report (pdf), titled "Establishing a New Normal: National Security, Civil Liberties, and Human Rights Under the Obama Administration," which focuses on this pattern of inconsistency.

"The administration has displayed a decidedly mixed record," explains ACLU Executive Director Anthony D. Romaro, "resulting, on a range of issues, in the very real danger that the Obama administration will institutionalize some of the most troublesome policies of the previous administration -- in essence, creating a troubling 'new normal.'"

As summarized in a press release announcing the report, "President Obama has made great strides in some areas, such as his auspicious first steps to categorically prohibit torture, outlaw the CIA's use of secret overseas detention sites and release the Bush administration's torture memos, but he has failed to eliminate some of the worst policies put in place by President Bush, such as military commissions and indefinite detention. He has also expanded the Bush administration's 'targeted killing' program."

The report is divided into seven sections covering transparency, torture and accountability, detention, targeted killing, military commissions, speech and surveillance, and watch lists. The most striking areas of the report, however, are those which focus not on torture or secret prisons but on less-publicized recent actions by the Obama administration.

Story continues below...


The transparency section, for example, emphasizes that the program of "targeted killing" of suspected terrorists has been "shrouded in secrecy," and that despite a FOIA request by the ACLU, "the CIA has refused even to confirm or deny whether it has records about the program."

It also points out that rather than living up to Obama's promise as a candidate that he would make sure whistleblowers got protection, "the administration has been prosecuting them."

"It has charged Bradley Manning," the report notes, "a 22-year-old Army intelligence analyst, for allegedly leaking a video showing the killing of two Reuters news staff and several other civilians by U.S. helicopter gunships in Iraq. (Reuters had spent nearly three years trying to obtain the video through FOIA; now that the video is in the public domain, it is clear that there was no basis for withholding it.)"

"We urge the administration to recommit itself to the ideals that the President himself invoked in his first days in office," the report urges. "Our democracy cannot survive if crucial public policy decisions are made behind closed doors, implemented in secret, and never subjected to meaningful public oversight and debate. It cannot survive if the public does not know what policies have been adopted in its name."

Another striking revelation appears in the section on surveillance: "Like the Bush administration, the Obama administration has invested border agents with the authority to engage in suspicionless searches of Americans' laptops and cell phones at the border; Americans who return home from abroad may now find themselves confronted with a border agent who, rather than welcoming them home, insists on copying their electronic records -- including emails, address books, photos, and videos -- before allowing them to enter the country. (Through FOIA, the ACLU has learned that in the last 20 months alone, border agents have used this power thousands of times.)"

http://rawstory.com/...core-liberties/

[Aeon135]

Replace the name Obama with most US presidents and you see a pattern.

This post has been edited by Aeon135: 31 July 2010 - 12:06 PM

[Justice Seeker]

Aeon135, on 31 July 2010 - 12:06 PM, said:

Replace the name Obama with most US presidents and you see a pattern.

Obama is destroying our civil liberties.
Bush II is destroying our civil liberties.
Reagan is destroying our civil liberties.
Bush I is destroying our civil liberties.

I see your point... that's a troubling pattern. What do we do about it? Bring about a change in people's ideology (make them less authoritarian as to more authoritarian)? I read a poll once where the majority of the people said that they favored curbing our civil liberties in the name of terror. So maybe that people are willing to do it is the problem.

This post has been edited by Justice Seeker: 31 July 2010 - 12:09 PM

[Aeon135]

Justice Seeker, on 31 July 2010 - 05:08 PM, said:

Aeon135, on 31 July 2010 - 12:06 PM, said:

Replace the name Obama with most US presidents and you see a pattern.

Obama is destroying our civil liberties.
Bush II is destroying our civil liberties.
Reagan is destroying our civil liberties.
Bush I is destroying our civil liberties.

I see your point... that's a troubling pattern. What do we do about it? Bring about a change in people's ideology (make them less authoritarian as to more authoritarian)? I read a poll once where the majority of the people said that they favored curbing our civil liberties in the name of terror. So maybe that people are willing to do it is the problem.

I see another pattern, a pattern of popular mass movements, every decade a new one, constantly fighting, constantly earning new rights for people in spite of the presidents.

If, just once, someone could point a time to me where a leader decided to expand human rights before there was a large popular movement banging on his door, I'd be impressed.

