Where is our President on intervening in the FUBAR situation in Oakland?

[BeHereNow]

People are being seriously injured- Kent State moment is completely
possible!
Why does the President not take some action to stop the brutality
against our fellow citizens????
It needs to STOP, NOW.
BHN

[gopiscrap]

1. I like Obama a lot and will vote for him

specially considering the opposition, but he will not act on this...he's too far to the center to openly side with Occupy!!! Specially in an election year!

[BeHereNow]

4. This is NOT a left or right matter-

It is about someone authorizing brutality against our fellow citizens.
SOME ONE need to be held as accountable for this crap.
BHN

[rhett o rick]

8. This is a corporatists vs. WeThePeople matter. And there are an amazing number of DU'ers that

choose to disparage the Occupy movement and side with the corporatists. They pray their precious status-quo wont be disturbed.

[BeHereNow]

12. It is disgusting.

That ANY one, DUer, or not would condone this to preserve their comfort is
grounds for leaving this country in my book.
I am completely in fear of some people in this country.
I don't want to walk the streets among some of them.
It's not safe.
BHN

[cliffordu]

14. Then go lay your body down for your cause.

In another thread you posted that you might be there if it weren't a whole 6 hours away.

Go get 'em tiger!!!

[BeHereNow]

20. Really?

Did you just say that?
REALLY?
You might want to read the TOS again.
BHN

[inna]

94. incredibly ugly and revealing, isn't it.

Solidarity and hugs; iirc you have your daughter in the area?...

I'm only a few miles away; I'd probably be there if I wasn't down with a brutal flu.

[BeHereNow]

110. She was living there- back home now, but has many friends there.

I worry about her friends, because they are more than likely
to be part of the protests.
I hope the kids and adults who have been injured sue the OPD.
BHN

[BeHereNow]

28. I've made the trip many times- and I will again if this continues.

And you?
What are you doing about this travesty?
BHN

[BeHereNow]

75. CRICKETS...

UH-HEM, I repeat the question Clifford-
WHAT exactly are you willing to do?
I have NO PROBLEM with driving six hours to Oakland.
What is your pLan?
BHN

[cliffordu]

113. I'll tell ya when you get back from Oakland.

I require photographic proof.

[SomethingFishy]

131. LMFAO.. "require"

Who cares what you "require"? And what are you going to do if they don't meet your requirements? The poster made a statement in solidarity with something they believe in and you throw down this gauntlet because the poster lives too far away to be an active part of the protest..

Your "requirements" demanded on an internet site aimed at politics are laughable, and your attempts at attacking this poster are feeble at best.

[Raksha]

72. In other words, this is a 1% vs. 99% matter. And we all know which side Obama is on. n/t

[rhett o rick]

85. It certainly isnt a D's vs. R's as some would have us believe. That's a distraction. nm

[gopiscrap]

25. I agree with you BHN but the sad reality is

that every fucking thing in this country is done either with the calculation of money or power in mind....

[BeHereNow]

2. Copied and Pasted from Tabatha- PREGNANT woman struck in the stomach with baton?????

RRowleyTucson Robert Rowley
#SFPD Officer #119 is responsible for putting protester in hospital. #oo #OWS #osyd #omel #us #p2 #SF #Occupy
3 minutes ago

join_Anonymous Anonymous
by RRowleyTucson
Officer #119 is responsible for putting protester in hospital.
16 minutes ago

RRowleyTucson Robert Rowley
This is an election year in #SF also, find out who in City Hall supports the #SFPD and VOTE THE TERRORISTS OUT! #OO#OWS #OSYD #US #p2 #OMEL
4 minutes ago

RRowleyTucson Robert Rowley
GET THE NAMES OF THE CRIMINAL #SFPD! WE WILL NAME & SHAME THEM AND THEN MAKE THEN LEAVE TOWN! #oo #OWS #osyd #omel #us #p2 #SF #Occupy
8 minutes ago

nickcarsonmelb Nick Carson
by RRowleyTucson
Hearing more reports of injuries flooding in, inc pregnant woman struck in the stomach with a baton by an #OPD officer. #oo #ows #omel #osyd
11 minutes ago

nigelcameron Nigel Cameron
by RRowleyTucson
RT @__Klio__: live streamers running. fl+ tear gas being shot into kettled protesters ( at ustre.am/FBSi)” @subverzo @JesseLaGreca
14 minutes ago

nigelcameron Nigel Cameron
by RRowleyTucson
RT @__Klio__: Police just shot protester in back when she was less than foot away. Crying, limping. #occupyoakland @subverzo @JesseLaGreca

[elleng]

3. Its a State matter first.

Where's California's Governor?

