Obama Won't Weigh In On Georgia Execution

[Purveyor]

Source: ASSOCIATED PRESS

WASHINGTON (AP) -- President Barack Obama is refusing to weigh in on the pending execution in Georgia of inmate Troy Davis.

Less than half-hour before Davis' scheduled execution Wednesday, White House press secretary Jay Carney issued a statement saying that Obama has long worked to ensure accuracy and fairness in the criminal justice system especially in capital cases. But Carney said it would not be appropriate for the president of the United States to weigh in on specific cases like this one, which is a state prosecution.

Davis was convicted of killing off-duty police officer Mark MacPhail in 1989. His attorneys say key witnesses against him have disputed their testimony. But courts have ruled against granting him a new trial.

Read more: http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_GEORGIA_EXECUTION_WHITE_HOUSE?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2011-09-21-18-55-20

[teddy51]

1. Even though it might have been the right thing to do. Once again I am very

disappointed in his decision.

[monmouth]

3. Of course you are....n/t

[teddy51]

4. And your not huh? You should be! n/t

[monmouth]

7. No, I shouldn't be and am not but thanks for your concern. n/t

[teddy51]

9. Whatever! n/t

[Name removed]

10. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

15. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[CaliforniaPeggy]

24. I beg to differ.

Trolls aren't the only ones disappointed in Obama.

I am no troll. And I have been disappointed in him many, many times.

Of course, I still support him, and will vote for him...

:shrug:

[Divine Discontent]

29. +1! hear hear, CP!

http://www.zazzle.com/republicans_2012_keeping_millions_out_of_work_bumper_sticker-128002960205017719

[Cool Logic]

38. If he disappoints you when he does something right...

yours will be the story of an eternally half-filled glass.

[tblue]

2. If you were president, what would you do?

Just sayin'.

[iandhr]

5. Its not in the Presidents power...

... to stop a state execution

[izquierdista]

6. ..

[teddy51]

8. Whether it is or isn't, he could certainly lend a hand in what we all know is unjust. n/t

[FedUp_Queer]

11. There is this thing...

called the bully pulpit which can raise awareness and have people put pressure. There are scores of people "who can't do anything" but who are speaking out to raise awareness. This is just an excuse of another example of Obama's excruciating cowardliness and lack of leadership. But then again, don't we expect this from Mr. GO(bama)P?

[monmouth]

13. Did you and your partner get bus passes to get here? n/t

[teddy51]

16. Look I get it, your a devoted Obama supporter, thats obvious. I want to see him reelected

as well, but only because he is better than the alternative.

[monmouth]

19. And who would that be? n/t

[teddy51]

20. The obvious 8 stooges on the right. Whats your point here anyway?

There are more people posting on this OP that agree with me than you, so get over it.

[monmouth]

22. An alternative to Obama would come from the left. You need to get

back on that bus. How old are you? "there are more people posting on this OP that agree with me than you" That's playground talk...

[teddy51]

23. No it wouldn't, I'm talking about Repug/Tea Bagger wining the election, not

a primary challenge.

[Tarheel_Dem]

73. I disagree strenuously. If he intervened here, he would no doubt have to intervene in TX....

as well, lest he be accused of racism. Obama's not your personal "activist", he is the POTUS. By the way, WTF did you do? Were you outside the courthouse when the execution took place? :shrug:

[FedUp_Queer]

79. Another red herring.

Let's see. In Georgia, we had a guy where 7 of 9 witnesses recanted, the warden of the prison was against the execution, the Pope, Bishop Tutu, Bob Barr and Louis Freeh were against execution. We had no DNA evidence, no weapon and only eye witnesses. In Texas, we had a man who took part in a ritualized killing by dragging a man tied to a truck bumper for miles until the body literally broke apart. There was not only not a reasonable doubt, there was no doubt about the Texas man's guilt. Nice try.

[Tarheel_Dem]

81. Not my "red herring". But racism would have been the charge had the

president spoken out in one case, and not the other, and probably right here on DU. Serious question? How much intervention is too much by the fed? Is there a line with you at how much activism the federal government engages in? :shrug:

Any limit on the number of the 450 executions that have taken place in this country this year, that the White House should become personally involved in? I mean, Texas alone wouldn't leave a lot of time for much else. Retrying cases is not the provence of the Executive Branch, we have a Judiciary for that. This was not a federal case, and the highest court in the land passed on it. I'm not sure what Obama bashers expected, other than to continue their anti-Obama crusade. :eyes:

[FedUp_Queer]

82. Huh?

I was merely talking about the bully pulpit. I don't think the federal government had any legal right. However, as many of us "Obama bashers" have tried to tell you toadies, there is a thing called the bully pulpit. It's not as if this president didn't use it here only. It's that he has sat on his arse and failed to use it ever. Obama is a milquetoast incapable of being a leader on anything.

