Obama: A disaster for civil liberties

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

By Jonathan Turley a professor of law at George Washington University.

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.

President Obama not only retained the controversial Bush policies, he expanded on them. 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.

In time, the election of Barack Obama may stand as one of the single most devastating events in our history for civil liberties. Now the president has begun campaigning for a second term. He will again be selling himself more than his policies, but he is likely to find many civil libertarians who simply are not buying.

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

Turley is frequently regarded as a champion of liberal and progressive causes, especially on issues such as separation of church and state, environmental law,[16][10] civil rights,[7][17] and the legality of torture[18][19][20][21]—as someone who speaks truth to power.[22] In fact Politico has referred to Turley as a "liberal law professor and longtime civil libertarian.[23]

In numerous appearances on Countdown with Keith Olbermann and The Rachel Maddow Show, he has called for criminal prosecution of Bush administration officials for war crimes, especially including torture.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Turley

Just in case anyone doubts his leftist credentials.

You don't get any argument from me. Turley is a big favorite of mine.

This might be twice we haven't argued.. haha

So now in there lies the devil again!

Artlo, you aare or at least were a supporter of Obama as I remember. I might be wrong BUT just to play it sdafe I am assuming you are.

Doesn't knowing this make you question your support for:

A) The Democratic Party for their using Obama as a front man for their party policies.

B) Obama himself knowing that some of his most serious failures involves the continued erosion of our civil rights blamed on Bush Jr. by continuing and enforceing the acts and standards set by the previous administration?

C) That voting for Promises of Change mean nothing becasue all politicians promise the same god damn thing irrespective of color?

D) As a person who opposes the death penalty ANYONE Obama decides is a terrorist he feels he has the right to KILL THEM? That bothers me a whole lot. I advocate the death penalty myself but under DUE PROCESS! Not Janet Reno style "Send in a Delta Squad Hit force!" Oh, BTW, Janet Reno WAS A Liberal Democrat!

Now I am not asking these questions of YOU exactly per say. I ask these questions of all Liberals and Democrats ESPCEIALLY the ones who did vote for Obama.

I have been accused of being a Tea Bagger and yet when Turley speaks he is "Respected." I am a Centrist Moderate. I vote for the least of the evils presented to me. I don't have the man power to run myself or the money to play but at least I would really want to get the Military behind me and pull off wrenching Congress's arm behind their back and get some due process back in our system and address the corruption issue in a more intense format. I personally stand for what is in the global good of America. Not this whole "No man left behind" Bullshitte! Why is it those of us who want both personal and overall accountabiloity in our system suddenly Tea Baggers? I am not religious and definately NOT Conservative. I do believe in some of the things Conservatives believe in but likewise I also believe in some of what the linerals are about.

Obama lied and back peddled on a lot. He ramrodded us to mandatory health care insurance which is going to have insane consequenses. And he hasd done nothing to get his party in Copngress to seriously look at the issue of our failing economy and collapsing dollar! All they do is bicker, blame Republicans, and pat each other on the back for a job well done. At least among the Republicans there is some sembalance of a universal platform they stand on. It has been the Democratic Party all along who are frustrating the issues more and more. The Republican Party are bastards but more often than not they are the ones making concessions.

Unfortunately the machine has broken down. Congress needs to get shut down, fixed, our system overhauled, and restarted under cleaner guidelines with no allowance of outside influence.

Till then we are facing Obama and whoever. One evil or the other. I will not be choosing Obama myself.

Andy, there's a lot to answer here.

I am with a huge ocean of Democrats who are profoundly disappointed in President Obama. As a Democrat, I pay pretty close attention to what Democrats are saying, and Many, many of us have, at least from time to time, thought seriously about supporting a primary challenger. From the very beginning, we have agonized over his choices for Cabinet members and advisors. We don't like to have these dissensions high-lighted as fodder for Conservative attacks on liberals, but the controversy is hardly a secret. Democrats invariably return to the conclusion, better a Democrat who at least wants to do some of the right things than a Republican who makes quite clear the goal of destroying the country in order to make Obama a one-term President.

As to the Teabagger issue, I have only the lowest opinion of them. The fact that they appear to have hijacked the Republican Party (temporarily, hopefully) only intensifies the determination to not allow anybody with an R after his name to have any power. As for the people on this board, I frankly don't know who wants to be called what. "I am not a Tea Partier", "I am not a a Republican (I'm an Independant)", "I hate Libertarians like Ron Paul", "I am not religious and definately NOT Conservative." I would need a program to keep track of who is what. Easier to just stake an affirmative position and stay consistent with it.

I am, and always have been a Liberal, and no amount of insulting language is going to change that. Another label that I would accept is "populist", as I understand the word.

I am a non moralist right wing conservative in case you were wondering.

P.S. -
Judging from the bristling response I receive when I run down the Tea Partiers, it's hard not to conclude that people on the other side are not at least in strong accord with that Party. They argue the same arguments, they defend the same principals, they defend the same people. What's the difference?

Well, if there is so much agonizing going on why remain faithful to any party? It is partisan lines in our polotics that is messing everything up and allowing the collapse of our governemtn. Where is Democratic Pressure on Obama? There is none.

In my opinion you cannot be a conservative unless you support limited government, lower taxation and fiscal sanity.

You can argue with the moralist faction over social issues.


I see the tea party as being the moralist republicans finally realizing that their support of big spending government ie Reagan, Bush sr and Bush jr as not really being conservative.

Conservatism starts with fiscal responsibility.

It also includes letting the peace loving democrats start all the wars.

Republicans were never the War party until the moralists took over.

I am a minority within the party, but they are starting to sound more like me than I them.

Its only been 20 years.. haha

On that note, let us bring up Libya. Who was the Chicken Headed beyatch who had been spewing how we need to get involved with the war in Libya? Hillary Roddam Clinton. She has been the ONE person who has been all about "I hate War," yet "We need to go to war with Libya, Yemen, and others" get this, "TO HELP THEIR FIGHT FOR DEMOCRACY!"

Hillary Clinton is a Democrat. And here she is Advocating war and our involvement while it pleases HER sensabilities. But when it is over Oil? OH PERISH THE THOUGHT.

Now about social issues.
If we ain't got the money to supoprt a program why shove it down our throats? It didn't work for Communist Russia. If anything it broke them and their power. So why should we go where others failed?

Fuque all these social experiments! They are not doing us any favors. We need a fiscally responsible government and people who don't vote for their own self interest!

The shame lies on both sides of the fence.

I agree. I am so frustrated with Obama over these issues.

I have written to the whitehouse concerning them.

We have the money.

I spy a 'balderdash bubble'...

It is not possible for 300 million people to provide for 300 million people.

Every single one would have to work...

What percentage of population is children? Elderly? Disabled?

I am sick of all the 'moralistic' chest thumping.

Today I heard an extremely large and very obnoxious person state "WHY SHOULD I HELP... THE GOVERNMENT PAYS ME TO SIT ON MY FAT ***"...

As she headed for the supermarket with her food stamp card held high.

[quyote]Today I heard an extremely large and very obnoxious person state "WHY SHOULD I HELP... THE GOVERNMENT PAYS ME TO SIT ON MY FAT ***"...
No you didn't. Nobody ever said anything like that.

No you didn't. Nobody ever said anything like that.

aye but they did...

In front of perhaps 6 other people besides me.

At least I am smart enough to know that her attitude is not representative of ALL welfare recipiants.

But it sure was irratitating.