[BeHereNow]

7. Good question- I'd like to know.

And if the STATE can not control this situation then IMO the
Feds need to.
A PREGNANT woman struck in the stomach?
Seriously?
BHN

[elleng]

13. Surely, if the State asks for Federal assistance, it will get it.

Locals and State must deal with it first.

[hack89]

90. Federal assistance for what? nt

[elleng]

92. Was responding to #7,

'if the STATE can not control this situation then IMO the
Feds need to.'

[hack89]

104. Not sure there is anything to get under control

neither the state or the feds are going to tell Oakland they have to let OWS occupy empty buildings. Now if Oakland was restricting free speech then perhaps.

[rhett o rick]

11. If the federal government can trump the states in marajuana sales

seems like they could put pressure here also. Most, if not all of the Pres advisers are from Wall Street. It's not likely they would sympathize with Main Street.

[joshcryer]

21. No government in the history of the world has come out on the side of protesters.

No government, none.

[Dragonfli]

27. Well, our Gov't came out to protect labor by threatening the use of Federal troops

That was a progressive tho, not a conservative like what heads our party now:


Roosevelt also earned the reputation of a friend to organized labor when he supported striking Pennsylvania coal miners in the 1902 Anthracite Strike. Fearing a coal shortage in the industrial eastern United States, the president offered to help mine owners and workers negotiate a settlement involving wages and work hours. When mine owners refused to negotiate, however, Roosevelt threatened to seize the mines and place them under the control of federal troops—the first time a U.S. president had ever sided with strikers against industrialists and forced them to compromise. The Supreme Court likewise sided with labor interests in its 1908 Muller v. Oregon ruling, which awarded some federal protection for female workers in factories.

Then there is also this:
Approximately 600 protesters were prevented from continuing a march on the outskirts of Selma by 200 state troopers who used tear gas, nightsticks, and bull whips while on horseback. Forced to return to Selma, 17 marchers were hospitalized, and a federal lawsuit requesting the procession's continuance was filed by King and his supporters. While protected by federal troops, the march proceeded on March 21 and ended with four Ku Klux Klan members shot and the death of Viola Liuzzo, a 39-year-old white civil rights volunteer from Detroit. In response, President Lyndon Johnson said, “Mrs. Liuzzo went to Alabama to serve the struggle for justice. She was murdered by the enemies of justice who for decades have used the rope and the gun and the tar and the feather to terrorize their neighbors.”

[joshcryer]

33. Semla was judicially backed.

They didn't just get a President unilaterally siding with the protesters, a judge found in Williams v. Wallace that they had a right to continue on. Now, if a judge ruled against them and then LBJ protected them, you might have a point, but I don't consider this a real example here.

Meanwhile, FDR killed labor with the NLRA. It didn't help that the Norris–La Guardia Act said that the government would not get involved in labor disputes. Labor has been on a steady decline since then.

[Dragonfli]

41. The Government came out on the side of the protesters did it not?

You said that never happened.....ANYWHERE....EVER.

It can easily be argued that the courts are on the side of the right to assemble and make their grievances known, unless of course this is no longer the United States.

I do realize that the current and last administrations have been shredding our founding documents, but we do still have the right to assemble as well as the right to free speech. Or was I out the day a Bush or Obama shredded those bits as well as right to trial, habeas corpus, and privacy from eavesdropping?

[joshcryer]

44. No, the courts did.

And then, the government did nothing about the ensuing race wars that plagued the country for years after.

If the courts came out for Occupy I have no doubt that Obama would magically "enforce it" but then what is a protest if you're surrounded by a police state? They certainly wouldn't allow protesters to then occupy the "Y" would they? They'd be cordoned off somewhere and happily placated by the authority.

[sabrina 1]

54. This government came out under LBJ to protect African Americans during the Civil Rights era.

When American citizens are in danger on their own streets, it is the duty of their representatives to protect them.

