How Obama Became a Civil Libertarian's Nightmare: He Expanded Many Of Bush's Worst Policies

[Better Believe It]

How Obama Became a Civil Libertarian's Nightmare
Obama has expanded and fortified many of the Bush administration's worst policies.
by Steven Rosenfeld
April 18, 2012

When Barack Obama took office, he was the civil liberties communities’ great hope. Obama, a former constitutional law professor, pledged to shutter the military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and run a transparent and open government. But he has become a civil libertarian’s nightmare: a supposedly liberal president who instead has expanded and fortified many of the Bush administration’s worst policies, lending bipartisan support for a more intrusive and authoritarian federal government.

President Obama now has power that Bush never had. Foremost is he can (and has) order the killing of U.S. citizens abroad who are deemed terrorists. Like Bush, he has asked the Justice Department to draft secret memos authorizing his actions without going before a federal court or disclosing them. Obama has continued indefinite detentions at Gitmo, but also brought the policy ashore by signing the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012, which authorizes the military to arrest and indefinitely detain anyone suspected of assisting terrorists, even citizens. That policy, codifying how the Bush treated Jose Padilla, a citizen who was arrested in a bomb plot after landing at a Chicago airport in 2002 and was transferred from civil to military custody, upends the 1878’s Posse Comitatus Act’s ban on domestic military deployment.

One of Bush’s biggest civil liberties breaches, spying on virtually all Americans via their telecommunications starting in 2003, also has been expanded. Congress authorized the effort in 2006. Two years later, it granted legal immunity to the telecom firms helping Bush—a bill Obama voted for. The National Security Agency is now building its largest data processing center ever, which Wired.com’s James Bamforth reports will go beyond the public Internet to grab data but also reach password-protected networks. The federal government continues to require that computer makers and big Web sites provide access for domestic surveillance purposes. More crucially, the NSA is increasingly relying on private firms to mine data, because, unlike the government, it does not need a search warrant. The Constitution only limits the government searches and seizures.

The government’s endless wartime footing is also seen in its war on whistleblowers. Obama has continued cases brought by Bush, such as going after the "leaker" in the warrantless wiretapping story broken by the New York Times in 2005, as well as the WikiLeaks case, prosecution of Bradley Manning, and others for allegedly mishandling classified materials related to the war on terrorism. Its suppression of war-related information given to journalists extends overseas, where the State Department this month has blocked a visa for a Pakistani critic from speaking in the U.S. The White House also recently pressured Yemen’s leader to jail the reporter who exposed U.S. drone strikes. Meanwhile, the administration has stonewalled Freedom of Information Act requests, particularly the Justice Department, which has issued the secret wartime memos.

Read the full article at:

http://www.alternet.org/rights/155045/how_obama_became_a_civil_libertarian%27s_nightmare/?page=entire

[Autumn]

1. Some truth there.

it seems so odd to still be getting pissed off at some of those thing 4 years down the road after that fucking Bush. Rec

[ProSense]

2. This was

posted already.

Here's my response: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=585248

It's the typical strung together hyperbole.

President Obama now has power that Bush never had. Foremost is he can (and has) order the killing of U.S. citizens abroad who are deemed terrorists. Like Bush, he has asked the Justice Department to draft secret memos authorizing his actions without going before a federal court or disclosing them....One of Bush’s biggest civil liberties breaches, spying on virtually all Americans via their telecommunications starting in 2003, also has been expanded. Congress authorized the effort in 2006. Two years later, it granted legal immunity to the telecom firms helping Bush—a bill Obama voted for...How bad is it? Anthony Romero, the ACLU executive director, exclaimed in June 2010 that Obama “disgusted” him. Meanwhile, the most hawkish Bush administration officials have defended and praised Obama.

Yeah, dig up everything every said or reported, debunked or not, and throw in the word "nightmare," and voila!

Never mind that even the ACLU sees progress in many areas.