[Tarheel_Dem]

84. Oh yeah, "the bully pulpit". Why? So you and the others can say...

"Oh, it's just a speech"? :rofl: Jeebus Christ. Are you the one who decides when "a speech" is required? I guess you weren't around here for the grief he took in the Skip Gates matter? :shrug:

That's the luxury of ODS, you get to hate on the president no matter what he does. Whatever position he takes, you can take the opposite, even if it was your own position before, not unlike the GOP. If you guys keep moving those goalposts, pretty soon they'll be clear out of sight. :eyes:

[FedUp_Queer]

86. I love toadies.

You're all just ignorant. There's a difference between "just giving a speech" and the bully pulpit. Let me explain because it seems beyond your reach. "Just giving a speech" saying something then doing something else when it is within your power to act. The bully pulpit is bringing awareness to a cause or plight, when that's all the president has. It's called the power to persuade. I, for one, will not vote for this non-leader, milquetoast man because he never uses the bully pulpit, because he only gives speeches, and because he is nothing but a right-wing corporatist war monger. When he's right, I've said and will say he's right...that just hasn't happened very often. When he's wrong, I'll point out where I think he's wrong...particularly when "he just gave a speech" saying the exact opposite (examples: public option, "walking picket lines", expanding Gitmo east, importation of Canadian drugs). If you can't see the difference, your problem, not mine.

[Tarheel_Dem]

87. Don't you "activists" bring attention to your own "issues"? Or do people just tune you out,

as I intend to do? You're a bore & an internet bully, but something tells me you probably wouldn't be quite as bullish, face to face. Vote for whomever the fuck you want. Live long and prosper, oh wise & witty one. ;)

[FedUp_Queer]

90. I'm not the president. I don't have myself one of those bully pulpits.

President Milquetoast, however, does. But, if you want to impute as much power to me as he has and won't use, knock yourself out. And, go right ahead and tune me out...I can't say I'd care. Um...yeah...I'm probably even more "bullish" face to face. Although, I don't resemble a cow. I guess "speaking my mind" goes with this unquenchable thirst for the truth because I sure as hell ain't found it yet.

[Chan790]

21. Do you want me and my 10000 posts to say it?

The President could have gone out on a limb to do the right thing and again did not.

You know that post-counts don't matter and it's a rules violation to call someone out on basis of post-count, right?

[FedUp_Queer]

78. Nice red herring.

My partner, a foreign national, is out of the country working toward his PhD. I don't have the money to do that and can't take off because, as a contractor, I don't work, I don't get paid. However, the Coward in Chief could have made that long, arduous walk to the Oval Office, the Press Briefing Room or the East Room of the White House to call people's attention to Mr. Davis' plight. Then again, this is the guy who said he'd get a pair of comfortable shoes and walk the picket line to support union folk but has sat on his arse while the governor of Wisconsin and his corporatist cronies eviscerated collective bargaining rights.

[Bill McBlueState]

14. it's not in your power, either,

but that doesn't make sitting on the fence morally acceptable.

[fascisthunter]

34. yeah, because if he does weigh in, it may influence some to think twice

he may not have the power to stop it himself but he could at least give us his thoughts on the matter. It looks weak and reeks of fear of what his opponents might say about him for giving everyone his take on the matter.

[Hissyspit]

42. I believe he/DoJ could halt it with a call for a civil rights investigation.

If I'm not mistaken.

[jberryhill]

43. ...which would go to the same federal district and circuit that has already examined this claim

The DoJ is supposed to go to that same court and say that the same court violated his civil rights?

[No Elephants]

56. No, but it is within his power to comment. Whether or not he should have commented

is a separate issue, as is what he should have said if chose to comment.

[Name removed]

12. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Jackpine Radical]

17. All that is required for evil to prevail

is for good people to do nothing.

[B2G]

18. Suddenly he cares about states' rights.

:grr:

[Itchinjim]

52. 221

[David Sky]

25. Obama is supposed to weigh in on and fix EVERY INJUSTICE

in the nation?

Nope, that's not the nation we live in. Obama, wonderful man, but cannot fix every law and every system.

Nor is it appropriate for ANY President to weigh in on any case in any jurisdiction. We know Obama did this once, with the minor but important injustice of the Gates case in Cambridge, MA..........not a capital case, not a serious case, really, but a racial injustice for sure. Obama learned his limitations as President. We should all learn the same.

Obama is NOT our father, he is someone hired to do a job.