We go to Libya, Iraq, Afganistan, Vietnam etc supposedly to protect civilians from oppressive governments. Does anyone still believe that? But that is the pretext yet there isn't even a pretext when it comes to American civilians.

The OPD is going to be under Federal Control in a few weeks due to its horrible record which it has been unable to clean up. I see no reason why that date should not be move up considering their behavior over the past few months.

[joshcryer]

57. One can hope.

edit: FYI, I do not think the government came out in "support" of Libya, Iraq, Afghanistan, or Vietnam. The government had its own agenda then and it did at Selma.

[XemaSab]

40. Jerry Brown was the mayor of Oakland before he became governor

I would LOVE to know what-all he thinks about this.

[elleng]

49. Yes, and what the heck he's doing, or NOT doing, about it.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

97. Under the law added by Bush II in 2007 with no known opposition from Obama, a state is not required

to act first.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002238311

[tabatha]

5. More tweets from Rowley

Shiftinthinking Monique
by RRowleyTucson@
@RRowleyTucson @timthesocialist we need a photo of the cop anyone?
34 minutes ago

sf99er #OccupySF
by RRowleyTucson
Eyewitness report: OPD gave orders to disperse, surrounded the #OccupyOakland protesters, and hit anyone who tried to leave with batons #osf
4 minutes ago

If you want to follow yourselves, here is his feed.

http://twitter.com/#!/RRowleyTucson

Here is a non-messed up URL

http://tinyurl.com/7fellff

[T S Justly]

6. He's only the Chief Civil Rights Enforcer Your beef is with the Republicans, lol. K&R (nt)

[BeHereNow]

9. Are you serious? "LOL??????"

Wow, just wow.
You think people being hurt is funny?
Despicable.
Truly.
BHN

[T S Justly]

16. Lol!

[BeHereNow]

29. Seriously- WHAT are you laughing about?

There is NOTHING funny about this situation and
people being hurt-
PLEASE, do elaborate on what you think is so funny.
BHN

[T S Justly]

46. Oh, I suppose it's the adulation O will continue to enjoy around here by some, despite the glaring

absence from his Constitionally mandated duties. Despite the manly pecs, awsome abs, and weak back he wants everyone to get for him. It's funny in the ironic sense. Get it, now?

[Capn Sunshine]

10. While the President deplores this treatment of American citizens

he absolutely cannot set the precedent of dictating to non Federal elected officials or municipal employees how they should behave in the performance of their duties.

Now, the PEOPLE on the other hand, are free to come down on those motherfuckers.

[BeHereNow]

15. Well somebody needs to declare a "State of Emergency"

Be it the President or the Governor- intervention is clearly needed.
I can't believe what we are hearing from Oakland!
BHN

[joshcryer]

19. Looks like the governor is on board, mayor definitley is, they have other counties on board.

Just now a county bus from another county came in to help truck the people away.

[BeHereNow]

30. "Truck people away" for WHAT?

The governor and mayor gots some "'splainin to do Lucy!"
I mean what did the protestors do exactly to bring this
brutality upon them?
BHN

[joshcryer]

35. Good question. They'd taken the YMCA, I hope it's not criminal trespass.

A few people escaped out back of the YMCA to tell the story but they got boxed in there hard.

[XemaSab]

45. My understanding is that they didn't "take" the Y

That's where they happened to be when the cops showed up, so they ran into the Y to get away from the cops.

[joshcryer]

48. That's fair enough, though I don't see the cops seeing it that way.

They were on Y property when it went down as far as I understand, I hope I'm wrong of course.

[XemaSab]

53. The word on the street is that four busloads of people SO FAR

have been arrested at the Y. Epic.

[joshcryer]

56. I saw five pull up when I signed off and two others had come and gone.

I have turned it off since then, but yeah, it's pretty epic. I don't know if those ones I saw were loaded up or not.

[sabrina 1]

87. They didn't take the YMCA. They used it as a means of escape from the kettling by the police.

According to the rules, the police are supposed to offer a means of leaving before kettling protesters. They did NOT do that, they acted as if they were in Iraq and US Civilians were 'insurgents' (in fact that is what they called them). When protesters noticed they could go through the YMCA and escape the kettling, that is what many of them did.

