Columns, Congress, Constitutional Law, Courts, Criminal law, International, Media, Politics, Society

Obama and the Decline of the American Civil Liberties Movement

Below is today’s column in The Los Angeles Times on the record of Barack Obama on civil liberties and his impact on the civil liberties movement in the United States.

OBAMA: A DISASTER FOR CIVIL LIBERTIES

With the 2012 presidential election before us, the country is again caught up in debating national security issues, our ongoing wars and the threat of terrorism. There is one related subject, however, that is rarely mentioned: civil liberties.

Protecting individual rights and liberties — apart from the right to be tax-free — seems barely relevant to candidates or voters. One man is primarily responsible for the disappearance of civil liberties from the national debate, and he is Barack Obama. While many are reluctant to admit it, Obama has proved a disaster not just for specific civil liberties but the civil liberties cause in the United States.

Civil libertarians have long had a dysfunctional relationship with the Democratic Party, which treats them as a captive voting bloc with nowhere else to turn in elections. Not even this history, however, prepared civil libertarians for Obama. After the George W. Bush years, they were ready to fight to regain ground lost after Sept. 11. Historically, this country has tended to correct periods of heightened police powers with a pendulum swing back toward greater individual rights. Many were questioning the extreme measures taken by the Bush administration, especially after the disclosure of abuses and illegalities. Candidate Obama capitalized on this swing and portrayed himself as the champion of civil liberties.

However, President Obama not only retained the controversial Bush policies, he expanded on them. The earliest, and most startling, move came quickly. Soon after his election, various military and political figures reported that Obama reportedly promised Bush officials in private that no one would be investigated or prosecuted for torture. In his first year, Obama made good on that promise, announcing that no CIA employee would be prosecuted for torture. Later, his administration refused to prosecute any of the Bush officials responsible for ordering or justifying the program and embraced the “just following orders” defense for other officials, the very defense rejected by the United States at the Nuremberg trials after World War II.

Obama failed to close Guantanamo Bay as promised. He continued warrantless surveillance and military tribunals that denied defendants basic rights. He asserted the right to kill U.S. citizens he views as terrorists. His administration has fought to block dozens of public-interest lawsuits challenging privacy violations and presidential abuses.

But perhaps the biggest blow to civil liberties is what he has done to the movement itself. It has quieted to a whisper, muted by the power of Obama’s personality and his symbolic importance as the first black president as well as the liberal who replaced Bush. Indeed, only a few days after he took office, the Nobel committee awarded him the Nobel Peace Prize without his having a single accomplishment to his credit beyond being elected. Many Democrats were, and remain, enraptured.

It’s almost a classic case of the Stockholm syndrome, in which a hostage bonds with his captor despite the obvious threat to his existence. Even though many Democrats admit in private that they are shocked by Obama’s position on civil liberties, they are incapable of opposing him. Some insist that they are simply motivated by realism: A Republican would be worse. However, realism alone cannot explain the utter absence of a push for an alternative Democratic candidate or organized opposition to Obama’s policies on civil liberties in Congress during his term. It looks more like a cult of personality. Obama’s policies have become secondary to his persona.

Ironically, had Obama been defeated in 2008, it is likely that an alliance for civil liberties might have coalesced and effectively fought the government’s burgeoning police powers. A Gallup poll released this week shows 49% of Americans, a record since the poll began asking this question in 2003, believe that “the federal government poses an immediate threat to individuals’ rights and freedoms.” Yet the Obama administration long ago made a cynical calculation that it already had such voters in the bag and tacked to the right on this issue to show Obama was not “soft” on terror. He assumed that, yet again, civil libertarians might grumble and gripe but, come election day, they would not dare stay home.

This calculation may be wrong. Obama may have flown by the fail-safe line, especially when it comes to waterboarding. For many civil libertarians, it will be virtually impossible to vote for someone who has flagrantly ignored the Convention Against Torture or its underlying Nuremberg Principles. As Obama and Atty. Gen. Eric H. Holder Jr. have admitted, waterboarding is clearly torture and has been long defined as such by both international and U.S. courts. It is not only a crime but a war crime. 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. In this process, his administration shredded principles on the accountability of government officials and lawyers facilitating war crimes and further destroyed the credibility of the U.S. in objecting to civil liberties abuses abroad.

In time, the election of Barack Obama may stand as one of the single most devastating events in our history for civil liberties. Now the president has begun campaigning for a second term. He will again be selling himself more than his policies, but he is likely to find many civil libertarians who simply are not buying.

Jonathan Turley is a professor of law at George Washington University.