• Ordered an end to the use of torture and cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment, withdrew
  flawed legal analysis used to justify torture and applied the Army Field Manual on interrogations
  government wide.
  
• Abolished the CIA secret prisons.
  
• Says that “waterboarding is torture” and “contrary to America’s traditions… contrary to our ideals.”
  
• No reports of extraordinary rendition to torture or other cruelty under his administration.
  
• Failed to hold those responsible for past torture and other cruelty accountable; has blocked
  alleged victims of torture from having their day in court.

http://www.aclulibertywatch.org/ALWCandidateReportCard.pdf

Bush left a tremendous mess, and anyone who believes it's going to be easy to untangle it is kidding themselves. Look at Guantanamo.

Libertarians are the nightmare.

[Dragonfli]

12. "Failed to hold those responsible for past torture and other cruelty accountable; has blocked

alleged victims of torture from having their day in court."

I realize that your sense of loyalty is very overzealous and you are a bit naive and in denial about the current and recent cicil liberty failures on the part of this administration, but even with the Kool-aid high one would think at least that last sentence would bother you, at least a little.

Remember, not all of us want to live in a police state that can strip search you over a traffic ticket and have you locked up or killed without charges if someone in the administration applies a simple label to your name. Not everyone is comfortable with the idea that all our emails and phone calls are being captured without warrents or probable cause, and not all of us feel that the rule of law should not apply to the political elite (or the financial elite for that matter).

Many of us consider all of these things to be less than Democratic and quite harmful to the country and it's citizens.

If you wonder why people complain about these things then you are failing to understand that this is not the country promised by our constitutuion and we would rather have our liberties and rule of law back before it is too late to get them back.

I can not for the life of me understand why an intelligent person such as yourself would just shrug off the loss of liberty so easily over one politician.

I hope you become less naive in the future and put country first, rather than the career of one politician.

[ProSense]

14. Please do

"Failed to hold those responsible for past torture and other cruelty accountable; has blocked alleged victims of torture from having their day in court."

I realize that your sense of loyalty is very overzealous and you are a bit naive and in denial about the current and recent cicil liberty failures on the part of this administration, but even with the Kool-aid high one would think at least that last sentence would bother you, at least a little.

...get over yourself. Anyone who thinks Obama is worse or equivalent to Bush has issues! Oh, and the "Kool-aid" bullshit doesn't work. It's moronic.

[Dragonfli]

18. I think that is good advice, so please feel free to get over yourself as well

Everything I described is true and is happening now.
To deny that is well, denial, or naiveté.

I don't hold it against you, I drank the Bill Clinton kool-aid years ago and considered him a hero, until he slashed welfare, deregulated the banks (which led to our recent financial crisis) and started signing "free trade" agreements that sent many of my neighbors jobs oversees. I was naive, defended him against any and all criticism, it took time to realize that he was a man, and humans have flaws, some of them against my best interests and those of the country.

You will realize someday that it is policy, law and liberty that is important rather than admiration for a man that deserves to be called great for having achieved such a position.

Then you will be able to see without blinders obstructing your vision to the mistakes that this HUMAN is making.

I would say I'd pray for you, but I am an agnostic witch so I will light you a candle instead.

[ProSense]

21. Clearly

"I don't hold it against you, I drank the Bill Clinton kool-aid years ago and considered him a hero, until he slashed welfare"

...you, by your own admission, had poor reasoning skills, maybe they haven't improved. Stop projecting.

[Dragonfli]

23. The difference is, I stopped drinking kool-aid and started listening to my reason

I was trying to explain to you that I can understand where you are coming from as I was like you once at a younger age.

I was trying to help, and be understanding, yet you reply with insults and a defensive posture.

Keep doing whatever you believe is right as will I.

At least I tried to have an honest discussion, perhaps such a discussion will have to wait a few years, 'till then, I wish you well and still hold out hope for you.

Peace

[SidDithers]

24. Hear, hear...nt

Sid

[Dragonfli]

25. .

