Constitutional Law, Courts, International, Media, Politics, Supreme Court

Obama and Civil Liberties: Talk of the Nation

Today, I will appearing on the National Public Radio (NPR) program, Talk of the Nation to discussing my column in the Los Angeles Times on Barack Obama’s disastrous impact on civil liberties in the United States. The piece has generated some interesting discussion on the LA Times blog as well as other blogs. Despite my disagreement with some of the commenters, any discussion of civil liberties is welcomed in this political atmosphere. Ironically, the day of the column (which specifically discussed the President’s assertion of his right to kill citizens he considers terrorists), President Obama ordered the killing of U.S. cleric Anwar al-Aulaqi and reportedly a second U.S. born cleric. [Update: Here is the TOTN interview].

On another note, I was asked by the editors to clarify the difference between civil liberties and civil rights. Here is the posting:

In Thursday’s Op-Ed pages, Jonathan Turley, a professor of law at George Washington University, wrote that President Obama may prove the most disastrous president in our history in terms of civil liberties. (Ironically, his article ran the same day Obama ordered the killing of Anwar Awlaki, a U.S.-born cleric linked to Al Qaeda, thus further proving Turley’s point.) While the response on our discussion board overwhelmingly agreed with Turley’s Op-Ed, there were a few readers who didn’t understand the difference between civil liberties and civil rights. See below for Turley’s reply.

–Alexandra Le Tellier

My column was on civil liberties, which are those basic rights and freedoms guaranteed under our Bill of Rights and the Constitution. While they do not change in the sense that they are fundamental rights, they have been “recognized” in a belated or evolving fashion by the courts. Civil liberties include those core rights we associate with freedom, such as free speech, privacy, due process. Civil rights generally refer to laws that protect us from unequal treatment or harassment based on such characteristics as race, gender, age, disability, religion/belief, sexual orientation and nationality.

Notably, Obama has been criticized on both fronts. While he recently moved against “don’t ask, don’t tell,” his administration has been in court making the same arguments as the George W. Bush administration in denying that discrimination based on sexual orientation should be treated the same as discrimination based on race, religion or gender. He remains undecided on same-sex marriage. These are viewed as civil rights matters.

The subject of my column is properly called civil liberties. At issue, for example, is the right of the president to unilaterally declare that citizens should be killed on sight because his administration deems them part of a terrorist organization.

I hope that helps a little.

–Jonathan Turley

78 thoughts on “Obama and Civil Liberties: Talk of the Nation”

  3. You’re right that Americans are in denial about this. Those who maintain that “the other guy is worse” are literally blind to what is right in front of them: Obama is “the other guy.”

    What is needed is an analysis informed by the group psychology of cults, one that seeks to “deprogram” Democrats. It is an uphill battle, however, because so many features of this culture reinforce existing worldviews. A change in “leadership” is unlikely to bring about social change because belief in leadership is itself a tool used to enforce conformity.

    But the rabbit hole goes deeper: beyond the difficulties associated with assessing what Obama has done with respect the the Constitution (i.e., given the “secret laws” that seem to be popular of late), are the disturbing circumstances that surround his election. The Democratic party’s alternative was to legitimize 22-26 consecutive years of Bush-Clinton rule. When the foreign birth controversy surrounding Obama is examined in light of Republican candidate John McCain’s birth in Panama, things start to look more than a little scripted. And while it sounds like “conspiracy theory” to point out that, in 2004, both John Kerry and George Bush are both members of the Order of the Skull and Bones, initiated in the same year no less, it’s hard not to see a pattern start to emerge. We, as a nation, still don’t have clear answers about what happened in 2000. Did Al Gore roll over when the Supreme Court stopped the Florida recount because he’s just another spineless Democrat, or was there perhaps some other reason?

    In any event, I think this country needs to have an honest conversation with itself not just about the integrity of the election system, but about the integrity of those who seek to attain office. Allow me to argue that the desire to attain high office should disqualify one from such a position:

    Most politicians are literally sociopaths. Compare the behavior of the sociopath with that of a politician. Sociopaths don’t have normal moral reservations about manipulating people like objects; this is precisely how politicians get elected. Sociopaths understand little about human interaction beyond ego gratification; the prestige of high office satisfies this desire for the politician. Sociopaths are often charming, but lie compulsively. Politicians talk nice while plotting to stab their colleagues in the back. If they’re not telling outright lies, they’re “spinning” facts to suit their needs. Sociopaths don’t feel guilt or remorse; no US official that I can think of has apologized for invading Iraq based on a lie, turning 5 million Iraqi’s into refugees, pumping Fallujah full of depleted uranium, or engaging in torture. Sociopaths are authoritarian, secretive, paranoid; their goal is the creation of a dependent, willing victim. Starting to get the picture? Google “sociopathic behavior profile” if you want more detail.

