JONATHAN TURLEY
BIOGRAPHICAL INFORMATION
Professor Jonathan Turley is a nationally recognized legal scholar who has written extensively in areas ranging from constitutional law to legal theory to tort law. He has written over three dozen academic articles that have appeared in a variety of leading law journals at Cornell, Duke, Georgetown, Harvard, Northwestern, the University of Chicago, and other schools. He is a New York Times best-selling author of The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage (available here) and “Rage and the Republic: The Unfinished Story of the American Revolution” (#2 on NY Times Bestseller List).
After a stint at Tulane Law School, Professor Turley joined the George Washington faculty in 1990 and, in 1998, was given the prestigious Shapiro Chair for Public Interest Law, the youngest chaired professor in the school’s history. In 2024, a G.W. alum endowed a fellowship after him, “The Professor Jonathan Turley Public Interest and Public Service Summer Fellowship.”
In addition to his extensive publications, Professor Turley has served as counsel in some of the most notable cases in the last two decades including the representation of whistleblowers, military personnel, judges, members of Congress, and a wide range of other clients. He is also one of the few attorneys to successfully challenge both a federal and a state law — leading to courts striking down the federal Elizabeth Morgan law as well as the state criminalization of cohabitation.
In 2010, Professor Turley represented Judge G. Thomas Porteous in his impeachment trial. After a trial before the Senate, Professor Turley (on December 7, 2010) argued both the motions and gave the final argument to all 100 U.S. Senators from the well of the Senate floor — only the 14th time in history of the country that such a trial of a judge has reached the Senate floor. Judge Porteous was convicted of four articles of impeachments, including the acceptance of $2000 from an attorney and using a false name on a bankruptcy filing.
In 2011, Professor Turley filed a challenge to the Libyan War on behalf of ten members of Congress, including Representatives Roscoe Bartlett (R., Md); Dan Burton (R., Ind.); Mike Capuano (D., Mass.); Howard Coble (R., N.C.); John Conyers (D., Mich.); John J. Duncan (R., Tenn.); Tim Johnson (R., Ill.); Walter Jones (R., N.C.); Dennis Kucinich (D., Ohio); and Ron Paul (R., Tx). The lawsuit was before the United States District Court for the District of Columbia.
In November 2014, Turley agreed to serve as lead counsel to the United States House of Representatives in its constitutional challenge to changes ordered by President Obama to the Affordable Care Act. The litigation was approved by the House of Representatives to seek judicial review of the claims under the separation of powers. On May 12, 2016, the federal court handed down a historic victory for the House and ruled that the Obama Administration violated the separation of powers in ordering billions to be paid to insurance companies without an appropriation of Congress.
Other cases include his representation of the Area 51 workers at a secret air base in Nevada; the nuclear couriers at Oak Ridge, Tennessee; the Rocky Flats grand jury in Colorado; Dr. Eric Foretich, the husband in the famous Elizabeth Morgan custody controversy; and four former United States Attorneys General during the Clinton impeachment litigation. In the Foretich case, Turley succeeded recently in reversing a trial court and striking down a federal statute through a rare “bill of attainder” challenge. Professor Turley has also served as counsel in a variety of national security cases, including espionage cases like that of Jim Nicholson, the highest ranking CIA officer ever accused of espionage. Turley also served as lead defense counsel in the successful defense of Petty Officer Daniel King, who faced the death penalty for alleged spying for Russia. Turley also served as defense counsel in the case of Dr. Tom Butler, who is faced criminal charges dealing with the importation and handling of thirty vials of plague in Texas. He also served as counsel to Larry Hanauer, the House Intelligence Committee staffer accused of leaking a classified Presidential National Intelligence Estimate to the New York Times. (Hanauer was cleared of all allegations).
Among his current cases, Professor Turley represents Dr. Ali Al-Timimi, who was convicted in Virginia in 2005 of violent speech against the United States. (He was ultimately cleared of all charges in 2026). In 2020, the federal court found that there was merit in the challenges raised by Professor Turley and his co-counsel Tom Huff. Accordingly, the judge ordered his release to protect him from Covit-19 while the Court prepared a decision on the challenges. Pursuant to a court order, Dr. Al-Timimi was released from the Supermax in Colorado and the two drove across the country so that he could be placed into home confinement. He also represented Dr. Sami Al-Arian, who was accused of being the American leader of a terrorist organization while he was a university professor in Florida. Turley represented Dr. Al-Arian for eight years, much of which was in a determined defense against an indictment for criminal contempt. The case centered on the alleged violation of a plea bargain by the Justice Department after Dr. Al-Arian was largely exonerated of terrorism charges in Tampa, Florida. On June 27, 2014, all charges were dropped against Dr. Al-Arian. He also represented pilots approaching or over the age of 60 in their challenge to the mandatory retirement age of the FAA. He also represented David Murphee Faulk, the whistleblower who disclosed abuses in the surveillance operations at NSA’s Fort Gordon facility in Georgia.
