Its okay. Bush did it first and we all know that if that is the case, no laws are ever broken.

OBAMA!

How about a follow up tag, since this is an interview with the author of an op-ed that was greened about 2 weeks ago?

Link (new window)

FormlessOne: And, Jonathan Turley is right - I was an ardent supporter of Obama, as hope & change was necessary. It's obvious, however, that he's the prime example of a slippery slope. He's not going to restore this country's honor and dignity. On the contrary, he's already using the tools the Bush administration put into place as precedent for his own actions. It's damned depressing.

We Libertarians have been saying for years that when Government gets significant new powers they never give them up.

No one will change the course on these policies. If another Dem was elected, it would be the same shiat, different day.

bighasbeen: How about a follow up tag, since this is an interview with the author of an op-ed that was greened about 2 weeks ago?

Link (new window)

Tomorrow, I'm going to try to get a greenlight with a link to this thread. Headline: "Right-wing blog Fark.com: Obama 'Devastating for civil liberties'"

Right-wing crackpot tallguywithglasseson: "Obama 'Devastating' for civil liberties"

tallguywithglasseson: Right-wing crackpot tallguywithglasseson: "Obama 'Devastating' for civil liberties"

Crack-wing right glasseswithtallguyon: civil Obama for "Devastating" liberties.

That whole issue and his economic team really, really make me not want to vote for him.

Irregardless: the Democratic Party itself is now viewed by most of libertarians as very hostile toward civil liberties

Joining the long list of things viewed by most libertarians as very hostile toward civil liberties, probably topped by "taxes".

Irregardless: Obama will be reelected easily. The GOP has no respectable alternative.

Also FTFA:They can't emotionally, politically, personally. They just have a very difficult time opposing a man who's an icon and has made history - the first black president, but also the guy that replaced George Bush. And the result is something akin to the Stockholm syndrome, where you've got this identification with your captor. I mean, the Democratic Party is split, civil libertarians are split, and the Democratic Party itself is now viewed by most of libertarians as very hostile toward civil liberties.

Yup, who the hell are civil libertarians going to vote for if not the Democratic nominee? As far as I've seen, the only civil rights issue non-Ron Paul Republicans seem to care about are body scans, and let's face it, if the TSA were only scanning Ahmed, Muhammed, and Fatma, they wouldn't give two sh*ts about that either.

BUT, lefty peeps like me could just stay home on election day. And if the economy continues to stink, which it most likely will, and Romney becomes the nominee, Obama might just lose the election.

And they range. His position on torture and refusing to have people investigated or prosecuted for torture, on privacy lawsuits. He pushed aggressively for the dismissal of dozens of lawsuits brought by private interest organizations. He's for immunity for people who engaged in warrantless surveillance. He has fought standing for people even to be able to get courts to review his programs, much like George Bush. He kept military tribunals and the authority to make the discretionary choice of sending some people to a real court, some people to a military tribunal. He has asserted the right to kill U.S. citizens based solely on his own discretion, that he believes them to be a threat to the country.

wierd how I've heard all these exact same talking points from the usual gang of right wing shills around here.

I'm still waiting for the rationale BEHIND all these evil things that Obama has supposedly done. The torture thing, for instance. We've stopped the extraordinary renditions, as far as I know, and the reason Guantanamo hasn't been closed, or one of the main reasons, is that the REPUBLICANS have been screaming so loudly about the "threat to national security" if the prisoners are brought within an astronomical unit of the continental US. They have to go someplace, or stay there, so there they stay.

As far as having people investigated or prosecuted for torture, that's not within Obama's purview. He can order it done, but as President, he lacks the dictatorial authority to order, say, John Woo into the dock without all his due process rights being granted. (Ironic though that may be) Do people want Obama to act like Stalin and order mass trials of anyone he happens to think are guilty? To circumvent our own judicial system?