[teddy51]

26. Sorry but I disagree in this particular case. If this execution goes forward as is, the US is going

to suffer a major Black Eye around the world. This would have been a time for him to really shine, and show some of us that voted for him in 2008 that he really is our man.

[David Sky]

32. So you are willing to throw away the U.S. Constitution and the laws of

each and every state, when it suits your argument?

I want to see this unfortunate individual get a new trial, as this is clearly warranted. But we didn't hire Obama to break state and federal laws just to suit our personal opinions upon every issue.

Unfortunate as that is for us and for this man, it is the nation we live in, and the laws we follow.

[teddy51]

36. All I'm saying is that he could have been out there to help our country in this case.

Obviously, the case is not a slam dunk and there is now much doubt about executing an Innocent man. And by helping the country, I mean that much of the civilized world are watching these proceedings.

[Kennah]

39. Well said! Governor Nathan Deal has the power, and I haven't heard his name mentioned.

[No Elephants]

61. I'm not sure. Georgia law seems to give the Parole Board the power, not the Governor.

But Obama does have certain powers to intervene, though not to pardon or grant clemency.

[FedUp_Queer]

80. Actually, no. The power lay solely with the parole board.

Either way, Deal is a cracker teabagger. Why WOULD anyone expect anything different?

[No Elephants]

60. Which state and federal laws does expressing a position violate again?

I don't know that Obama should have commented, beyond what he said, but sticking to reality is a good thing, usually, anyway..

[monmouth]

27. Well said..n/t

[No Elephants]

57. The problem with the Gates case was not that Obama weighed in, but

that he said the wrong thing, and without even having familiarized himself with the case (or so he said).

It would have been perfectly acceptable to have said something like "I have some familiarity with both Professor Gates and the City of Cambridge and have reason to think well of both. I am not, however, familiar with the facts of this particular situation; and this is, at least in the first instance, a matter for the City of Cambridge. Therefore, it is not appropriate for me to say more at this time. Next question."

[Bluenorthwest]

28. But it was appropriate to weigh in on Skip Gates and the Cops

which was a specific, non federal case. Local, I think, not even State. Obama talked about it on TV, then held a 'Beer Bust' or something.
His ethics are situational.

[d_b]

30. qft

[julian09]

31. If Obama said execute him, they would let him go just to be

against him.

[David Sky]

35. No, it was NOT appropriate, and Obama paid the price for his

indiscretions there.

He didn't win that battle in the format of public opinion, nor is there any way he was justified in doing so, according to the laws of our nation and the state of Massachusetts.

Had he not commented, Massachusetts would have thrown the case out of court and would have enabled Gates to sue the Cambridge police.

Obama just messed that whole process up.

[alp227]

33. Willie Horton, anyone?

Unfortunately this could be obamas willie horton moment in case evidence surfaces davis really did it. Can u imagine all the obama/davis/soft on crime ads in 2012???

[David Sky]

37. Facts notwithstanding, Horton was out on furlough..I doubt even

the most liberal who post here would be arguing for that tonight.

[alp227]

40. I got the idea abt soft on crime attacks

On thom hartmann today

[yodermon]

41. Dammit can anyone read?? "Obama has long worked to ensure accuracy and fairness

in the criminal justice system especially in capital cases."

Hmm now if Obama "won't weigh in", why bother with that little preamble? It's clearly applicable in this case, and he knows it.

[No Elephants]

62. I wonder what form that work took, specifically.

[Stinky The Clown]

44. In other news: Water Remains Wet. Generalissimo Franco Remains Dead

Imagine, Obama not taking a position.

[Poll_Blind]

45. "Not appropriate" unless he could use it politically- like the "Beer Summit"?

PB

[No Elephants]

69. Yeah, that worked well.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

46. Once again the "Blame Obama" crowd emerges. It's sick!!

[CakeGrrl]

49. It is. ANY excuse to keep their anger boiling. Something. ANYTHING.

Never mind what the law dictates.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

50. Separation of Powers doesn't mean shit to them. They are worse than the Tea Baggers!!

Either we revere the U.S. Constitution and what it stands for, or we don't. And if we don't, then we have no right to call ourselves patriots! We are then no better than the Tea Baggers!!

[EFerrari]

54. Surprisingly, it's not a Constitutional violation for Obama to have a conscience

although he sometimes behaves as if it is.

[No Elephants]

67. +1 A POTUS taking a position violates no laws whatever, unless his position is

urging others to immediate violence or something along those lines.

The rationales on this thread are really something.

That said, I'm not sure myself what I would have done, or what I would have advised someone in Obama's position to do.

I guess I should think about it more.

