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 know…I put you in the same class as Jill…You cannot communicate with anyone that you perceive that disagrees with your opinion….and remember Opinions are like asses…. everyone’s got one…….It just depends on how much you show it in public…and you’re doing a great job….swarthmorjill….

  4. You started it then and I was funnin Elaine for what she had said on the Thread….If you have a Guilty Conscience….Talk to someone that actually gives a shit….

  6. Unlike some other Huntsman promoters, Elaine actually looks at what positions he takes.

  7. Elaine, Elaine, Elaine M.,

    Oh my….You actually looked outside of the Democratic Lineup?

    For shame, for shame, for shame….I am going to now have to look at everything you write with askance…..I would have never have guessed….

    Call me NOT shocked….Most intelligence people explore all of the options (or should) before making bone head decisions….and forced to vote for Obama because he is the lesser of the two weevils (HenMan)……

    Now, I am going to have to go back to the Huntsman Thread and reread what you posted….

    Thank you for my morning chuckle….

  8. After hearing the interview on Mr. Obama and eroding civil liberties, I was stuck with the impression everyone missed that Robert Gates stayed on at the White House for several years. Mr. Gates is the consummate Washington insider. I always assumed this tenure was at the behest of the Washington Establishment. Mr. Obama needed a personal tutor because of his (lack of) Executive Office experience and he was given one. Mr. Obama must either scare easily or bend to pressure quickly.

    1. I had a little personal encounter with Robert Gates, and he’s not any shining example of military anything – he got in on the ground floor
      and rode the elevator to the top.

  9. Jill, I really don’t think there is much of a cult of personality any more. We are just trying to avoid total tea party republican dominance.

  10. Jill,

    In this country, it’s the wealthiest citizens who have become the “important” people to most politicians and many members of the media.

  11. Jill,

    I thought well of Jon Huntsman until I found out about his position on some issues–including Medicare. He embraced the Ryan plan.

  12. S.M.,

    Thanks for the info on Huntsman. I hadn’t done research on him so I appreciate links!

    My point is vastly different than who people should vote for. It is– If Jesus was elected president that would still not solve our problems. Citizens are more important than the president. Citizens who are against war, torture, economic injustice, environmental ruin, etc. and will speak out against these these things and try to right the many wrongs we face are the force that has the best hope of turning things around .

    Many people seem stuck in a loop, defending Obama for president, even though he is a war and financial criminal. As JT said in his interview, what a Republican candidate might do isn’t important to civil libertarians. That, to me is where a strong citizen movement comes in. The essential health of a society depends on the defense of justice from the populace. Which person in office commits injustice doesn’t matter. If it does, we get into another of JT’s points, the overlooking of injustice due to a cult of personality. Many Democrats do seem ensnared in this cult of personality. Instead of a personality cult, we need an ethically consistent, vibrant group of citizens dedicated to justice, unconcerned with personalities or party affiliation. I will repeat this because it is the most important point I can make. Citizens are far more important than a president. It’s up to us.

  14. rafflaw,

    I know you work for social justice! You keep missing my point. Here’s what you wrote: “show me a Republican candidate who would work harder for social justice. For women, men and all minorities”.

    I’m not certain if you mean that Obama works towards social justice. The facts do not support that assertion. Likewise the current front runners of the Republican party care nothing about social justice. Elaine mentioned a Republican candidate, Jon Huntsman. I haven’t done my research on him yet, but she seems to think well of him, so perhaps he is a candidate you might also like.

    My point is different. If Jesus was elected president that would still not solve our problems. Citizens are more important than the president. Citizens who are against war, torture, economic injustice, environmental ruin, etc. and will speak out against these these things and try to right the many wrongs we face are the force that has the best hope of turning things around .

    Many people seem stuck in a loop, defending Obama for president, even though he is a war and financial criminal. As JT said in his interview, what a Republican candidate might do isn’t important to civil libertarians. That, to me is where a strong citizen movement comes in. The essential health of a society depends on the defense of justice from the populace. Which person in office commits injustice doesn’t matter. If it does, we get into another of JT’s points, the overlooking of injustice due to a cult of personality. Many Democrats do seem ensnared in this cult of personality. Instead of a personality cult, we need an ethically consistent, vibrant group of citizens dedicated to justice, unconcerned with personalities or party affiliation. I will repeat this because it is the most important point I can make. Citizens are far more important than a president. It’s up to us.

  15. Dear Professor Turley:
    I am a converted republican.I did support president Obama the last time around. I will not do so again. He will not fool me twice. I have been hungry for your comments from the very first time that I heard you speak. Today I was fascinated listening to you express the ideals that we as americans have claimed as our own since Nuremburg. I believe that for our people to accept the excuse that “I was just following orders” and therefore am not prosecutable is truly the demise of what we have held ourselves up to the world to be. How in Gods name can we as the inheritors of the fight against the RED COATS follow sheepishly while president Obama lays the groundwork for himself and his sucessors to kill american citizens simply by dictate?
    Professor Turley, is there anything that you can do to bring this action to a court of law?
    If we as a people continue down this path of lawlessness, if we accept that the president is an emporer of old, then truly our time as free men under law has come to an end. If this is left to stand as our way then every man has no responsibility to uphold and obey any law. If this is left to stand then the great gift to the world “american liberty” is dead.

    Sir, I will be in Washintgon in the future to show my five year old son the monuments and the Smithsonian. Would it be possible to introduce my son to a truly great citizen?

    Sincerely,
    Stephan G. Patterson
    sgp64@hotmail.com

  16. “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?”

    I don’t know that this is true. This could be a person expressing his opinion – or not.

  17. “So who will run and represent us, the people?”

    There’s the problem. There’s no viable third party. No Democrat wants to buck the power of the incumbency.

  19. “We must not confuse dissent with disloyalty. When the loyal opposition dies, I think the soul of America dies with it.” -Edward R. Murrow

  20. rafflaw,

    I wish we had thousands more like Professor Turley and the like-minded lawyers on this blog. You’re the good guys, as I’ve said before.

Comments are closed.