Professor Turley also served as an expert defense witness in the extradition proceedings of Wikileaks founder Julian Assange in London. Turley was asked to testify on the likely pre-trial, trial, and appellate issues facing Mr. Assange as well as the prison conditions that he could expect upon extradition to Northern Virginia for trial.
Professor Turley also agreed to serve as lead counsel representing the Brown family from the TLC program “Sister Wives, a reality show on plural marriage or polygamy. On December 13, 2013, the federal court in Utah struck down the criminalization of polygamy — the first such decision in history — on free exercise and due process grounds. On September 26, 2014, the court also ruled in favor of the Browns under Section 1983 — giving them a clean sweep on all of the statutory and constitutional claims. In April 2015, a panel reversed the decision on standing grounds and that decision is now on appeal.
Professor Turley was also lead counsel in the World Bank protest case stemming from the mass arrest of people in 2002 by the federal and district governments during demonstrations of the IMF and World Bank. Turley and his co-lead counsel Dan Schwartz (and the law firm of Bryan Cave) were the first to file and represented student journalists arrested without probable cause. In April 2015, after 13 years of intense litigation, the case was settled for $2.8 million, including $115,000 for each arrestee — a record damage award in a case of this kind and over twice the amount of prior damages for individual protesters. The case also exposed government destruction and withholding of evidence as well as the admitted mass arrest of hundreds of people without probable cause.
Professor Turley also served as the legal expert in the review of polygamy laws in the British Columbia (Canada) Supreme Court. In the latter case, he argued for the decriminalization of plural union and conjugal unions. In 2012, Turley also represented the makers of “Five Wives Vodka” (Ogden’s Own Distillery) in challenging an effective ban on the product in Idaho after officials declared the product to be offensive to Mormons. After opposing the ban on free speech and other grounds, the state of Idaho issued a letter apologizing for public statements made by officials and lifting the ban on sale for “Five Wives Vodka.”
Turley has served as a consultant on homeland security and constitutional issues, including with the Florida House of Representatives. He also served as the consultant to the Puerto Rico House of Representatives on the impeachment of Gov. Aníbal Acevedo Vilá.
Professor Turley is a frequent witness before the House and Senate on constitutional and statutory issues as well as tort reform legislation. He has testified over 100 times in the House and the Senate. That testimony includes the confirmation hearings of Attorney General nominees Loretta Lynch and William Barr as well as Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch. Professor Turley is also a nationally recognized legal commentator. Professor Turley was ranked as 38th in the top 100 most cited “public intellectuals” in the recent study by Judge Richard Posner. Turley was also found to be the second most cited law professor in the country. He has been ranked in the top five most popular law professors on Twitter and has been repeatedly ranked in the nation’s top 500 lawyers in annual surveys (including in the latest rankings by LawDragon) – one of only a handful of academics. In prior years, he was ranked as one of the nation’s top ten lawyers in military law cases as well as one of the top 40 lawyers under 40. He was also selected in the last five years as one of the 100 top Irish lawyers in the world. In 2016, he was ranked as one of the 100 most famous (past and present) law professors.
Professor Turley is one of only two academics to testify at both the Clinton and Trump impeachment hearings. In December 2019, Professor Turley was called as the one Republican witness in the House Judiciary Committee impeachment hearings. He appeared with three Democratic witnesses. Professor Turley disagreed with his fellow witnesses in opposing the proposed articles of impeachments on bribery, extortion, campaign finance violations or obstruction of justice. He argued that these alleged impeachable acts were at odds with controlling definitions of those crimes and that Congress has historically looked to the criminal code and cases for guidance on such allegations. The committee ultimately rejected those articles and adopted the only two articles that Professor Turley said could be legitimately advanced: abuse of power, obstruction of Congress. Chairman Jerrold Nadler even ended the hearing by quoting his position on abuse of power. However, Turley opposed impeachment on this record as incomplete and insufficient for submission to the Senate. He argued for the House to wait and complete the record by seeking to compel key witnesses like former National Security Adviser John Bolton. His testimony was later relied upon in the impeachment floor debate by various House members and he was cited by both the White House and House managers in their arguments before the United States Senate in the Trump impeachment trial, including videotaped remarks played at the trial.
