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
Anon nurse,
Great link. The news about that memo is disturbing.
Comments by Jonathan Turley & Eric Posner:
Obama’s War On Terror: Civil Libertarians Decry Being ‘Stabbed In The Back’ By Awlaki Decision
by Joshua Hersh
First Posted: 10/10/11
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/10/obamas-war-on-terror-awlaki_n_1004161.html
WASHINGTON — Civil libertarians are expressing dismay over a new report that names two prominent one-time critics of the abuse of presidential power as the forces behind a controversial memo authorizing Obama to assassinate an American citizen.
The memo, described Sunday in an article in The New York Times, was reportedly signed by David Barron and Marty Lederman, two law professors who frequently challenged President Bush’s legal stances on his war powers before joining the Obama Office of Legal Counsel.
“It’s always more painful for civil libertarians to be stabbed in the back by a friend,” said Jonathan Turley, a scholar at George Washington University law school who has long been a fierce opponent of expansive interpretations of executive powers. “There’s a real feeling of the Ides of March, that the Obama administration has enlisted civil libertarians to sort of do its dirty work.”
…and the article continues…
“We all denounced the Bush administration use of secret law — secret memos giving them authority and then resisting demands to review them,” said Turley, who is currently representing several members of Congress in a lawsuit challenging the Libya decision reportedly advocated by Koh. “The Obama administration is doing the same thing, strategically releasing parts of the memo or their conclusions.”
But it was the seeming shift of yet another set of longtime critics that struck a chord.
“The legal academy is still reeling from the participation of so many law professors in the Bush abuses. I knew John Yoo” — who famously scripted the memo authorizing the use of torture in the Bush years — “before he went into the Bush administration — we’d always been friendly, and we actually agreed on a bunch of things in the past. I was shocked when I first heard of his involvement in these things. It’s always shocking to read about people like Koh and Lederman being so quickly corrupted by their involvement in government.”
Eric Posner, a law professor at the University of Chicago, disagrees with such a stark outlook, telling HuffPost that the job of legal counsel to the president doesn’t afford the same latitude as being an analyst or academic.
“It’s a little glib to [call them hypocrites],” he said. “First, you need to know exactly what they wrote, and the second, more important point, is you just have to realize they’ve taken on a different role in the government. When you’re in the OLC in the executive branch, you’re an employee, you have a certain job, it’s different from being a professor but is more like being in a firm. You can’t go into a firm and say I’m only going to profess my own views.” (end of excerpt)
FWIW, Eric Posner is the son of Richard Posner:
http://jonathanturley.org/2011/09/19/posner-ridicules-right-of-citizens-to-film-police-in-seventh-circuit-oral-argument/
cthulhu – for – president
Barack Obama is a SOCIOPATHIC NARCISSIST – YOU’RE ARE RIGHT THAT THEY ARE ALL NARCISSISTS.
Jill,
I do work for social justice, however, show me a Republican candidate who would work harder for social justice. For women, men and all minorities.
rafflaw,
Please consider the idea that Obama is exactly the president he was paid to be. That’s why the MIC and banksters run the place!
The most important thing any citizen can do is become the citizen we are meant to be. That is, being a person who works for social justice, for the well-being of our society, for the restoration of the rule of law, for an end to our wars, for healing the planet. There is no savior. We only have people who will show courage and care about others by going to bat for each other.
“When everything is a war you can kill anybody.”
Fortunately, not everything is a war.
I think the graphs of wrath map out the major psychological factors, as well as the minor aspects of the W direction in which we are going here.
36 CFR 7.96 vs. the First Amendment:
Demonstrations outside the front door of the White House getting broken up to protect the “right to see a bucolic White House” of an imaginary tourist.
Sanpete 1, October 10, 2011 at 3:48 pm
=================
When everything is a war you can kill anybody.
Killing becomes the foundation of “civilization” under that model.
JC in CT 1, October 10, 2011 at 3:07 pm
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.
===================================
Interesting view point.
How would you modify your viewpoint if each of the choices was fatal?
OS,
I am not sure there is a Republican candidate that is too crazy for the Koch money machine.
Anybody wanna keep me company over at Federal Court – I filed a Biven’s action a couple of months ago against a Federal agent for civil rights violations. I’m standing over there by my lonesome.
raff, I think the train has left the station.
It is not too late to change, and I am an optimist about most things, but also being a realist, have low expectations for the incumbent doing the right thing.
Frankly, Obama’s best hope for reelection is if the Republicans nominate someone so batshit crazy that even the Koch, Cheney and Pope crime families cannot support them.
I listened to the interview and now have changed my mind. But who else would do better in that office right now?
Yes, the playing chess while everyone else is a checkers player is a great line, however, I am not sure that every President is in a bubble while in the White House.
OS,
I agree with your take that Obama needs to become the President that we had hoped for in the next several months. I, too am not very hopeful. How can any President go wrong trying to fight for the rule of law?
Well done, Professor Turley … truth always raises the level of consciousness to full attention.
eniobob,
That was a very interesting link …
“He’s playing chess in a town full of checkers players,” … that’s an astute observation that makes, in my opinion, an unintended point … everybody loses.
Donald, If Hill’s accusations were true, then Thomas was guilty of perjury. I have no idea why you think Broaddrick is credible in alleging rape, but her charges haven’t been confirmed.
Jill, what makes you think people don’t take torture and killing seriously? That doesn’t follow from anything you said. Those who follow these issues impartially know they’re not as simple as you make them appear, and many other citizens who have heard from both sides feel the same way.
To be clear about this, Obama does uphold the rule of law in regard to the issues you mention. I would guess he has a better understanding of the legal issues than almost all of his critics.
Obama cannot block compensation for victims of torture unless the courts side with his view of the law, which they do.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/149990/Cain-Surges-Nearly-Ties-Romney-Lead-GOP-Preferences.aspx Perry is in third.