1. Welcome! Please take a few seconds to create your free account to post threads, make some friends, remove a few ads while surfing and much more. ClutchFans has been bringing fans together to talk Houston Sports since 1996. Join us!

Liberals let Obama get away with unconstitutional actions

Discussion in 'BBS Hangout: Debate & Discussion' started by rtsy, Nov 5, 2012.

  1. rtsy

    rtsy Member

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2010
    Messages:
    979
    Likes Received:
    50
    Now why would this be? :confused:

    Liberals let Obama get away with unconstitutional actions

    SATURDAY, NOV 3, 2012 06:00 AM CDT

    The president's deplorable record on privacy and kill lists is an affront to our values. Liberals just shrug it off

    BY DAVID K. SHIPLER

    http://www.salon.com/2012/11/03/why_does_obama_get_a_pass_on_civil_liberties/

    [​IMG]

    Let us stipulate, as lawyers like to say, that President Obama has a deplorable record on civil liberties, one that threatens long-term damage to the country’s constitutional culture.

    Why, then, has his base of support not been eroded decisively? Why have so many on the left fallen silent, after railing against George W. Bush’s rights violations, as Obama has prolonged and codified most of the same practices? And why have so few on the right, riding a groundswell of resentment toward big government, failed to resent the biggest governmental intrusions into personal privacy since the FBI’s domestic spying during the Cold War?

    The facts are not in dispute. While Obama has ordered an end to CIA kidnapping and torture, he has personally approved kill lists containing the names of American citizens to be targeted by drones. While he has tried to move the accused masterminds of 9/11 and others from Guantanamo to civilian courts (only to be blocked by congressional Republicans), he has also embraced military commissions and indefinite detention. He voiced misgivings about a bill subjecting suspected terrorists to military arrest — whether foreigners or Americans, whether in Afghanistan or Alabama — and then signed it into law.

    In practically every significant court case, his administration has argued for an expansive encroachment on individual rights, much as the Bush administration did. Obama’s Justice Department has successfully opposed the habeas corpus petitions of Guantanamo prisoners, persuading conservative judges to rule in one case that sketchy, unverified intelligence reports must be presumed correct. This absurdity has now entered case law as an erosion of the venerable right, dating from the Magna Carta, to summon your jailer before an impartial magistrate.

    The administration has continued undermining the Fourth Amendment. It argued in the Supreme Court, unsuccessfully, that law enforcement should be free to attach GPS tracking devices to vehicles without showing probable cause and getting warrants. It has vigorously used a tool that Obama denounced in the 2008 campaign: the administrative subpoenas known as National Security Letters, which are issued without warrants to acquire the library, Internet, banking and other records of individuals suspected of nothing at all. His Justice Department has invoked state secrets, as did Bush’s, to deny wrongfully imprisoned and tortured victims the right to sue the government. The administration has sought broad immunity for Secret Service agents and others in law enforcement who arrest people exercising their First Amendment right to speech.

    Obama’s solicitor general has just made a catch-22 argument before the Supreme Court that could exempt from constitutional challenge the law that authorizes the interception of Americans’ international communications without probable cause — the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, broadened in 2008 with Obama’s vote as senator. Because the surveillance by the National Security Agency is secret, his administration argues, there is no way for the lawyers, journalists and rights organizations who suspect they are being monitored to prove that they are, in fact, targets of surveillance, and therefore they have no standing to sue.

    These acts aren’t deal-breakers for many voters, except among a small number of civil liberties advocates, such as Conor Friedersdorf of The Atlantic, whose blog “Why I Refuse to Vote for Barack Obama” deplored the left’s lack of outrage. Other liberals, seeing a constellation of social and economic issues, don’t want to damage Obama’s re-election chances by speaking out. He’ll probably get the votes of most lawyers for the ACLU, which has criticized him persistently. And his judicial nominees will be more liberal than Mitt Romney’s. So there is no opportunity for principled voting. Without a civil liberties candidate with a chance to win, pragmatic balloting is unavoidable.

    A symmetrical silence about Obama’s rights policies afflicts Republicans. They worry that government is too big when it funds programs for the poor but not when it funds wars. It is too big when it regulates business but not when it regulates individual lives. It can decide whom people may marry, restrict women’s control over their pregnancies and evade the Fourth Amendment by invading Americans’ privacy. Only true libertarians seem to care.

    But there is more here than hypocrisy. Terrorism remains a threat, as the FBI repeatedly reminds the country with sting operations that lure hapless wannabes into dramatic plots they couldn’t execute without undercover agents. Each arrest stokes the public’s fear. Furthermore, rights violations are largely clandestine and invisible. Their targets are “others,” meaning foreigners, terrorists, common criminals and various people not like “us.”

