Los Angeles Times Says Obama Has Been a Disaster for Civil Liberties

Another reason why I say that a lot of liberals would dance in the street if this guy decided not to run for re-election. But very few of them will admit it. I bet the (liberal) author of that article would. This is really what a 2 party system gets you, though. They aren't going to vote for a Republican and the President knows it.

 

I love the LA Times. They were one of the few news outlets that exposed that mercury was being used in vaccination shots.

'91 Memo Warned of Mercury in Shots


February 08, 2005|Myron Levin | Times Staff Writer

A memo from Merck & Co. shows that, nearly a decade before the first public disclosure, senior executives were concerned that infants were getting an elevated dose of mercury in vaccinations containing a widely used sterilizing agent.
The March 1991 memo, obtained by The Times, said that 6-month-old children who received their shots on schedule would get a mercury dose up to 87 times higher than guidelines for the maximum daily consumption of mercury from fish.
http://articles.latimes.com/2005/feb/08/business/fi-vaccine8

But that is another story getting back to the civil libery question, it is a sin that children are requried to take so many vaccination shots and some states will put a parent in jail who opposes it.

The parents of more than 2,300 students in Prince George‘s County, Maryland, could face fines of $50 a day and 10 days in jail if their children do not meet the state‘s immunization requirements.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/13/AR2007111301408.html?nav=rss_health

Texas Governor Perry’s executive order to make the HPV vaccine (Gardasil) mandatory for schoolgirls, last spring

autism has skyrocketed from 1 in 10,000 in 1993, to the current rate of 1 in 150. BBC, and the mandatory immunizations program and the MMR vaccine were introduced in 1998.

Obama is owned. Perry is owned.

 

In spite of of what journalist thinks about Obama not reversing many of the civil liberties lost under the Bush Administration, the real facts are more telling than the mere opinions of some newspaper writer. What is the alternative? Another round of civil liberties losses under the next Right-winger?

 

This is an area where I disagree with Obama. Some of the statements he made while campaigning, and in the early days of his presidency, were unnecessary to state ...and some actions, or more precisely inactions, were just wrong. That said, I'm going to comment on specific quotes from the blog and say whether I feel the charges are accurate or not.

"...(Obama) is primarily responsible for the disappearance of civil liberties from the national debate..."

I disagree. To say it is his responsibility, and his alone, to spark the debate is unreasonable. I will say he should feel a responsibility to spark that debate, but I wouldn't say he is primarily responsible. I would say it's up to the civil libertarians to promote it more, and that's what this sounds like. By blaming the president (note: any president, not Obama specifically) it brings attention to the issue.

"...no CIA employee would be prosecuted for torture..."

This type of thing irritates me, but it is not unexpected. The government has a long history of not prosecuting the previous president's unethical behaviors. While it is easy to say "Obama is just like the others!" I have to ask myself whether there truly was anything he could do. As one man, even a president, would probably find the process to be a waste of effort. It is highly unlikely any CIA employees even could have been prosecuted under our laws.

"...his administration refused to prosecute any of the Bush officials responsible for ordering or justifying the program..."

Same as above. Highly unlikely you could even begin to prosecute them, much less convict. The issue really should have been addressed by the Supreme Court shortly after the troublesome laws were enacted. If it was reviewed by the Supreme Court, it's their fault for allowing it to continue.

"...Obama failed to close Guantanamo Bay as promised..."

This falls under "unnecessary statements", and is also a bit of a misstatement by Obama. And from what I can tell, people believe that when Obama stated he wanted to close Guantanamo Bay, he meant the entire base. What he was actually referring to was the detention block for 'prisoners of war' or 'enemy combatants' captured in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere. The part of Guantanamo Bay that was to be closed housed the suspected Al-Qaeda members. He clarified that later on but that misperception still persists today.

Obama got too caught-up in the politics of whether or not the suspected Al-Qaeda members should be prosecuted as 'enemy combatants' in America. He was reacting to the segment of our population who believed they shouldn't be tried by the military. I believe he was sincere at first, but realized the futility of it later on and abandoned the effort.

The trials of suspected Al-Qaeda members caught in foreign lands by our military should be handled by the military, at Guantanamo Bay or elsewhere. If a suspected Al-Qaeda member is captured in America however, the trial should be in our Federal courts.

"...He continued warrantless surveillance (1) and military tribunals (2) that denied defendants basic rights..."

(1) Another 'catch-22' for Obama. If he persisted in trying to remove those awful laws he would have been pounced on for being naive and incompetant and ultimately would most likely have failed to remove them anyway. But by allowing them to continue unchallenged he is villified (and rightly so IMO).