Professor Turley’s articles on legal and policy issues appear regularly in national publications with hundreds of articles in such newspapers as the New York Times, Washington Post, USA Today, Los Angeles Times and Wall Street Journal. He is a columnist for USA Today and writes regularly for the Washington Post. In 2005, Turley was given the Columnist of the Year award for Single-Issue Advocacy for his columns on civil liberties by The Aspen Institute and the Week Magazine. Professor Turley also appears regularly as a legal expert on all of the major television networks. Since the 1990s, he has worked under contract as the on-air Legal Analyst for NBC News, CBS News, BBC and Fox News. Professor Turley has been a repeated guest on Sunday talk shows with over two-dozen appearances on Meet the Press, ABC This Week, Face the Nation, and Fox Sunday. Professor Turley has taught courses on constitutional law, constitutional criminal law, environmental law, litigation, and torts. He is the founder and executive director of the Project for Older Prisoners (POPS). His work with older prisoners has been honored in various states, including his selection as the 2011 recipient of the Dr. Mary Ann Quaranta Elder Justice Award at Fordham University.
In 2024, the Washingtonian recognized Turley as one of the most influential persons in shaping policy. His award-winning blog is routinely ranked as one of the most popular legal blogs by AVVO. His blog was selected as the top News/Analysis site in 2013, the top Legal Opinion Blog in 2011 as well as prior selections as the top Law Professor Blog and Legal Theory Blog. It was also ranked in the top 20 constitutional law blog in 2018. It has been regularly ranked by the ABA Journal in the top 100 blogs in the world. In 2012, Turley was selected as one of the top 20 legal experts on Twitter by Business Insider. In 2013, the ABA Journal inducted the Turley Blog into its Hall of Fame. In addition to teaching a course on the Supreme Court and the Constitution, he is on the board of the Supreme Court Historical Society.
Professor Turley received his B.A. at the University of Chicago and his J.D. at Northwestern. In 2008, he was given an honorary Doctorate of Law from John Marshall Law School for his contributions to civil liberties and the public interest.
Twitter: @jonathanturley
Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro professor of public interest law at George Washington University and the author of “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage.” and “Rage and the Republic: The Unfinished Story of the American Revolution.”
Icon made by DinosoftLabs from Flaticon
Well, here is the text of the Presidential oath:
“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”
There is no pronoun, either he or she, in it. So it is no barrier to a woman.
The qualifications have already been discussed: “No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty five years, and been fourteen Years a resident within the United States.”
Again, it applies to persons, who must be citizens and residents. No he or she. It does say that “Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation,” but the pronoun “he” here includes both male and female, just as it does throughout the Constitution, with no exceptions..
As another example, the Sixth Amendment speedy trial includes the right to confrontation of witnesses “against him,” to call witness in “his” favor, and counsel for “his” defense. No constitutional scholar has EVER argued that these and other rights under the Bill of Rights applied only to men. Ever. There is no authority for a different meaning of the pronoun in Article II.
Does the fact that women can hold office really bother you that much?
I would also like for someone to explain how through the constitution the Federal government should be mandating education. This issue is clearly one for the states. I believe we should get rid of the department of education and turn this system completely back over to the states. States who can’t afford it, too bad! Hasn’t anyone awakened themself to reality and seen that all these social programs which by the way were never intended by the founders, have bankrupted our country. We here in Texas are only one of three states to be financially o.k. We are a conservative state by the way and have a great educational system.
Using the “himself” in the 5th amendment is not the same as “he” in the Presidential oath. Anyone who would conclude that to be the same from the founders opinion would not be a constituional scholar.
This is an old and totally invalid argument. It has been argued and refuted on this site already.
http://jonathanturley.org/2008/04/09/presidential-pronouns-is-hillary-barred-from-taking-office-as-a-female/
Professor Turley has a search window on this site, and the discussion can be accessed by keyword search.
Incidentally, women were NEVER barred from office by the Constitution. They were just denied the vote by the state. Jeannette Rankin was the first woman elected to the House of Representatives, and was elected in 1916, four years before the 20th Amendment giving women the right to vote was ratified in 1920! She was elected in Montana, which had granted women the vote.
The use of the he or her pronoun never excluded women from the protections of the Constitution, such as the Fifth Amendment’s ban on anyone being a “witness against himself.”