[Capn Sunshine]

112. Soylent green of course

Cat food for the 1%'s Siamese

[hack89]

91. There is no state of emergency

Last edited Sun Jan 29, 2012, 03:28 PM - Edit history (1)

regardless of the what you think of OWS, the fact is they tried to break the law and the city stopped them. The Federal government is not going to step in to protect OWS from the police so that they can continue to break the law. It is not like the 60's where the Federal government was enforcing court decrees.

[elleng]

17. Right 100%

[T S Justly]

22. Bullshit. So let the innocent get hammered until injuries and deaths result? (nt)

[Dragonfli]

31. Yes the example set at Selma was a bad call by Johnson...

Approximately 600 protesters were prevented from continuing a march on the outskirts of Selma by 200 state troopers who used tear gas, nightsticks, and bull whips while on horseback. Forced to return to Selma, 17 marchers were hospitalized, and a federal lawsuit requesting the procession's continuance was filed by King and his supporters. While protected by federal troops, the march proceeded on March 21 and ended with four Ku Klux Klan members shot and the death of Viola Liuzzo, a 39-year-old white civil rights volunteer from Detroit. In response, President Lyndon Johnson said, “Mrs. Liuzzo went to Alabama to serve the struggle for justice. She was murdered by the enemies of justice who for decades have used the rope and the gun and the tar and the feather to terrorize their neighbors.”

He should have stayed out of it like Obama is! what was he thinking sending in the troops to protect US citizens.

[joshcryer]

36. You leave out the fact that Williams v. Wallace was a judicial court decision to allow the march.

[Dragonfli]

47. You leave out the part that allows us to assemble and make our grievances known

Without the need for special permission.

You also ignore the fact that assaulting people (unless to protect oneself or others) is not part of a legal arrest and that such an action is assault.

If state police are assaulting people then only Federal intervention can protect the citizens.

[joshcryer]

51. They had to get special permission, though. The government didn't "act" until they got it.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

98. That is contrary to the law added by Bush II in 2007 with no known opposition from Obama.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002238311

[Zalatix]

18. Where is 'Moonbeam' Brown at?

[AnotherMcIntosh]

65. Campaigning.

[Raine]

67. I suppose the next thing you will call him is "Medfly"

since you've used one repuke slur already. Some crap never dies no matter how many years pass.

[Zalatix]

86. Naw, I voted for him. I voted for the 'Moonbeam' the Repugs hated so much.

The Jerry Brown of old would have ordered these cops to go packing.

The day the GOP goes back to calling him that is the day California REALLY improves.

[Lil Missy]

23. Because it is not appropriate for Obama to interfere in State and Local Police matters.

[Dragonfli]

32. see post 31 and denounce Johnson's actions if you think they were wrong!

[AnotherMcIntosh]

100. That is contrary to the statute added in 2007 by Bush II with no known opposition from Obama.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002238311

[tabatha]

24. Californians need to contact Gov Brown and get the State Police to intervene and disband Oakland PD

UltraVerified verified
Californians need to contact Gov Brown and get the State Police to intervene and disband Oakland PD - they are out of control.
1 hour ago

[BeHereNow]

26. What I want to know is...

WHO authorized the unbridled brutality?
BHN

[T S Justly]

34. Lol. Now, that's funny! (nt)

[BeHereNow]

38. Why is that funny to you?

You appear to be posting random stuff and not offering any explanation.
What gives?
BHN

[AnotherMcIntosh]

37. Remember JFK in 1963. Anyone who says that a President cannot take action against state

officials and state troops to protect the civil rights of our citizens is unfamiliar with history.

In 1963 when George Wallace with the backing of the Georgia State police physically obstructed black students from registering at the University of Alabama, JFK federalized the Alabama National Guard. He ordered the National Guard to provide safety for the students.

The commander of the Alabama National Guard, with the backing of 100 armed guardsmen, appeared at the entrance way of the school and ordered George Wallace to "step aside." Wallace did so and no black students were injured.



Where's our President, you ask? He just finished attending a fund-raiser at the Mandarin Oriental Hotel on January 27th where the anticipated haul was $1,050,000. http://dyn.politico.com/politico44/sidecar-archive/2012-01-28 He's either attending another one or preparing to attend another one.