    What solution would I offer? Vote for yourself as a write-in candidate to create a statistical anomaly that neither the media not politicians can spin. Use this as an opportunity to have a focused discussion about how our elections are conducted. Vote for what you believe in, not against what you fear.

    If you’re a democrat who is afraid that this tactic might help out “the other side,” you need to come to terms with the fact that “the other side” is already in power. In 2000, the Florida recount was triggered by law because less that .5% of the vote separated Bush from Gore. An election so close might as well be settled by chance. Electoral politics isn’t working. This nation needs to come to terms with this.

  4. It is most amusing to read the tortured logic of J. Turley’s piece on why Obama is a disaster for civil liberties. He writes:

    [Opposition within the Democratic party] “has quieted to a whisper, muted by the power of Obama’s personality and his symbolic importance as the first black president.”

    “. It looks more like a cult of personality. Obama’s policies have become secondary to his persona.”

    Turley writes as if the hypocracy on the Left is a one-off thing, to be explained by the unique background, personality of the Commander in Chief. Of course this is truly laughable and could only be entertained by one blinded to the regular train of hypocracies of the Left.

    As one glaring example of Leftist hypocracy before Obama ever came on the scene is the Clarence Thomas hearings instigated by the Democratic Congress at that time. Thomas was accused of being a terrible sexist, oppressing a poor, black woman, Anita Hill. Even if everything he was accused of were true, he is guilty of telling off color jokes to her. He never wernt out with her, never never accused of touching her. On the other hand, for the following 8 years, Clinton is known to have violated almost every feminist prohibition imaginable, and he was accused, by a very credible witness, of rape [Juanita Broderick]. The Democrats turned a blind eye to all of this, saying it was “only sex” and that, in any case, it did not interfere with his work.

    The Left is no stranger to hypocricy and so, the implication that one has to go to strained analysis and suppositions, as in the Turley piece, to explain why it is occuring this time on a truly massive scale is not needed. It’s what the Left has done innumerable times before.

    On the other hand, Mr. Turley is to be commended for at least raising a SMAILL part of the hypocricies of this administration. There are so many, many IMPORTANT ones in all sorts of other areas. An example of the latter is the question of what constitutes justification for using U.S. military force against a nation that is not threatening us. Obama said he was justified in applying military force againt Gadaffi because he was killing his own people but, the Left would not see that as (partial) justification for Iraq when Saddam was killing his own people in much larger numbers. The hypocracies on the Left are too numerous to list.

  5. Dolores,

    Yours is such an interesting comment. You write: “…However, can the electorate be expected to judge an official based on one policy? Aren’t all voting choices a compromise on some front? You may be unable to compromise on this issue, but average voters will necessarily have broader criteria than you. And that is a good thing.”

    First this isn’t a question of one policy but many, all of which have profound implications for our society. The failure to uphold the rule of law by refusing to investigate/prosecute those who tortured is one issue. The claim that Obama may kill an American citizen on his own determination is another. Both of these actions are extremely broad in scope as they entail the abrogation of the rule of law and the destruction of our Constitution.

    Usually people take killing and torture very seriously. In the case of Obama, many people do not. Killing and torture have indeed been relegated to actions that people are willing to “compromise on”. Here is a link to an interview of a person whom the US govt. tortured. He was completely innocent of any crime, even according the the US govt. Still, he has been blocked repeatedly by the Obama DOJ in receiving any justice for the crimes the US govt. committed against him. I cannot agree with you that that is a good thing to ignore or compromise on anything having to do with torture or killing based on fiat. The willingness to trade out cruelty towards and the death of others on behalf of electing a candidate strikes me as a real problem for our society. Here is the interview:

    http://docuvideop.blogspot.com/2011/09/wikileaks-and-el-masri-case-innocent.html

  6. Looks like we have a disinformation propagandist. What a surprise. Sanpete, why did it take this long to for your handlers to get your talking points together for you?

  7. The Talk of the Nation interview was most disappointing. Turley was consistently misleading and less than candid about the facts, but the host didn’t challenge him or correct him, and there was no other guest to do so from a different point of view. Listeners who haven’t followed these issues and took what Turley said at face value were completely misled.