[Rex]

65. Speak for yourself.

Maybe you are no better then a Teabagger.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

74. Difference is: I use rational thought and hysterics. Bottom line: this president

can do no right. If he made a statement, you ODSers would be upset with him for saying the wrong thing. He doesn't make a statement to your liking, so he suddenly is responsible for what happened? Supports the death penality?

It it utterly preposterous. These are things that only Teabaggers would do, and even they have some shame. I haven't heard any of them utter a word about this or blame the president as they often do.

I have nothing else to add on this subject because I see that we'll get nowhere.

[No Elephants]

68. Oh, please, Louise. Nothing about separation of powers prevents a President

from making a thoughtful statement.

Nor did Obama worry about the separation of powers when he called the Supreme Court out during the SOTU, which I am guessing you approved of.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

75. They don't know shit about me, so stop assuming what I think and believe!

[EFerrari]

53. Yes, sick the way people hold Obama responsible for Obama.

He wasn't very concerned about weighing in on individual cases when he said Brad Manning broke the law.

[No Elephants]

63. I could be mistaken, but I think he did something similar in at least one other case as well.

[U4ikLefty]

47. Might hurt re-election chances

cannot do that

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

48. Here's a great thread on this...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x1980692

Please read!!

[shireen]

51. i'm sure he has an opinion but

he can't speak about it publicly because it will be turned into a political event by the Republicans.

Besides, even if he did speak out, he has no control over it. That disgusting action is decided by the states.

[EFerrari]

55. Larry Cox, the CEO of Amnesty International said both the Supreme Court's

23 word statement and Obama's statement were acts of cowardice.

[shireen]

76. yes ...

politics brings out the cowards in otherwise good people. (OK, I'd exempt Scalia and Thomas from 'good people.')

[totodeinhere]

88. That may be Cox's opinion but I for one disagree with him. Cox is not God and just his saying it

doesn't make it so. Obama doesn't have to make a statement about each and every situation that he has no power to change.

[No Elephants]

64. A POTUS can't speak because it might be turned into politics? Do you want to think about that

claim a little more?

And Presidents, including Obama, speak about hundreds of things over which they have no control, if not thousands.

I don't know if President Obama should have commented more than he did or not. But some of these "explanations" have a knee jerk quality about them.

[shireen]

77. uh, you think about it ...

that's the reality of politics. He has to pick and choose his battles. Whether we agree with what he picks is a different issue.

As Elizabeth said, they're cowards.

[MrSlayer]

58. Nor should he have.

It's just political poison any way you look at it. If he goes one way, he is supporting a cop-killer. If he goes the other way he's supporting the execution of a person who might be innocent. Better to deflect.

[No Elephants]

66. Yes, a POTUS should never speak about anything because something political might be made of it.

Hell, even if he says "Merry Christmas," the atheists and separation of church and staters might object.

And yet, he does speak, and on controversial topics, too. Which is pretty much a leader's job.

On second thought, your rationale just doesn't work on any level.

[MrSlayer]

71. You're being extreme.

And my rationale is perfectly rational. It would have been stupid for him to opine on the matter.

[coalition_unwilling]

59. If it smells like cowardice, sounds like cowardice, feels like cowardice, well

then, it's probably cowardice. (Cf. ducks)

[No Elephants]

70. He could have said more, or something different. However, off the top of my

head, I am not sure what he could have said.

Then again, I don't have a press office whose people actually get paid (by us, I assume) to come up with just the right words.

Think about it. If you were Obama, what would you say?

Something about the importance of the rule of law? Maybe not.

Something about how the State of Georgia should not have looked back, only forward? Maybe not.

Something about the death penalty being wrong? Maybe not.

Something vague and self-serving?

[ellisonz]

72. If you want to blame someone for this...blame the Supreme Court of the United States.

I doubt Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor voted against a stay.

[totodeinhere]

89. If they were against the majority why didn't they have the courage to publish a dissent?

That's no different than Obama's not saying anything about it. It's just as cowardly.

[EndElectoral]

83. He continues to dissapoint...So much for "Hope" for Davis.

[24601]

85. Your perspective can change when you are sworn to uphold the

Constutitution, When you don't want to dis the majority African Americans on the Jury (7 of 12) and, of course when you are going to run again and 62% of the electorate supports the death penalty.

But the major hypocrite factor comes out if you try to spare the black cop-killer while supporting the death of the black murdering white ass-wipe from Texas.

[panzerfaust]

91. because that would require the courage to take a stand?

One way or the other.
Then: The Audacity of Hope

Now: The Truth of Hope Betrayed


The Republicans are not going to re-elect him because they are foolish ... and it is way too late for him to start supporting traditional Democratic values, so I doubt that we will re-elect him either.

We need a real primary & a different candidate in 2012.