[BeHereNow]

39. Wow thanks for your contribution to this thread.

It is VERY important stuff you have just delivered-
Much gratitude to you.
BHN

[AnotherMcIntosh]

42. By posting your question, you contributed more than I did. Peace.

[BeHereNow]

43. Namaste, my friend. n/t

bhn

[ProSense]

50. That's

Remember JFK in 1963. Anyone who says that a President cannot take action against state

officials and state troops to protect the civil rights of our citizens is unfamiliar with history.

In 1963 when George Wallace with the backing of the Georgia State police physically obstructed black students from registering at the University of Alabama, JFK federalized the Alabama National Guard. He ordered the National Guard to provide safety for the students.

The commander of the Alabama National Guard, with the backing of 100 armed guardsmen, appeared at the entrance way of the school and ordered George Wallace to "step aside." Wallace did so and no black students were injured.

...simply an absurd analogy. The country was gripped with human rights violations, murders, bombings, police and judicial complicity.

Comparing that situation to Oakland is absurd.

I notice people are sidestepping the fact that no one has even heard from Governor Brown.

[Dragonfli]

55. I think most, like myself simply assume his complicity, they are his state troopers

there with all the other little fascist piggies.
He has chosen, like all the other cowards up and down the chain to stay silent while the dogs chew on the prey, silence is consent I am afraid.

[ProSense]

83. Right

I think most, like myself simply assume his complicity, they are his state troopers there with all the other little fascist piggies.
He has chosen, like all the other cowards up and down the chain to stay silent while the dogs chew on the prey, silence is consent I am afraid.

...the President is supposed to send in federal troops because you believe Governor Brown is complicity in protesters clash with the city police.

Absurd.

[Dragonfli]

111. The president should send in troops anytime no other authority will protect citizens from assault

against there person or freedoms.
You would have left Wallace to it rather than interfere in states issues, those damn protesters should never have been protected from assault.

You really make no bones about how little you think our freedoms and safety should be protected, it is rather disgusting actually, as ugly as anything I have heard from the right in fact.

The people have been protected by feds on the orders of FDR, Lyndon Johnson and JFK and yet you feel they all erred because our current president would rather ignore assault sanctioned by a local principality than intervene to protect their civil rights as well as their safety.

I don't think people with such beliefs are good for the country, I feel people do actually have rights and should not be assaulted by out of control local authorities, I am so glad you were not here to advocate against protecting civil rights protesters in the past. You voice would have tried to justify leaving them to the southern wolves.

It was NOT absurd then or now as you claim to protect us from sociopaths with badges and orders that would have us beaten us for free speech and assembly.

[JSnuffy]

123. It's insulting to actual civil rights issues...

... to think they are on equal levels.

[Raksha]

73. Thank you very much for the information.

It will be useful in the inevitable arguments with right-wingers tomorrow. They ALWAYS side with the cops and against the demonstrators no matter what. I'll let 'em know there is precedent for federal intervention.

[Capn Sunshine]

114. Not the same AT ALL- Alabama was violating a Federal court order

OWS has no Federal court order authorizing them to occupy property in oakland
The Federal Government is simply not a part of this. To imply other wise is disingenuous and looks like it was used here as an excuse to slam the President.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

119. The law already authorizes Obama to protect citizens from the Oakland police without a court order.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002238311

The right to assemble and peacefully protest are Federal rights under the First Amendment of the Constitution (and are also State rights through incorporation under the 14th Amendment).

When Bush II signed Public Law 109-364 in 2007, there is no known public record of Obama opposing it.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002238311

President Obama is not only the President who has a legal and moral responsibility to lead the nation, he is a Presidential candidate. We have both the right to evaluate him and we have the responsibility as potential voters in the upcoming election to do so. Don't tell me which public officials and candidates to refrain from evaluating.

[Capn Sunshine]

121. Citing DU threads is not exactly the ultimate authority

You may interprest these "laws" any way you want but there's no reason the Executive Branch of the US Goverment is compelled to agree with you.

Yet you keep spamming this post everywhere like it's a Supreme Court decision.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

122. The full text of Public Law 109-364 is the law. It is the authority referred to in the DU post.

A link to the full-text of Public Law 109-364 is also provided, along with an excerp and a brief explanation so that it can be readily understood in context.

Because the link is provided to Public Law 109-364 and no effort has ever been made to claim that a DU threat was "the ultimate authority," your statement "Citing DU threads is not exactly the ultimate authority" is irrelevant. It is not related to the post with the link where more information can be found regarding Public Law 109-364 and where the full-text of that law can be found.