    It’s simply false that Obama has claimed the right to kill US citizens whom he deems a threat to the US. He claims no more than the usual powers of war, which include of course the power to kill people who are fighting you in a war, citizens or not. The controversial part of his position is in holding that the field of the war extends to cover Al-Awlaki in Yemen. Obama has a quite reasonable case that it does. (For some critics the controversy extends to whether there is a war at all, but the Supreme Court has pretty well settled that in regard to the war against Al Qaeda et al.)

    Contrary to what Turley implied, Obama has acknowledged the desirability of dealing with citizens, and even noncitizens, through civil means where at all possible. In Yemen that isn’t possible.

    The ACLU has already taken this issue to court and lost, and not only on the technical issues but on the substance. They wisely chose not to appeal to the Supreme Court.

    On torture, first of all, Obama has been consistent from the early days of his campaign, so there’s no ground for Turley’s mock disillusionment about this. Obama said all along that he wouldn’t prosecute those who in good faith followed the directions given them, which they believed to be legal. This isn’t primarily a matter of politics. The way the law is written, as a practical matter it would be near impossible to convict someone who met those conditions. Contrary to what Turley implied, Obama has never said he wouldn’t prosecute those who acted in bad faith or exceeded the limits they were given. There has been a major investigation to determine if anyone did so, and some allegations of acting outside the guidelines have been pursued.

    The parallel drawn to Nuremberg is an insult to the victims of Nazi atrocities and the Nuremberg process. The underlying assumption of the rejection of the “taking orders” excuse is that one had every reasonable ground to know the orders were illegal and wrong. No such thing has been established in regard to “enhanced interrogation.”

    Obama has done as much as possible to maintain our civil liberites under difficult conditions. He’s certainly done better than Lincoln and FDR. The main threat to civil liberties is always wars and other emergencies, not well intentioned Presidents.

    Turley made many false and misleading remarks beyond those I’ve addressed. There are important issues at stake here. Turley does a disservice to the discussion and the issues by so willfully miscoloring the facts.

  8. The way I figure it, he has about 10 to 12 months to get right with his base or he will indeed be a one term President. If he thinks he has a lock on it because of his silver tongued oratory and having the incumbent advantage, he has another think coming.

    I knew things were not going to go well for progressives when he did not fire all the right wing ideologues occupying the US Attorney offices, en masse.

    Nate Silver of Five Thirty Eight says he does not have a solid grip on the keys to the Oval Office. Nate predicted the Obama win in the last election. It is early, but there is now a note of pessimism.

    http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/08/31/despite-keys-obama-is-no-lock/

  9. I concur completely with Jonathan Turley’s thoughts on Barack Obama. I have for a few years and I am trying to find a way to vote for a President because I do not want to vote for Obama and I will never vote for a Republican – even dressed in Tea Party attire!

    So who will run and represent us, the people?

  10. I can understand your disappointment on this issue with the Obama administration’s actions. However, can the electorate be expected to judge an official based on one policy? Aren’t all voting choices a compromise on some front? You may be unable to compromise on this issue, but average voters will necessarily have broader criteria than you. And that is a good thing.

  11. I listened to you on NPR today and am in complete agreement with you. The only problem is that there is no alternative to Obama so I, as many others, will swallow hard and vote for him.

    The GOP’s positions are even worse.

  12. they have become little more then a sounding board for every right wing pundit on.everything from health care to politics…The right uses them more then the left because the right is on a constant crusade.and our backed by unlimited conservative resources

  13. I’ve been listening to alot of their programing over the past few years and I have been tempted at times to call them National Republican Radio.

    Not that they push a conservative agenda so much as that they fail to point out the lies coming from that quarter.

    It’s sometimes difficult to tell who they support. If they are supposed to be liberal, they better take another look at themselves. If they are supposed to be non-partisan, they should try to find some positive stories about Liberals doing something good somewhere or something. All I hear is a sort of even handed reporting that fails to take note of obvious flaws in the official line.

    Maybe I’m not reading them correctly but as a Liberal station, they are a bit weak.

    Sorry.

  14. The following link will take one directly to the discussion link, which will be available at approximately 6 pm ET:

    http://www.npr.org/2011/10/10/141213273/op-ed-obama-devastating-for-civil-liberties

    Op-Ed: Obama ‘Devastating’ For Civil Liberties

    October 10, 2011

    “Jonathan Turley argues in a recent op-ed in the Los Angeles Times that “the election of Barack Obama may stand as one of the single most devastating events in our history for civil liberties.” He says President Obama has continued many of the most controversial Bush administration programs.”

  16. Give em hell, Professor! With that secret memo that was discussed in the news, I figure John Yoo was still in the Obama OLC!

  17. Keep up the good work, professor. Elaine, some refer to it as “National Palestine Radio”.

Comments are closed.