[Sirveri]

48. To be fair, Clinton didn't do those things, they were done by Repubs.

NAFTA was written by multiple Republicans (before he even entered office) and passed with a veto proof majority.
Bank deregulation once again was written by three republicans and passed with a veto proof majority.
Welfare was likely similar but I'd need to look into that to double check.

The issue is that both parties are complicit, because they both represent the same group of people, the rich.

[Dragonfli]

49. To be fair he did support all three of those things and rallied blue dog votes to help

get them passed. He signed them happily as part of his triangulation strategy.

He had a special hard on for welfare deform and was a leader in getting it passed, do you not remember how the Republicans screamed that he "stole their issue!" when he worked to get welfare deform passed?

I tried to use the same arguments you are when I still had the blinders on as a cheerleader, but it was impossible to believe myself after he used the bully pulpit to praise all three and the bully pulpit and some arm twisting to get welfare destroyed.

It was hard to ignore the great communicator even while trying to twist logic to make him blameless.

He signaled the start of triangulation and a business friendly screw the people Democratic "lite" leadership that has led it ever rightward ever since, I agree that both parties are complicit, but I disagree that Clinton did not steer the ship actively and purposefully into that complicit relationship. He did so most happily.

[Sirveri]

50. That's a fair point. I'm used to arguing with Repubs about it.

So that's typically my fall back, since they typically only look at who signed the bill, not who wrote it, or the Congress it passed in.

I still have a soft spot though, because under Clinton I actually had a good job, which I promptly lost under Bush. But that's like comparing apples to untreated sewage.

[Dragonfli]

51. Understandable, the Republicans like to take credit for the balanced budget as well

Even tho only a cursory glance at the facts reveals that the main reason for that (and the job growth I might add) was the raising of taxes that were lower than they should have been.

It is the way of Republicans to shift blame when the populace figures out a policy screwed them, hence "Clinton did that! He signed that!" will often fall from their pie holes. At the same time they will take credit for the balanced budget and job growth even if the policies responsible for them were the one's they fought hard against even while collaborating on other issues.

Republicans are predictable that way, I am trying something different, blame or praise all parties involved depending on their participation in evolving and passing good laws and bad.

The way out of complicity is simple honesty, not blame shifting or denial.

For the record, Democrats are a basket of apples with some rotting in the basket and spreading the rot.

Republicans are indeed nothing more than untreated sewage, but I do rather dislike them so perhaps I am not as objective as I would like to be.

[woo me with science]

15. Hear, hear. nt

[progressoid]

27. This was also

posted already.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002575159

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002563451

http://www.democraticunderground.com/101624252

You should go to those and point out the repetition and typical strung together hyperbole too.

[ProSense]

28. So was

This was also posted already.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002575159

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002563451

http://www.democraticunderground.com/101624252

You should go to those and point out the repetition and typical strung together hyperbole too.

...this: http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002578237

Feel free to take your own advice.

[progressoid]

29. Oh, I'm sorry.

I thought this was a sub-thread on finding duplicate posts on a site with millions of posts by over a 100,000 members.

My bad.

[ProSense]

3. Please

kick and rec this thread: http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002587278

[xchrom]

4. Du rec. Nt

[Whisp]

5. du wreck indeed

[MineralMan]

6. No comment.

That's my comment.

[Capt. Obvious]

7. This was posted yesterday

I was having deja vu

[xiamiam]

8. i missed it..some of us dont get here everyday..rec because the truth is good enough

even if we don't like it

[Capt. Obvious]

10. Well, carry on then

They both made it to the greatest page.

http://election.democraticunderground.com/1002582327

[woo me with science]

11. Good.

This is important.

[Dragonfli]

13. I am having deja true! Kick for the truth!

[Better Believe It]

16. I didn't see it but glad to hear that!

[woo me with science]

9. DU rec. Thanks for continuing to push against the denial.

We will never stop this dangerous march until we shed the blind partisanship and denial of the in-your-face reality that both parties are doing this.