Most of the libertarian gripes against Obama, much like the Republican gripes, are of the same cut of cloth. They seem to assume the President has unilateral powers to GIT ER DONE which he hasn't got, and somehow cut through all the legal delay, the irksome due process and civil rights, and bureaucratic red tape that prevents anything from getting done; and magically--but without stepping on our civil rights EVEN MORE--get the wrongdoers into court.

Can he with a stroke of a pen close Guantanamo and release all the prisoners there? I guess...but then he wouldn't be acting as a democratically elected President anymore. Could he order the Marines to round up everyone who participated in sending "enemy combatants" down there and force them before a federal court to face indictments? Maybe, but I wouldn't want to live in America after that. Would you?

All this starts to sound like people whining "It's not fair!" and nobody promised you fair, IIRC.

His position on torture

He's against it. Link (new window)


and refusing to have people investigated or prosecuted for torture, on privacy lawsuits.

I don't even know what this means. "on privacy lawsuits"?


He pushed aggressively for the dismissal of dozens of lawsuits brought by private interest organizations.

did those dozens of lawsuits have grounds for dismissal? is he trying to claim everyone was a legitimate lawsuit? how do you "aggressively" push for dismissal? "Your Honor, I aggressively request this case be dismissed on these grounds".



He's for immunity for people who engaged in warrantless surveillance.

From the very beginning Obama was for telecom immunity for the warrantless wiretaps. anyone who paid attention during the campaign would know this.


He has fought standing for people even to be able to get courts to review his programs, much like George Bush.

hint:opposing something in a court of law is not devastating for civil liberties. its how our system is supposed to work. why is he assuming that they all had standing?


He kept military tribunals and the authority to make the discretionary choice of sending some people to a real court, some people to a military tribunal.

This right here is where he tips his hand. anyone with half a brain knows for a fact he just decide to keep tribunals. It was the blocking of prisoner transfers from gitmo by the republicans and some pussy democrats. it was down to either tribunals or no court at all.


He has asserted the right to kill U.S. citizens based solely on his own discretion, that he believes them to be a threat to the country.

and if you need any more evidence that this guy is a dishonest POS, there it is.

glenn greenwald: I understand NPR is just full of right wing shills

yeah i totally said that.

swahnhennessy: Yeah, just talking points. Not facts or anything. And only right wingers mention them. Not prominent civil libertarians or liberals so far left they moved to Sweden or anything.

oh look. its you again. here to say absolutely nothing of substance.

log_jammin: glenn greenwald: I understand NPR is just full of right wing shills

yeah i totally said that.

Anyone who thinks otherwise didn't listen to the All-Teabagger All The Time format in the run up to november 2008. NPR was a 24/7 infomercial offering unedited and un-checked platform to every Teahadist they could possibly get on there.

swahnhennessy: You've got some slobber there on your chin.

and I rest my case. absolutely nothing of substance.

At least Turley's consistent - he had the same complaints about Bush.

swahnhennessy: Of course, it is just easier to brand people than it is to accept the evidence.

2011-10-12 01:41:12 AM

read that post and feel free to rebut.

swahnhennessy: You don't debate, you just claim people are right wing or would vote for Clinton if given the chance.


so "You've got some slobber there on your chin." was some real debate huh? or was "accept the evidence" your convincing argument?

swahnhennessy: Any criticism of Obama engenders a purge response from you.

I do not believe you're a right winger in any way. hell, you think clinton's admin was a neocon admin. but I do find it interesting how you end up using the same insults they do. I don't respond to "Any criticism of Obama" just the bullshiat criticisms of Obama. and that's pretty much all you have.

BullBearMS: Obama opposed this right up until the moment he locked up the nomination

Im sorry. I guess I did lie. he didn't say he was for telecom immunity during the campaign, he only said it during the campaign.

BullBearMS: Lying

unbelievable.

BullBearMS: right up until the moment he voted for it.

which was before the election. which was during the campaign. which was when Jonathan Turley "supported Barack Obama" and "wasn't very quiet about" it. which was my entire point.