Because no effort has been made to "interprest these 'laws' " in a manner contrary to the full-text of Public Law 109-364 or in lieu of a link to Public Law 109-364, the statement made in the second sentence is unnecessarily argumentative and also irrelevant to what was actually said. Incidentally, no claim is or has been made that "the Executive Branch of the US Goverment is compelled to agree." The Excutive Branch already agreed with the full text of Public Law 109-364 when Bush II signed it in 2007.

Your claim that there has been spamming is also wrong and irrelevant. In a number of instances, a number of people have repeatedly claimed that Obama cannot take any action until a court order has been sought and obtained, that taking action to protect First Amendment rights is the exclusive province of the Oakland mayor and/or California governor, or otherwise claim that Obama cannot take action based on other reasons.

They have repeatedly made those claims. You may prefer that they not know about Public Law 109-364. It certainly wasn't widely publicized when it was signed. But it is the law.

[Capn Sunshine]

124. Public Law 109-364? The John Warner Act?

I have never seen any reference to this authorizing anything; in fact, my interaction with this involves an industry level of credit extension rules to deployed members of the military.

It is however, a giant bill, so it's entirely possible I missed something.

The part you refer to , that allows the President to declare a "public emergency" and station troops anywhere in America and take control of state-based National Guard units without the consent of the governor or local authorities, in order to "suppress public disorder."

Would not be specific to support of OWS. Nor suppression of it. It's a discretionary thing.

There is nothing compelling the President to agree with your take on what is or isn't in that law. The rule specifically refers to Executive authority and exercise of its discretion, not yours.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

125. I'm sorry that you've "never seen any reference to [P.L. 109-364] authorizing anything."

The plain text of the excerpt found with the link and the plain text of the statute found with the link on the referenced DU page provides exactly that.

But you also acknowledge now knowing "The rule specifically refers to Executive authority and exercise of its discretion." I'm glad that I could help.

[Capn Sunshine]

132. Apology accepted

Glad you understand.

[Cleita]

52. This would be more appropriately handled by Governor Brown.

It is his call to quell unrest in his state, not the President's.

[Dragonfli]

58. Many said the same thing about George Wallace, they were wrong IMHO

Brown is looking away and therefore complicit, those are US citizens being brutalized for exercising their federally mandated rights.

If the mayor refuses to protect the citizens from city officials assaulting them, your recourse is the State level.

If the governor refuses to protect the citizens from state and city officials assaulting them then the only recourse left is protection from the federal level.

If there is no protection there then we live in a police state where the police can assault any and all citizens it likes for any reason.

[joshcryer]

59. The federal courts ordered Wallace to allow it, he still refused.

If this continues then expect a court decision first and then you'll get your army and national guard.

And then the protesters won't get to take to the streets every Saturday as they've done for the past few months.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

101. Under the statute added by Bush II in 2007, a court order is not required.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002238311

[BeHereNow]

60. You summed it up perfectly.

No State intervention- Federal intervention should kick in...
BHN

[Cleita]

61. If Brown is in fact looking the other way, then the President should step in, however,

we don't know if he is looking the other way. It's too soon to tell. He had said he would protect the protesters back in November. He may be working on the problem as I type this.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

63. Brown, like Obama, is busy campaigning.

On January 26th, he was scheduled to speak at the Los Angeles Chamber of Commerce's inaugural dinner held in the Diamond Ballroom of the JW Marriott in L.A.

You don't have to pay to see him in person. You can make a contribution at his web site:
http://www.jerrybrown.org/action

[Cleita]

93. So maybe Occupy needs to occupy the State Capitol where his offices are or

wherever he's living.

[geek tragedy]

62. When a federal court steps in.

Absent that, no jurisdiction.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

64. In 1973, without the intervention of a court, the Federal government sent Federal Marshals

to South Dakota.

When, if ever, has any court ruled that unless a federal court steps in, the Federal government has no jurisdiction?

Do you have a case that you can cite? Or is this based upon your personal belief?

[ProSense]

84. Yeah

In 1973, without the intervention of a court, the Federal government sent Federal Marshals

to South Dakota.

When, if ever, has any court ruled that unless a federal court steps in, the Federal government has no jurisdiction?

...this is just like Wounded Knee, right?