I hope this news is not too shocking to you.
When have we changed the constitution to allow women to run for national political office? Which amendment allows for this? Under the Articles no founder wrote that women should run for office let alone vote. We changed the vote but what about political office?
Proton: ‘Mind of Cheney’ video
I had to look it up on the youtube site, your embed wouldn’t play for me here; I think the thread is too long and it slows things up. The video is quite good and worth looking up though. The pacing is excellent and the music builds a lot of tension. ‘Reject fear’ is a great message- keep putting it out there.
Ronald Holst:
“My father, at the death of his father, was but six years of age; and he grew up, litterally [sic] without education. He removed from Kentucky to what is now Spencer County, Indiana, in my eighth year. We reached our new home about the time the State came into the Union. It was a wild region, with many bears and other wild animals, still in the woods. There I grew up. There were some schools, so called; but no qualification was ever required of a teacher beyond “readin, writin, and cipherin” to the Rule of Three. If a straggler supposed to understand latin happened to sojourn in the neighborhood, he was looked upon as a wizzard [sic]. There was absolutely nothing to excite ambition for education. Of course when I came of age I did not know much. Still somehow, I could read, write, and cipher to the Rule of Three; but that was all. I have not been to school since. The little advance I now have upon this store of education, I have picked up from time to time under the pressure of necessity.”
–Abraham Lincoln (Autobiography, 12/20/1859)
I think you’ve “picked up” pretty well.
Mike Spindel
Thank you for your kind words I was not fishing for any compliments I was just tyring to get my opinion out and see what came back. I find it flattering that you said what you did .
But My purpose was to get people thinking about what our nation has does in plain language. The kind people you average person would understand most people are not lawyers much less constitutional lawyers As It should be clear to all I am not .
And To try to figure out why people buy into the lies and half truths the only reason I can see Is because they are scared. Are Cheney is still trying to use his fear card I think It was yesterday ON one of the talk shows or talk news or what ever they call it now where he stated the Obama is making this nation unsafe he went on to say something like because he was closing
Guantanamo he did state that imagine 19 terrorist rooming in our city’s not with plane tickets but with nukes.
I almost Feel Sorry for Him this man Is really Scared, And Like being angry people do not like to be scared alone or angry .
I said almost became he was in a position for 8 years to do so much damage to this nation because of his fear not just for this country but I will go out on a limb hear and say scared for his own scalp . That would explain why no one could tell you where he was, he would not give a daily schedule out to the press He was scared he would be targeted then and now he is scared that every one will find out that he was not innocent on the charges of possible war crimes.but It is understandable when you are griped with fear that you will make bad choices It dose not erase any the fact of culpability in those choices.
And Yes I too am up set with the Fact that Obama says he wants to look forward and not backward.You would think that being a constitutional lawyer him self would realize that he to may not be looked so kindly upon by history if he blocks any investigation in the past administration. I mean would that not give him culpability too in this . I guess I just need a place to vent some of my frustrations. Where It could be read by people that agree as well as disagree I do not mind if people can dis agree as long as they are civil about it.
Just to throw in my two rubles worth….Bin Laden will never be found. His multi billionaire industrialist father ,I assume, is protecting him with a fortress made of money….
PS I put to much faith into spell check too. what I meant to say is it would be cruel and wrong to put a cat in a beg and throw it into a river .
Ronald Holst,
You have nothing to be ashamed about in the brains category because you were a high school dropout. As I’ve said here before, my Dad dropped out of school in the 9th Grade and to me he is still one of the smartest and well-read men I’ve ever known. Despite the fact that they may help you earn more, but in these times who knows, college and graduate schools and what they teach don’t make you intelligent. Intelligence is the ability to look at the world with a critical eye and to make up your own mind about what you see, not just go by someone elses’ opinions. If I’m right about that, then I’m also right about your comments being highly intelligent and the question you ask as also showing your intelligence.
As far as your question goes in my opinion we do have to hold Bin Laden to account for his crimes, or it will just encourage others to take the same path. At the same time, as you have suggested we need to re-evaluate how we deal with the rest of the world to try to understand why there are people that hate us so much. You were a soldier and so I think you know that those who talk the toughest, as do many of our so-called “foreign policy experts,” usually are weak and covering up for that weakness by acting tough. I’ve know quite a few really tough people in my life and they never showed it, they didn’t have to, they had the confidence. The other problem with acting tough is that no matter how strong and quick you are, there is always someone stronger and quicker, so people who lead with their ego’s get themselves hurt.