    Ten years after the 9/11 attacks, polling by the AP and the National Opinion Research Center found that those surveyed supported, by 65 to 21 percent, a government policy to read, without warrants, any emails to people inside the U.S. from countries known for terrorism. By 48 to 37 percent, respondents favored warrantless monitoring of U.S. citizens’ Internet searches “to watch for suspicious activities,” not further defined. In other words, I’m willing to give up your rights for my security.

    It’s not generally understood that constitutional rights are not divisible, that those denied to others, including suspected terrorists, are also denied to “us.” For example, Ernesto Miranda of the Miranda warning, who secured our right to silence during police interrogation, was not a model citizen. He had a long record and had kidnapped and raped a mentally defective teenager. Yet his right now belongs to us all.

    A certain appreciation of constitutional law is required to grasp what has happened under the Bush and Obama administrations, and neither the press nor the school system educates well on these issues. It has been widely noted that global warming went unmentioned in the presidential debates, but hardly anyone has observed that both poverty and civil liberties (and the Supreme Court) were also ignored by the candidates and moderators.

    It took a comedian, Jon Stewart, to raise Bush-era surveillance policies with Obama, on The Daily Show on Oct. 18. “We have modified them,” the president said. “Now, they’re not real sexy issues.”

    Stewart replied: “You don’t know what I find sexy.”

    Close

    David K. Shipler's latest books are two companion volumes on civil liberties: "The Rights of the People: How Our Search for Safety Invades Our Liberties" and "Rights at Risk: The Limits of Liberty in Modern America." He writes online at The Shipler Report.
     
  2. GladiatoRowdy

    GladiatoRowdy Member

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2002
    Messages:
    16,596
    Likes Received:
    495
    I haven't seen any "liberal" let Obama get away with anything. They have been steadfastly calling him out for these types of actions, but will still vote for him because the alternative is much, MUCH worse.
     
    1 person likes this.
  3. rtsy

    rtsy Member

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2010
    Messages:
    979
    Likes Received:
    50
    Bullcrap.

    "Why, then, has his base of support not been eroded decisively? Why have so many on the left fallen silent, after railing against George W. Bush’s rights violations, as Obama has prolonged and codified most of the same practices?"
     
  4. GladiatoRowdy

    GladiatoRowdy Member

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2002
    Messages:
    16,596
    Likes Received:
    495
    It isn't my fault you don't listen to what liberals say about these practices, but even on these boards, several liberals have expressed nothing less than disgust on these topics.

    His base of support hasn't eroded in an electoral sense because the people they trotted out to run against him were unhinged, reality-denying idiots. If Gary Johnson were the Republican nominee, you might see more Democrats deserting the Obama ship.
     
  5. Roxnostalgia

    Roxnostalgia Member

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2003
    Messages:
    3,166
    Likes Received:
    524
    This is the epitome of faux outrage. Greenwald, who has done a lot of the investigation on this subject says this is not a dem/repub issue. It's an American issue. There are plenty of republicans that love this idea.
     
  6. Zboy

    Zboy Member

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2002
    Messages:
    27,234
    Likes Received:
    21,957
    ^^^ This.

    If you look at my posting history you will notice I have criticized Obama on several occasions regarding this issue and the issue of drones. It might not seem like that big of an issue right now, but later on its going to be biting our @ss for years to come.

    Unfortunately, neither party is going to back down from these policies. Romney has made it clear that if he is elected he will continue using the drones. Obama's or Romney's successor will continue on with it.

    Both parties love kill lists and drones.
     
  7. rtsy

    rtsy Member

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2010
    Messages:
    979
    Likes Received:
    50
    They are Obama cultists plain and simple. They can't come to terms that they fell in love with a fraud.

    The Salon article is right - you are wrong.
     
  8. Nook

    Nook Member

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2008
    Messages:
    57,470
    Likes Received:
    123,042
    Not a huge fan of some liberals... but many have expressed strong opinions against Obama's policies to erode constitutional protections. However, the economy and healthcare and a select few other issues are more important to most voters right now. Further, I have not heard a peep out of Romney saying he would handle the situation differently. Therefore folks pick the lesser of two evils.
     
  9. thadeus

    thadeus Member

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2003
    Messages:
    8,313
    Likes Received:
    726
    rtsy returns to the well again, even though he gets the same response to this type of thread in every similar thread he posts.
     
  10. rtsy

    rtsy Member

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2010
    Messages:
    979
    Likes Received:
    50
    You mean the

    "I'm a little disappointed with some of his polices. What about Bush? OBAMA 2012!!!"

    response?
     