[sabrina 1]

88. Was there a federal court ruling to shut down marijuana clinics in states where it is legal?

I'm asking, as I do not know the law on Federal interference in states where the Fed Govt believes that Fed law is being violated. Brutalizing unarmed citizens should be stopped by the State, but if it is not, then why is a court order needed for that and not for Marijuana raids?

[AnotherMcIntosh]

102. Jurisdiction was established in 2007 when Bush II signed a particular statute.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002238311

[AnotherMcIntosh]

66. If it is true that Obama cannot act until a court order is obtained, what's preventing Holder from

doing so?

[T S Justly]

68. Obama!

[BeHereNow]

69. And Johnny Cash sang...

"I walk the line..."
For some reason, that song makes me think of you...
BHN

[T S Justly]

70. Don't give a shit what you think of me. Who you like in 2012? (nt)

[BeHereNow]

71. "Who you like in 2012?" Is that a trick question?

If nothing else, you ARE entertaining.
Namaste-
BHN

[T S Justly]

74. Sorry got sideways with you, thinking prematurely. Namaste. (nt)

[BeHereNow]

76. Huh? Care to clarify the meaning of your post?

What the hell are you trying to convey to me T S Justly?
You make no sense at all.
BHN

[T S Justly]

77. Then, we're back to the question you avoided. Who will you support in 2012 ...

In light of the President's most recent non-actions on behalf of the brutalized non-violent protestors of Occupy .
I'll be looking at your subsequent post(s) for clues.

[BeHereNow]

78. Back at ya- WHO will YOU support?

I have avoided none of our questions.
I have simply questioned your motives in asking them.
Me? I will vote for President OBAMA.

You?

Who will you vote for?

Fair is fair- I deserve an honest answer from you-
Not more one liner quips and cryptic asides from you.

Speak your truth or be silent.

BHN

[T S Justly]

79. The first progressive who comes along and takes the nomination and the leadership of the Party ...

Away from Obama. And, I hope after you have a chance to digest the events in Oakland, that you change your mind
and support that person, too.

However, if Obama decides to indict everyone involved in the unlawful acts of violence against Occupy, last night and early
this morning, and, during UC-Pepperdine, I will change my mind and also vote for him. Big if, though, one would have
to agree.

[BeHereNow]

80. Well of course I would support such a person- got one up your sleeve by chance?

Did you not get the initial gripe of my OP?
I am asking for intervention by any means possible!
I don't care if it is brought about by the state or the feds- point is, it needs to happen.
Bottom line in this pending election it this:
We have the clown car of circus freaks, and we have Obama.
Given the odds, what are our best chances?
No, I am NOT happy with much of Obama's choices-
but do you REALLY want NEWT OR MORMAN MAN given
the power assigned to the POTUS through the last ten years of "Executive Signing Power?"
HELL NO!!!!!!!!!

Do I agree with President Obama ALL of the time?
HELL NO!
But of all the Kabuki clowns, he appears to be the most rational, and therefore
ELECTABLE. OUr choices are
what exactly?
BHN

[BeHereNow]

81. And if this mythical figure should fail to materialize- then what?

It would be wonderful if Obama indicted the perps-
And if he does not, still we have the dilemma of who to support.
Obama, Newt, or Romney.
Keep in mind, the insane presidential powers that have been signed
into law, since GWB started signing them back in 2001.
More executive signings were executed under Bush than the sum total
of ALL of the presidents in our history as a nation.
Want that power granted to a Newt or a Mitt?
Hell NO!
BHN

[Quantess]

82. Obama appears to be more supportive of the financial industry than of OWS.

It is what it is.

[hack89]

89. With Jerry Brown perhaps? nt

[gulliver]

95. Looks like Occupy Oakland may have been infiltrated by assholes.

Not a good development. Splinter groups deserve no one's support, particularly not ones who break into buildings and burn flags. OWS needs to find a way to disassociate itself from the idiots who want to co-opt it and do idiot things in its name.

"Oakland police arrested about 300 Occupy Oakland protesters Saturday, after demonstrators broke into a vacant convention center, a YMCA and City Hall, where they burned an American flag."