The Los Angeles Times
September 29, 2011

210 thoughts on “Obama and the Decline of the American Civil Liberties Movement”

  1. Swarthmore Mom-

    You are doing a great job of shouting “Fire!” every time someone calls you on the “lesser of two evils” excuse to keep an unprincipled President in office. The lesser of two evils is evil. Obama lost my vote shortly after he was elected with his “I want to look forward, not backward” excuse for not investigating the war crimes and illegal invasion of Iraq by the previous administration. Obama also lost my vote for his failure to roll back the Bush administration attacks on the civil liberties of the American people when he had both Houses under Democratic control. A President who stands for nothing and is a moral coward on Progressive issues brings the Democratic Party into disrepute and has nothing to offer me or anyone else. As Prof. Turley said early in Obama’s Presidency, “President Obama has proven to be a perfect nightmare on civil liberties.”

    When I voted for Obama, who was not my first choice, I at least thought he had a fine mind and would move America in the right direction. I was wrong on both assumptions. The man has been a total dupe for the Republicans and John Boehner has played him like a banjo. How many months has he wasted arguing with the Republicans about the “deficit problem”? He should have told them publicly that we are not going to even consider lowering the deficit until the small business owners and corporate CEO’s stop sitting on their money and start hiring unemployed Americans. He should have told the two Republican leaders that he would talk to them about the deficit when the unemployment level hits 5%.

    I hope I will have a real Progressive primary challenger to vote for in 2012. If not, I will write in Bernie Sanders. At least I will have the satisfaction of voting for someone I respect. I have no respect for Barack Obama.

    And, no, Swarthmore Mom, I will NOT be responsible if a Republican is elected. Barack Obama will be solely responsible for his loss because of his own lack of principles and his own flawed character. I would not respect myself if I voted for Obama, and unlike Obama, I DO have principles and will not compromise them.

  3. Rich-

    The ACLU is alive and well and in court every day fighting for civil liberties, unlike our President, who stands for absolutely nothing. Check out the ACLU website and if you like what you see, join up and send them a few bucks. If you’re a Progressive, they are on your side. If you’re a Bible-thumping, woman-hating, gay-bashing, tea-bagger, the ACLU is your worst nightmare come true. They are in the State courts as well as the Federal courts fighting the Statehouse Fascism of the newly powerful Republicans. In my opinion they are the most useful and effective organization we have in the USA. I wish I could say the same for the Democratic Party.

  6. pete, I don’t know the answer for certain, but in the last half hour on the TV watching some football and storm chasers on the Weather Channel, I have seen at least a dozen bank and credit card commercials. I have not seen a single item sponsored by unions or protesters. Coincidence? I think not…..

  7. OS

    i’ve been kinda/sorta keeping up with occupy wall st on alternet but i just logged on a few minutes ago.

    why the hell isn’t this plastered all over the news

    i just scanned the 3 1/2 24 hour news channels and they’re running the same old shit, cnn headline, micheal jackson, cnn, micheal jackson, msnbc, the prison channel, and faux news is still talking about casey anthony.

  8. It’s not just Brooklyn and Wall St…..it is EVERYWHERE!!! [I don’t have a television…are they saying anything about this?] From my facebook site they are arresting in Toronto, in Sarasota….all over…and the kids are being just awesome…calm, collected, respectful…shouting out thier names as they get arrested so there is a record…good-oh!

    I’m excited! and all emotional and everything….it just took too damn long….and here is this from reuters;

    ‘The group has gained support among some union members. The United Federation of Teachers and the Transport Workers Union Local 100, which has 38,000 members, are among those pledging solidarity.~reuters’

    keep it peaceful!

  14. There are 3,000 plus protesters on the Brooklyn Bridge. Police are barricading them and arresting people at random, apparently. At least one or more of the arrests appear to be children or teenagers.

    At least one reporter, including one from the NYT covering the protests, have been arrested. This is not getting much (none?) coverage from the MSM. If so, I have not been able to find it among news of football, racing and baseball. Someone pointed out that a few weeks ago, JP Morgan Chase & Company made a 4.6 million dollar “donation” to the NYPD.

    Here is a link to the live feed from the bridge:

    http://www.livestream.com/globalrevolution

  16. ekeyra1, September 30, 2011 at 4:03 pm
    ——————————————————

    what has this got to do with the rank foul theft of the American people that has occurred over the past 10+ years?
    laws and regulations have been breached….

  18. Why Is Everyone So Scared of Civil Liberties?
    September 30, 2011 at 12:52PM

    by Charles P. Pierce

    http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/obama-civil-liberties-6500899

    There’s an interesting argument going on in various quarters over the depth and sincerity of Barack Obama’s commitment to civil liberties. Jonathan Turley — about whom my favorite factoid is that he once fought a worker’s-comp suit on behalf of workers… at Area 51 — launched the first salvo in the L.A. Times on Thursday, calling Obama a “disaster” on the issue. Over at Mother Jones, the judicious Adam Serwer replies to Turley’s jeremiad by constructing what seems to me, anyway, to be a rather sturdy alibi, but nevertheless simply an alibi — and not just an alibi for Obama, either.

    …and the article continues…

  20. One inherent problem is the words WE use. We should be talking about inalienable rights – those rights are inherant and are NOT government granted. Civil rights on the other hand are government granted, and what the government gives it can take away.

Comments are closed.