In the same way the US has for the last eight years become one of the bully’s of the world, rather than leading it by example. When FDR took office he said to the people that they had nothing to fear but fear itself and made people feel we could handle anything. When 9/11 happened GW Bush and Dick Cheney used fear to get the people to go along with a purposeless war, that was being done for the oil in Iraq.
As American’s we need to see through those who would use fear to control us and find our own sense of what is right.
You show that you are one of those who won’t be led by your nose, but uses your mind to determine what is right and what is wrong.
I am the first to admit I am no lawyer I will even admit that I am a high school drop out I Did earn A GED while I was in the Army in 1970 .
But The One thing That I do not think that you need a good education for is to know the difference between right and wrong.
I new when I was in the army that torture was wrong no one had to tell me that any more than any one would have to tell me that putting a cat in a bag and throwing it into a river would be careful and wrong.
I am willing to bet as a veteran that no solder in any of the past wars that this nation fought ever thought they should join the fight to torture any one To me that would be insane.
Fear Is the tool that terrorist use So can anyone explain to this uneducated vet why our Government would use the tool of fear agents it own peoples to fight a just war . I mean If we were attacked by a foreign country There would be no need to try to scare any one to defend our nation Because It would be self defence .
Some place we as a nation we decided to use self defence excuse to attack another country to possibly keep it from attacking us in the future . If that Is the case We could legally attack Europe as a whole or China Korea Mexico .Canada because it is possible that some time in the future any or all of these countries do us harm . That takes it out of the realm of self defence and puts in the category of an aggressive nation sort of like Iraq in its neighborhood but we are a super power so the entire word is our neighborhood.
According to Some that Spain wold fit into that category because it is looking into war crimes perpetrated by our government. To try to tell our government that it broke laws that we feel is beyond the world law dose not make sense to this high school drop out.
So Tell me one thing should we hold Bin Laden to account for any crimes against us or any other nation I am sure that His organization Dose not believe it broke any laws at least none that they would recognize .
so I Guess My question is What Make Us Different If any one could explain this to me I would greatly appreciate it.
Just one very confused old Vet.
Hi Jonathan,
Love watching you on countdown. Keep letting people know the truth!
I just finished a video called “Mind Of Cheney” that I thought you would find interesting. You can find it at:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G6QSh0_DePM
If you need any more info just let me know.
Best;
Proton :-}
Mr. Turley,
I am writing today to express my thanks to you for representing my views so often and so beautifully. When I am just about ready to pull my hair out, your steady and reasonable responses to the many difficult situations we face today renews my hope. A little sanity, hooray! I look forward to reading your blog and wish you a fond aloha. If you are ever Maui bound, I would love to be a resource for you and your family, don’t hesitate to call on me! Keep up the good fight. Jeanie Vance
hi Tom,
I have never agreed with the name calling approach to things. The way I figure it everyone should be respected, even if we hate their ideas. As difficult as sometimes. America’s great in part because we can have radical differences of opinion and not let things get too ‘South America’, so to speak.
I am not sure what the threats are that you write about. You didn’t enumerate any, or at least I didn’t see any, so I am a loss as to how to respond.
On the other hand I might in my present mood agree with your general premise. At least as long as my left wing friends give me a ‘get out of jail free for consorting with the enemy’ card. Otherwise, no way! LOL! Shhhhhh…this conversation never happened!
I would go so far as to say that if any population can be duped by officials into electing them, a country is in trouble. While I seldom agreed with the previous administration, I had to accept they won, and those were the rules of the game. They got to move the ball where they wanted, as terrible as some of those moves were in my view. The larger issue of winner gets that privilege trumped the smaller issues of what they were doing. Some of my right wing friends (yes, I have them, I just never introduce them in ‘polite company’, LOL!) were not so happy with that admin either, feeling they too, didn’t get what they voted to get. I suppose both left and right suffer similarly on this point.
So here we sit, left and right both feeling cheated. I hate that,I really do. And I hate to say it, but it seems that Obama has lied to those of us on the left who worked to give him his chance to right the wrongs of the past. I for one, will not be there for him next time around. No parsing, no mealy mouthed, temped excuses will get him out from under interfering with investigations of war crimes, on gitmo, on don’t ask don’t tell. I fear now that health care reform will look more like what big pharma wants, and less what the nation needs.