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2012/01/occupy-oakland-300-protesters-arrested/

[AnotherMcIntosh]

103. Yep. How many are on the Oakland Police payroll?

[gulliver]

106. The probability of that is vanishingly small, imo.

If you pay someone to do something wrong, they own you. Especially in a day and age where everyone carries a phone that has voice recording and a camera. I don't see cops being willing to destroy their lives just to discredit OWS. Too easy to catch them.

More likely to me, emotion. It could be some people who sympathize with OWS but are immature, unintelligent, emotionally disturbed or some combination. They don't understand, like the vast majority of OWSers, that obnoxious behavior hurts the cause.

It could also be right wing infiltrators, but that is more iffy. They don't need to do it for one thing. Every single cause, no matter how good will attract numbskulls on the fringe. The normal curve will not be denied.

[Remember Me]

128. Boy, are you behind times

The cops have been infiltrating MOST of the Occupy efforts.

Any flag burning that went on is, I feel 99.9% sure, NOT an Occupy Movement act.

[gulliver]

129. Seeing the picture posted on another thread, I agree.

I don't think it was done by the authentic Occupy folks. There is a guy with a big grin holding up "Occupy Oakland" on a sheet of paper so that it appears in the photo. It was some kind of mischief. I just think there is no chance it was the police. The downside of getting caught is too great.

[Capn Sunshine]

116. As a veteran of the anti war movement, there are others who pay these idiots

The Koch Brothers spring to mind. They have a vested interest in making OWS appear lunatic and not credible. Kind of like how some posters here are invested in tearing down the President,giving DU the appearance of fringe lunatics.

Back then it was the groups headed up by the Koch Brother's daddies.
And an FBI stooge or two.

[treestar]

96. Please learn about the separation of powers

Life is not a movie.

[inna]

108. your condescension is misplaced and uncalled for

[treestar]

126. It is placed and called for

This country has a separation of power thing going.

[bluestate10]

130. Not so.

Primary responsibility for inappropriate local actions belong to states. If a state is charged with protecting citizen's rights and refuse to, then the FEDs step in. The situation in Alabama and other southern states during the fight for basic civil rights by African Americans is that the states were acting as partners to local governments and groups that were determined to deny civil rights to African Americans. The federal courts stepped in and when their strictures were ignored, federal marshals and troops were sent in.

Despite the mindless passion shown by some in this post, the situation in Oakland is not remotely close to that in Birmingham and other southern cities. African American and Caucasian protesters that were pushing for basic civil rights DID NOT break into property, they did do sitins to protest denial of basic civil rights such as the right to use public toilets, ride anywhere on a public bus or eat at any place that served meals and be treated the same as Caucasians.

[Rex]

99. Silence.

He went along with TARP, so the OWS movement goes against his agenda.

[MineralMan]

105. What action do you think the President should take?

He has very few options in this regard. Presidents rarely interfere in the individual states. What would you like to see him do in this particular situation?

[inna]

107. denounce police brutality, duh

[BeHereNow]

109. Exactly- I don't think the president should remain silent on the brutality of police in ANY

situation.
He should condemn it and hold those responsible to account for it.
SOMEBODY, somewhere gave the "okay" for the attacks on the protestors.
THAT person needs to have the light turned on them.
BHN

[randome]

115. And if he came out and said OWS groups should stop trying to take over buildings...

...you'd be okay with that, too, right?

[AnotherMcIntosh]

120. It would be OK for him to say that governmental agent provocateurs should not take over buildings.

He has the power as the President to demand how many agent provocateurs are on the governmental pay rolls.

They been on the governmental pay rolls in the past, and there is no reason to believe that the various governmental agencies have discontinued using such practice.

If he can not find any agent provocateurs on governmental payrolls, let him come out and say that.

[joshcryer]

127. "agent provocateurs" didn't vote for that, Occupy Oakland did, overwhelmingly.

Right from the horses mouth: http://occupyoaklandmoveinday.org/content/help-occupy-oakland-get-settled-its-new-home-january-28

What's pissing people off is that anarchists are involved and the non-participants, people who aren't putting their ass on the line, love to throw that "agent provocateurs" line out every time something tweaks their sensibilities.

[Capn Sunshine]

117. I think it's a very reasonable thing to ask of the President

As someone who works on the campaign I'm sending that up.
Bill Daley is hard to get past when it comes to demonstrations, we don't see eye to eye on this at all. Jack is much more even handed in this regard.

[dana_b]

118. only if it's half a world away n/t