The wars, the prison system, the police state....It's all about money and government purchased by corporations. All of it.

Did you see this thread? I would add, "with government help," to this headline. We are in serious, serious trouble in this country:

Getting Paid 93 Cents a Day in America? Corporations Bring Back the 19th Century
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002586769

[polichick]

57. One party, two faces - one friendlier looking than the other...

But you're right - it boils down to both parties serving corporations, not the people.

[WI_DEM]

17. tell me, do you ever post anything about Romney or is it just Obama you can't stand?

[Better Believe It]

20. You mean like this anti-Romney one I posted yesterday?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002584497

You're not doing a very good job policing my posts.

You miss every anti-Republican post I put on Democratic Underground without exception!

Now how is that possible?

Perhaps you can explain you're inability to detect my posts attacking right-wingers and Republican politicians.

I'm listening!

[Bobbie Jo]

30. yeah, yeah, etc....

Rim Job hates Romney too.


yawn...token post time rolls around quick, no?

[woo me with science]

22. It is bipartisan. Wake up and look at the fucking record.

We are unable to stop it only BECAUSE it is bipartisan, and BECAUSE the blindly partisan refuse to stand up against it when it is coming from a corporate Democrat.

It is critical that Democrats stop the apologia for this shit.

[hughee99]

19. La, La, La, La, La, La... I can't hear you La, La, La, La, La

[truebrit71]

26. True enough, but do you think Mittens will be any better?

I think not.

I think we have a better chance of convincing Barack Obama that the Constitution is actually worth defending, rather than a rich man that thinks that corporations are people...

[Better Believe It]

31. No. He might build on Obama's actions just as Obama built on Dubya's.

But I think it's very unlikely Romney will get elected unless the economy gets worse on Obama's watch.

"I think we have a better chance of convincing Barack Obama that the Constitution is actually worth defending ...."

And how has that effort been going for the past three years?

[ProSense]

32. Right

"No. He might build on Obama's actions just as Obama built on Dubya's."

...because everything Obama has done is the same or worse than Bush. Romney will just pick up where Obama left off. There are no policies that Romney will have to pick up from Bush, right?

IOW, what difference does it make who is elected, right?

Ludicrous.

[truebrit71]

35. Sorry ProSense but picking up many Obama policies IS the same as picking up from Bush...

...in fact in some instances (whistle-blowers, Cpl Manning, LIHEAP for example) he's been WORSE...

Mittens would be a total disaster with ZERO chance of anything other then RW policies being put in place, but with Obama there is always the Hope that he will Change...

I find myself in the awkward predicament of many progressives this year where the best we can say about our candidate it that at least he isn't as bad as the other guy....four years ago we actively supported our guy because he was measurably better than the other guy...

[ProSense]

40. Sorry,

"Sorry ProSense but picking up many Obama policies IS the same as picking up from Bush..."

...I think that a lot of this is bullshit spin. It's easy enough to do, to mischaracterize policies and the impact. I mean, people who should know better convinced others that an Executive Order in existence since 1950 was an anti-Occupy bill. Even the ACLU's rejection of the characterization couldn't sway them.

There are those who have a vested interest in creating this persona for Obama, facts be damned. In some odd way they think they're advancing the progressive agenda, or so they'd have others believe. It's nonsense.

They can have it. I think it's bullshit.

[truebrit71]

42. And I disagree...

There are far too many of Obama's policies that are merely slightly revised Bush-era policies. To say otherwise is simply foolish.

I am supporting Obama because he is a metric shit-tonne better than Mitt Rmoney, but that doesn't mean that I'm happy about it..

[ProSense]

43. Right,

"There are far too many of Obama's policies that are merely slightly revised Bush-era policies. To say otherwise is simply foolish."