    1 person likes this.
  11. R0ckets03

    R0ckets03 Member

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 1999
    Messages:
    16,326
    Likes Received:
    2,041
    So anybody voting for Obama is a cultist? I voted for Bush in 2000 and Obama in 2008. I don't belong to either party, but there are simply more reasons not to vote Romney into office then Obama.

    Obama is far from perfect, but the alternative is really scary.

    I don't understand how people like you fail to comprehend this.
     
  12. rtsy

    rtsy Member

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2010
    Messages:
    979
    Likes Received:
    50
    Anyone who doesn't hold Obama with the same contempt as Bush is a cultist.
     
  13. GladiatoRowdy

    GladiatoRowdy Member

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2002
    Messages:
    16,596
    Likes Received:
    495
    ROFL!!!

    Yet another to add to the "delusional reality denier" list.
     
  14. R0ckets03

    R0ckets03 Member

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 1999
    Messages:
    16,326
    Likes Received:
    2,041
    Obama ended one war > Bush starting two wars
     
    1 person likes this.
  15. rtsy

    rtsy Member

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2010
    Messages:
    979
    Likes Received:
    50
    Obama didn't end the war. You still easily fall for propaganda.

    http://reason.com/blog/2012/09/05/barack-obama-did-not-end-the-war-in-iraq


    Among the reasons to re-elect President Obama repeated by speakers at the first night of the Democratic Convention in Charlotte was that Obama “ended the war in Iraq.” Some speakers tacked “ending the war in Afghanistan” onto that as well, though that claim wasn’t made as universally.

    President Obama, of course, is not ending the war in Afghanistan. One of his first decisions about Afghanistan was to authorize a troop surge. Additional U.S. troops helped secure portions of the country, but there was no parallel political process to take advantage of the troop surge and U.S. troops are scheduled to remain in Afghanistan through at least 2024.

    But what about the Iraq war? Does Barack Obama deserve the credit for ending a war he opposed from the outset, when he was a state senator?

    The last U.S. troops left Iraq in December 2011, while Barack Obama was president, but the “status of forces agreement” that governed the departure of U.S. troops was actually negotiated between Iraqi and U.S. officials in late 2008, under the auspices of President George W. Bush. In fact, none other than the Huffington Post actually pointed out that as president, Obama was actually interested in keeping troops in Iraq past the agreed-upon 2011 deadline, explaining that “the president ultimately had no choice but to stick to candidate Obama's plan -- thanks, of all things, to an agreement signed by George W. Bush.” Just six months before the Bush deadline, Obama tried to foist 10,000 U.S. troops on the Iraqis past 2011.

    Warmongering Republicans, of course, blast the president for ending the war in Iraq and ignore that it was a departure set in motion by the Bush Administration—during the Republican presidential primaries only Ron Paul and Gary Johnson declined to pillory the president’s announcement of a withdrawal. In that way, by divorcing the withdrawal from the Republican president who negotiated it, Republicans help Obama reinforce the myth that he actually ended the war in Iraq and get to call themselves more pro-war than the president, a win for both sides if not for the truth itself.
     
  16. thadeus

    thadeus Member

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2003
    Messages:
    8,313
    Likes Received:
    726
    Does anyone else have the suspicion that rtsy is a really farty guy? You know, the type of guy who basically just farts non-stop, never says excuse me, and always has the faint aroma of ass hovering around him?

    Maybe that's why he's always so angry at liberals. He thinks it's their fault that he's so farty.
     
    1 person likes this.
  17. rtsy

    rtsy Member

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2010
    Messages:
    979
    Likes Received:
    50
    Your mom farts a lot when I **** her.
     
  18. B-Bob

    B-Bob "94-year-old self-described dreamer"
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2002
    Messages:
    35,718
    Likes Received:
    36,293
    You're describing my exact experience of his posts. It's like people are saying "here's why you should quit farting around other people," but he keeps going.

    The denial in this thread of any post that fails to conform absolutely and completely to his exact political world view = one butt-ripping fart.
     
  19. rtsy

    rtsy Member

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2010
    Messages:
    979
    Likes Received:
    50
    There is plenty of denial all right.
     
  20. rimrocker

    rimrocker Member

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 1999
    Messages:
    22,662
    Likes Received:
    8,981
    What about the reverse?
     

Share This Page

  • About ClutchFans

    Since 1996, ClutchFans has been loud and proud covering the Houston Rockets, helping set an industry standard for team fan sites. The forums have been a home for Houston sports fans as well as basketball fanatics around the globe.

  • Support ClutchFans!

    If you find that ClutchFans is a valuable resource for you, please consider becoming a Supporting Member. Supporting Members can upload photos and attachments directly to their posts, customize their user title and more. Gold Supporters see zero ads!


    Upgrade Now