[hi_]

Obama always was a solid right-wing tool. Most intelligent people on the left were perfectly of that, but the meme that was pushed by the left-wing media (The Nation, Dissent, liberal talk radio) was that the left could and would hold him to his more left-wing campaign promises. The fantasy of a grassroots left-wing mass movement, however, didn't materialize. There's only one mass movement, not really grassroots though, and that's the teabaggers. The left, if it could get around to organizing at all, is too busy deflecting the crackpot conspiracy theories that Glenn Beck and his ilk are pushing.

This post has been edited by hi_: 31 July 2010 - 01:03 PM

[Justice Seeker]

Aeon135, on 31 July 2010 - 12:12 PM, said:

Justice Seeker, on 31 July 2010 - 05:08 PM, said:

Aeon135, on 31 July 2010 - 12:06 PM, said:

Replace the name Obama with most US presidents and you see a pattern.

Obama is destroying our civil liberties.
Bush II is destroying our civil liberties.
Reagan is destroying our civil liberties.
Bush I is destroying our civil liberties.

I see your point... that's a troubling pattern. What do we do about it? Bring about a change in people's ideology (make them less authoritarian as to more authoritarian)? I read a poll once where the majority of the people said that they favored curbing our civil liberties in the name of terror. So maybe that people are willing to do it is the problem.

I see another pattern, a pattern of popular mass movements, every decade a new one, constantly fighting, constantly earning new rights for people in spite of the presidents.

If, just once, someone could point a time to me where a leader decided to expand human rights before there was a large popular movement banging on his door, I'd be impressed.

I see that too but not in the same way you do. I think that the elites in this country have gone too far and while some people are earning their rights a lot of these leaders are threatening the security of our rights. They're trying to take away certain civil liberties- like the right to habeus corpous, and, the right to protest, and that's what the people are protesting against... they do gain some rights... but they're protesting against losing their rights.

hi_, on 31 July 2010 - 01:02 PM, said:

Obama always was a solid right-wing tool. Most intelligent people on the left were perfectly of that, but the meme that was pushed by the left-wing media (The Nation, Dissent, liberal talk radio) was that the left could and would hold him to his more left-wing campaign promises. The fantasy of a grassroots left-wing mass movement, however, didn't materialize. There's only one mass movement, not really grassroots though, and that's the teabaggers. The left, if it could get around to organizing at all, is too busy deflecting the crackpot conspiracy theories that Glenn Beck and his ilk are pushing.

I agree with you. I've been realizing lately that Obama pretty much- despite what we've been lead to believe, has actually been governing rather center right. He may be in favor of government intervention on the domestic issues but time and time again he's shown that he's in favor of the elites- rather than those of the people themselves. Glenn Beck pretty much is a distraction- the left and the right should ignore him. It would be great if the left and the right and everyone else could come together and combine the best of all worlds, and, create a forceful movement... but that would only happen if we had a President that everyone hated... and even then the movement might be co-opted. Sorry if it seems like I'm going off on a tangent, but those are my thoughts.

[Aeon135]

Justice Seeker, on 31 July 2010 - 08:14 PM, said:

Aeon135, on 31 July 2010 - 12:12 PM, said:

Justice Seeker, on 31 July 2010 - 05:08 PM, said:

Aeon135, on 31 July 2010 - 12:06 PM, said:

Replace the name Obama with most US presidents and you see a pattern.

Obama is destroying our civil liberties.
Bush II is destroying our civil liberties.
Reagan is destroying our civil liberties.
Bush I is destroying our civil liberties.

I see your point... that's a troubling pattern. What do we do about it? Bring about a change in people's ideology (make them less authoritarian as to more authoritarian)? I read a poll once where the majority of the people said that they favored curbing our civil liberties in the name of terror. So maybe that people are willing to do it is the problem.

I see another pattern, a pattern of popular mass movements, every decade a new one, constantly fighting, constantly earning new rights for people in spite of the presidents.

If, just once, someone could point a time to me where a leader decided to expand human rights before there was a large popular movement banging on his door, I'd be impressed.

I see that too but not in the same way you do. I think that the elites in this country have gone too far and while some people are earning their rights a lot of these leaders are threatening the security of our rights. They're trying to take away certain civil liberties- like the right to habeus corpous, and, the right to protest, and that's what the people are protesting against... they do gain some rights... but they're protesting against losing their rights.

This is what class struggle looks like.

[Spud Demon]

Obama has done one thing that Cheney prepared the power-reigns for but even Bush never used. Obama has ordered the execution of Anwar al-Awlaki (US citizen) without trial.

Obama has done one thing that Cheney prepared the power-reigns for but even Bush never used. Obama has ordered the execution of Anwar al-Awlaki (US citizen) without trial.