(2) If the suspected Al-Qaeda members were caught by the military in Iraq, Afghanistan, or elsewhere I'd want them tried by the military. The gray-area is where our intelligence agencies tracked a wanted member down in neutral countries. IMO, those members not involved in direct fighting against our armies should be tried in the World Courts (the Hague) or somewhere similar since they are a World problem.

"...He asserted the right to kill U.S. citizens he views as terrorists..."

I have an issue with the wording used by this guy. I believe he saying that if our intelligence agencies agree that a certain U.S. citizen is a terrorist then Obama says that person is fair game for the military to kill. I would agree with Obama on that. If the citizen survived the attempt on his life, and the attack was carried out in America, I'd want the person tried in Federal Court. If the person was in a foreign country, and was actively fighting our soldiers, the military courts should have jurisdiction.

"...His administration has fought to block dozens of public-interest lawsuits challenging privacy violations and presidential abuses..."
I'm guessing this ties in with the continuations of the previous administration's policies for wire-tapping, surveilance on U.S. citizens, etc. But, to say that someone being sued is fighting back is redundant lol ..."He's resisting our attempts to sue him!" ...sorry, getting tired of writing LOL

"...By blocking the investigation and prosecution of those responsible for torture, Obama violated international law and reinforced other countries in refusing investigation of their own alleged war crimes. The administration magnified the damage by blocking efforts of other countries like Spain from investigating our alleged war crimes."

The issue is whether or not crimes have been commited. In the U.S. it was legal, though internationally I'm not so certain. But again, by stating "Obama did this or that" when it was his administration, and the U.S. government in general, that was responsible is a little (poof!)ish, but I'm a stickler for that. It still comes down to legalities though, and stating that he personally was responsible is an overstatement. It sounds too partisan.

"...In time, the election of Barack Obama may stand as one of the single most devastating events in our history for civil liberties..."

Now I KNOW this guy is just being a *poof!* Ignoring the source of the civil liberty violations (Bush Jr.'s administration) and tranferring the blame to Obama himself? This guy must be an idiot... or a Republican... not saying he couldn't be both though!

 

With all due respect sir you fail to realize that abortion is the ultimate infridgement upon civil rights with the murder of the innocent unborn.

Not into religion but am a father of four and I saw those sonograms and saw life and felt love.

 

The About.com copy and paste is probably from 2008. I will put more stock in the current opinion of nationally known, well respected liberal lawyer Jonathan Turley (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Turley) over the out of date, pre-presidential opining of some About.com dude.

 

I trust neither, but will listen to both their points of view. Not saying I would agree 100% with either of course, but I'll hear 'em out.

 

Well, if I am going to read or discuss things about someone's Presidency, I would probably concentrate on things written after they became President. But, you are free not too. At least for now.

 

A disaster? Kind of. No worse than Bush imo but I think that was pretty bad and Obama seems to be continuing in the same direction. Not at all the kind of thing I'd expect from Constitutional scholar. You'd almost think he went to Regent U.

 

Toupee... or whatever...

 

I dont understand why Obama is so against giving homosexuals the right they deserve to get married!! He really sickens me, as do most two-faced Democrats like him!!!

 

That's two-faced discrimination!!!

 

Isn't this what some of us warned about as we were about to elect a far left extemist?
Their playbook wasn't a secret....increase dependency on gov't then gradually take control.

 

But you're Ok with the Republican assault on gay rights? You're really not the person to be criticizing any Democrat.

 

I have a different take on abortion. The civil rights of the person actually here trump the civil rights of a person that isn't actually here. I just know that abortion is a safe and legal medical procedure guaranteed by the Supreme Court. Regardless of your opinion or mine, if someone wants to have an abortion, neither my opion or your opinion is relevant.

 

So those who can not yet speak for themselves those who need protection from the govenment, from society the most are being torn out of their mothers limb by limb with goverment money paying for their deaths.

 

The Government paying for their deaths??? Huh? You know that the vast, vast, vast majority of abortions happen in the first trimester when the potential child is about the size of a grain of rice and doesn't actually have any limbs? I hear your anti-abortion speak and I am aware of the way the two sides talk past each other. I tend to refuse to speak about abortion unless neutral terms are agreed to or it just becomes an exercise in miscommunication solving nothing and benefitting those that profit from the division.

 

Not all republicans are against gay rights just as not all democrats are for gay rights. I happen to be for gay rights. So, yes, I can criticize any democrat who is against them.