...one of the most hilarious things to watch is the new found concern about the "useless" Dodd-Frank bill. I mean, it was a complete sellout to Wall Street until lobbyists started pushing to dismantle it. Now every report in the rule-making process is weakening a good provision in a bill that was deemed completely useless.

You know, one could spend a lot of time repeatedly debunking most of this nonsense, but what would be the point? People are determined to believe whatever until it's convenient not to do so.

The RW spend a lot of time spinning because they know it takes time to debunk spin. The tactics of mischaracterizing everything Obama does as the same or worse than Bush is no different. Nothing about the reality of the situation (see Guantanamo). Nothing about the positive steps. The whole point is to portray Obama as wanting these things to happens, regardless of what he says or tries to do. If he fails, it's because that's what he secretly wanted.

Oh brother.

[TransitJohn]

64. We know, you do it all the time.

Sorry, I think that a lot of this is bullshit spin. It's easy enough to do, to mischaracterize policies and the impact.

[truebrit71]

34. How has it been going? Up to this point it's been an abject failure...

...but there is always "hope" that he might "change" in his second term, something we know for sure ahead of time that Mittens simply wouldn't...

[Better Believe It]

39. You're right. Obama might change, especially since he wouldn't be up for re-election in 2016.

But in which direction shall he change after re-election on civil liberties, the economy, Wall Street, etc.,?

Will he take more big steps to the right such as seeking bi-partisan agreements on "entitlement" cuts or will he go after Wall Street and big business?

[Dragonfli]

41. As an aside (not meant to distract from, or discourage an answer from the poster you replied to)

Last edited Fri Apr 20, 2012, 10:25 PM - Edit history (1)

I believe there are very few options available to us that do not have lobbyist or superpacs to use to appeal to our candidate, but among those few options still remains the pressure we can put on the debate as voting members of the party.

We can criticize and point out flaws that are axiomatic, we can use our individual voices in the actual world as well as this virtual internet word to make it known WHAT WE WANT.

We can call a right wing plan a right wing plan even when our candidate endorses it.

In short, we can keep doing what you do and make it known that we want to vote for someone that will not discard civil liberties, our safety net, our commons, or any other damn thing the robber barons want in exchange for a "bi-partisan bill that will pass".

We can hold them loudly accountable for their transgressions just as we can applaud their successes in helping the common man.

We can criticize, we will criticize, and the purpose should be to make OUR issues campaign issues.

Once elected however, they may still disregard promises they make to us to get elected, that is the problem no one knows the solution to.


My apologies for interjecting into a sub-thread not addresses to me

[Better Believe It]

46. There is no need to apologize.

We must hold ALL candidates and ALL office holders accountable ALL of the time for their actions.

It doesn't matter what political party they speak for and represent including smaller political parties.

[Marr]

52. Prediction: "Grand Bargain" will be the buzzword again after November.

And the eventual deal will contain all the things he originally put on the table during the big budget debate. Sure, there'll be lots of drama before arriving at that point, and everyone will have a chance to wash their hands in some way, but that's what we'll get.

[sabrina 1]

33. I agree we have a better chance of convincing President Obama that is Constitution is worth

defending, but only if the American people make their voices heard. Elected officials as we know now, are not surrounded by the American people, they are surrounded by warmongers, Wall Street lobbyists and other special interests.

The only leverage the American people have against all those other, wealthy, powerful voices is their own voices and votes.

To remain silent, which appears to be what some people are demanding, about issues as important as these, would be to abandon the duties of citizens and condone these policies by refusing to stand up against them.

People were silent during the Bush Administration, and look what happened. Afraid to appear anti-American they participated in doing what no terrorist could have done, destroy so many of our civil liberties.

We are not Republicans, we do not remain silent simply because it's our party in power. That is what we accused them of doing.

[Dragonfli]

38. +, well said Sabrina /nt

[polichick]

54. Democrats need to represent a stark difference from Republicans...

Not just be the party of "we're not quite as despicable as they are."