[Justice Seeker]

Spud Demon, on 02 August 2010 - 03:31 PM, said:

Obama has done one thing that Cheney prepared the power-reigns for but even Bush never used. Obama has ordered the execution of Anwar al-Awlaki (US citizen) without trial.

Obama has done one thing that Cheney prepared the power-reigns for but even Bush never used. Obama has ordered the execution of Anwar al-Awlaki (US citizen) without trial.

See, this is what Obamabots actually think. It's perfectly fine to break the constitution in their view as long as it's not a Republican doing it.

[jacksbrat]

Quote

Obama has done one thing that Cheney prepared the power-reigns for but even Bush never used. Obama has ordered the execution of Anwar al-Awlaki (US citizen) without trial.

Link please. That's simply not true.

A radical Muslim cleric thought to be hiding in Yemen, al-Awlaki is believed to have helped inspire recent attacks in the US, including the Fort Hood, Texas, shootings, the fizzled Times Square bombing attempt and the failed Christmas Day bombing of a jetliner approaching Detroit.

The Treasury Department's Office of Foreign Asset Control, or OFAC, added al-Awlaki to its terrorism blacklist on July 16, months after his name was added to the CIA target list.

Once on the blacklist, any bank accounts found in the United States belonging to al-Awlaki are frozen, Americans are forbidden from doing business with him and he is banned from travelling to the US.

http://www.telegraph...A-hit-list.html

Another one I'll put on Obama's "damned if he does" and " damned if he doesn't" list. Wonder what the right would scream the loudest about, Obama refusing to let the CIA put a "fellow" Muslim on their terror list, or "ordering the execution of a US citizen without trial"? I can't understand why so many people fall for the right wing propaganda that Obama is just like Bush, therefore we should put republicans back in power. The republicans have done every thing in their power to stop anything Obama and the democrats have tried to do. On the one hand, they strap themselves to the wheels of the bus and make 41 a majority in the senate by locking arms and filibuster and say "our way or no way" while their talking heads are condeming him for not changing Bush policies. Where's the logic in giving power back to the ones that created the bad policies just because the democrats are having a hard time changing them?

[Justice Seeker]

jacksbrat, on 08 August 2010 - 12:27 AM, said:

Quote

Obama has done one thing that Cheney prepared the power-reigns for but even Bush never used. Obama has ordered the execution of Anwar al-Awlaki (US citizen) without trial.

Link please. That's simply not true.

A radical Muslim cleric thought to be hiding in Yemen, al-Awlaki is believed to have helped inspire recent attacks in the US, including the Fort Hood, Texas, shootings, the fizzled Times Square bombing attempt and the failed Christmas Day bombing of a jetliner approaching Detroit.

The Treasury Department's Office of Foreign Asset Control, or OFAC, added al-Awlaki to its terrorism blacklist on July 16, months after his name was added to the CIA target list.

Once on the blacklist, any bank accounts found in the United States belonging to al-Awlaki are frozen, Americans are forbidden from doing business with him and he is banned from travelling to the US.

http://www.telegraph...A-hit-list.html

Another one I'll put on Obama's "damned if he does" and " damned if he doesn't" list. Wonder what the right would scream the loudest about, Obama refusing to let the CIA put a "fellow" Muslim on their terror list, or "ordering the execution of a US citizen without trial"? I can't understand why so many people fall for the right wing propaganda that Obama is just like Bush, therefore we should put republicans back in power. The republicans have done every thing in their power to stop anything Obama and the democrats have tried to do. On the one hand, they strap themselves to the wheels of the bus and make 41 a majority in the senate by locking arms and filibuster and say "our way or no way" while their talking heads are condeming him for not changing Bush policies. Where's the logic in giving power back to the ones that created the bad policies just because the democrats are having a hard time changing them?

Thanks for clarifying that. We shouldn't have to say things that aren't true... I guess I should have said something about that.

This is one of the things that I actually want the Republicans to filibuster on though. I feel like the Democrats are being pushed by the right wing to show how tough they are, and, that's why they are backing away from giving people civil liberty protection, and why they've been acting so tough about the wikileaks document. They feel that they have to do something because they want to show that they care about national security... so they'll try to be just as strong as the Republicans are.

And, as for your claim about the filibuster- the founders wanted there to be techniques to prevent the minority against the majority- so the republicans are acting completely legitimately here, and, it's not as if they're stopping the Democratic agenda. When the Democrats are out of power they can use the filibuster if they like too.

If the Democrats really wanted to they could use a simple majority to pass bills but they haven't done this that much. Just saying, that is an option.