If any president thinks the Constitution is actually worth defending - if he or she takes the oath of office seriously - there are plenty of presidential powers available to do it.

[Egalitarian Thug]

65. I think they used to, before reagan. n/t

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

36. Disposing of our civil liberties is for our own good. Didn't you get the memo from the DNC/RNC?

“The shepherd always tries to persuade the sheep that their interests and his own are the same.” Marie-Henri Beyle - aka Stendhal

[Dragonfli]

37. Kick, we need to make civil liberties a campaign issue if we are to influence our candidate

to move in a direction to restore them, FULLY.

[DisabledDem]

44. K&R

[bvar22]

45. DURec,

You will know them by their WORKS,
not by their excuses.
[font size=5 color=green]Solidarity99![/font][font size=2 color=green]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------[/center]

[Better Believe It]

47. The Ever-Expanding Surveillance State That Has Grown Under Obama

The Ever-Expanding Surveillance State That Has Grown Under Obama
By: Kevin Gosztola
April 20, 2012

The surveillance state in the United States has only grown in America since the September 11th attacks. It has increasingly been used to spy and intrude on the lives of journalists and activists. And, during a Democracy Now! special, a full hour was spent delving into the National Security Agency’s evolution into an entity that illegally collects and sifts through private emails, cell phone calls and possibly Internet searches and other personal data of Americans. The special also looked closely at the stories of two individuals that have been targeted by the Homeland Security Department—journalist Laura Poitras, who has directed documentaries on the Iraq War and Yemen, and computer security researcher Jacob Appelbaum, who once served as a stand-in for Julian Assange at a hackers conference.

NSA whistleblower William Binney, in his first television interview since he resigned from the NSA, explains that the fact a telecommunications company, AT&T, was now providing approximately 320 million records—long distance data from citizens’ billing records—to the government led him to leave the agency. This was a violation of the Constitution, the pen register law, the Stored Communications Act, the Electronic Privacy Act, the Intelligence Acts of 1947 & 1978 and other federal laws governing telecommunications.

Binney talks about going to the Intelligence Committee to raise concern before he resigned. Porter Goss, who was chairman of the committee at the time, essentially shrugged off an effort to look into what the NSA was doing. He thought any questions should be taken to Michael Hayden, then-head of the NSA. It was the Intelligence Committee’s job to “do the oversight on all this domestic spying.” The Committee was setup to provide “oversight over the intelligence community to make sure they didn’t monitor US citizens.” It was setup in the “fallout of the Church Committee back in the 70s.” But, nothing was really being done about the illegal operations of the NSA.

And then, on July 26, 2007, about twelve FBI agents raided his home with their guns drawn. Binney was in the shower. His son answered the door. They pushed past him and, when they found him in the bathroom, pointed a gun at his head to make sure he was “duly intimidated.” Diane Roark, Kirk Wiebe and Ed Loomis were also raided that same day too. This was intimidation and retribution for filing a Defense Department Inspector General complaint against the NSA.

Read the full article at:

http://dissenter.firedoglake.com/2012/04/20/the-ever-expanding-surveillance-state-that-has-grown-under-obama/

[dionysus]

53. keep trying...

[polichick]

55. It's horrifying and inexplicable.

[cliffordu]

56. Another cut and paste drive by.

This train is never late.

[SidDithers]

58. Ctrl-V for Victory!!...

Sid

[cliffordu]

60. rofl

[polichick]

61. A victory for blind denial is hardly to be celebrated.

[polichick]

59. Interesting that you cannot dispute the facts presented...

I wish someone here could, but inconvenient truths are still true.

[Marr]

62. It's easier to just do what the Bushies used to do.

Just put the critic in the "heretic" box, where you no longer have to think about anything they have to say.

[polichick]

63. Good point - but kinda creepy to see that here.

[WillyT]

66. Oh... The Marchers Here Have Been Practicing... And They Are Almost In Lock-Step...