This post has been edited by Justice Seeker: 08 August 2010 - 08:49 AM

[Spud Demon]

jacksbrat, on 08 August 2010 - 01:27 AM, said:

Quote

Obama has done one thing that Cheney prepared the power-reigns for but even Bush never used. Obama has ordered the execution of Anwar al-Awlaki (US citizen) without trial.

Link please. That's simply not true.

Here's a list of links:
1. http://www.washingto...0040604121.html
2. http://www.nytimes.c...st/07yemen.html
3. http://www.telegraph...-al-Awlaki.html

Funny that the recent news reports you saw about him being put on the no-business-dealings list in July glossed over the fact that he was put on the kill-by-drone list sometime before April.

The CIA calls it "targeted killing". But you could also call it assassination, or extraordinary execution.

[pundit-hater]

So, you guys really think that assassinating people (even US citizens) who are professed and operational enemies of the United States started with Obama? With Bush even?

And you think, furthermore, that if someone is working with terrorists to strike at the US, the US is wrong to capture/kill that person?

Yeah, remind me NOT to vote for your guy, okay...

[Spud Demon]

pundit-hater, on 09 August 2010 - 08:45 AM, said:

And you think, furthermore, that if someone is working with terrorists to strike at the US, the US is wrong to capture/kill that person?

If he's a US citizen, and he has conspired to blow up airplanes (as in, hooking up someone who knows how to make an underwear bomb with someone willing to use it on an American commercial flight), that makes him guilty of treason, IMHO. Maybe even capital treason.

But there's a little formality called a trial, part of our system of checks and balances which prevents one branch of government from getting too powerful. Al-Awlaki's kangaroo court was in the National Security Council, which is not part of the judicial branch of government, and the suspect had no lawyer there to represent him. That's my problem with the Obama administration's action on this.

BTW, the ACLU is involved in this specific case. http://abcnews.go.co...ory?id=11316084

Going back to the subject line, bypassing due process was one of the worst policies of the Bush administration.

[pundit-hater]

Spud Demon, on 09 August 2010 - 10:11 AM, said:

pundit-hater, on 09 August 2010 - 08:45 AM, said:

And you think, furthermore, that if someone is working with terrorists to strike at the US, the US is wrong to capture/kill that person?

If he's a US citizen, and he has conspired to blow up airplanes (as in, hooking up someone who knows how to make an underwear bomb with someone willing to use it on an American commercial flight), that makes him guilty of treason, IMHO. Maybe even capital treason.

But there's a little formality called a trial, part of our system of checks and balances which prevents one branch of government from getting too powerful. Al-Awlaki's kangaroo court was in the National Security Council, which is not part of the judicial branch of government, and the suspect had no lawyer there to represent him. That's my problem with the Obama administration's action on this.

BTW, the ACLU is involved in this specific case. http://abcnews.go.co...ory?id=11316084

Going back to the subject line, bypassing due process was one of the worst policies of the Bush administration.

A trial would be preferable, but he's in Yemen and we can't get to him, and even the Yemeni Government is terrified of him.

Take. Him. Out.

Hard.

All. For. It.

That is all.

Or maybe not all. If you were a cop and chasing a guy who had the detonator to a bomb...and you couldn't catch him, would you take the shot?

If you had a hostage situation where a gunman had a bunch of people in a room and you had the very real expectation that he would shoot them...he walks by the window, do you squeeze the trigger?

What about a trial?

This is the same situation at a higher magnitude.

Take the shot.

I have ZERO problem with that.

This post has been edited by pundit-hater: 09 August 2010 - 02:38 PM

[Spud Demon]

pundit-hater, on 09 August 2010 - 03:36 PM, said:

A trial would be preferable, but he's in Yemen and we can't get to him, and even the Yemeni Government is terrified of him.

There is such a thing as trial in absentia. But he hasn't even been indicted. The wheels of justice have the parking brakes on, because revealing for the public record how they know he's a terrrist would expose either:

(A) too much about how they know what he's doing
or
(B) how little they really know, how flimsy the actual evidence is, that we're really killing him for his political statements in support of jihad

Regardless of whether you believe he is holding a detonator, shouldn't Eric Holder and company at least start the legal process? I'm tired of the Bush-era mantra that our system of justice can't handle exposing the truth.

In the back of my mind, I have this idea that Obama is trying to push the limits, trying to get the Supreme Court to rule against him so that he can stop this war-on-terra craziness without suffering political damage.

This post has been edited by Not Prince Hamlet: 09 August 2010 - 06:36 PM
Reason for edit: Fixed bullets

[Not Prince Hamlet]

Wow! That's shocking!