I am betting right now, that the next election cycle will see Republicans make substantial gains. Not because they have better ideas or the ideology of the left is lacking, but because the home team is disheartened. I frankly think it is a stupid thing for him to have done.
Anyway, lets all enjoy the long weekend, and be grateful for what we had in this country, when we could call ourselves a nation of laws, not men. Lets praise those warriors who stand on those walls and keep us safe. Oh, and have a beer or three! Have fun all, and be safe.
cheers!
That…,
It surprises me that you’re the only response I’ve gotten. Maybe everyone else thinks I’m a neocon, rwe, miscreant, wife-beating, Fasist, scumbag, to name a few of the tags I’ve been given herein.
No matter what party, no matter what reason, if you feel something is wrong, why not go after it as vocally as possible? If we don’t sound off, the perps will feel they’re home free. Actually, they probably already do, because there’s no evidence of a “HUE & CRY” being raised. Thus, they’ll keep pushing, probing to see where they can create another breach in our Country’s walls, that have been solid (except for the Civil War) for well over two hundred years. We are in great danger of having our live’s altered beyond repair. I don’t understand (old age, probably) how this has happened, how there’s enough support for our demise….. I have witnessed the change in National “regard/awareness” in our last few generations. Since it took the “youth” of this country to get us where we are governmentally, we must understand their reasons for wanting a “CHANGE”. I doubt they know, (or care), about what’s coming into their lives and futures like a runaway freight train.
I didn’t think I’d live long enough to see this mess, and I hear that same expression from a lot of other “old farts”.
Tom Fitchue
hey Tom,
Not sure what the Billboard campaign is, but I think after this week of politics, I am waving the surrender flag. At this moment, and it will no doubt change, I am just feeling the the new president is a as bad as the old. I am tired of putting my back into these campaigns only to have the old switcherooo played on me. Republican or Democrat, I would just once, like to vote for someone who actually did what they said they were going to do. I am so tired of the rope a dope game. I’m in my 60’s, have voted all of my life, and after this week of nonsense, I do think that I will never vote again for anyone. Thank you president Obama for the audacity to lie to us all that you were different.
Gordon,
Maybe the solution is to contribute to the “BILLBOARD” campaign.
Tom Fitchue
Obama’s speech was dishonest came when he assured us that detaining terrorists at Guantanamo Bay has undermined our security:
Guantanamo became a symbol that helped Al Qaida recruit terrorists to its cause. Indeed, the existence of Guantanamo, likely, created more terrorists around the world than it ever detained. So the record is clear. Rather than keeping us safer, the president at Guantanamo has weakened American national security.
The “record is clear”? As the slob Keith Oblermann would say, WTF?
The record is that there were no successful attacks after 9/11. What “record” can Obama be talking about? And what evidence is there that Guantanamo “created…terrorists around the world”?
It is absurd to think that anyone will join an organization that chops off people’s heads and gouges out their eyes with spoons because he is outraged that at Guantanamo Bay–what? A female interrogator sat on a detainee’s lap?
One thing we know about extremist organizations is that it is success, not failure, that brings adherents to their banners. After 9/11, al Qaeda has been dogged by failure, defeat and the loss of most of its key operatives through death or capture.
Obama made up his purportedly empirical claim that Guantanamo Bay made the U.S. less secure. It is another example of his conviction that he can slip any sort of howler past the American people and I am F-g sick of it.
Jonathan P,
It seems I responded to some of your message in the posting to Fusionink. Your message does require an introspective answer. I’ve already said race isn’t an issue, but, your reference to that being the OBVIOUS ANSWER is, in itself, racist in my opinion. The old “race card”, so to speak. Doesn’t work for me, but I do know that is being used heavily as a reason why he is so vilified by some. Probably, it IS the reason for many, but I don’t hear much reference to RACE on the streets. It seems most complaints I hear are directed toward eratic, un’vetted decisions, poor choices in his selecting of staff, waffling on his spoken word – campaign promises, etc., abortion, Amendments 1 & 2 issues (which most of his supporters
say is non-existant, and I, personally, believe are VERY real). His voting record doesn’t offer much reason to doubt how he feels on A 2, and his actions and appointments leave not much room for doubt on A 1.
He has exhibited no recognizable feelings, again MY opinion, for the hereitage of the Nation, and appears to have been that way all his life. I don’t remember, in my life, ever feeling our President didn’t care about Holidays, Veterans, the place religion HAD in our Government (that ought to get me in trouble), the wisdom of our Founding Fathers and their creation of the Constitution which has lead us for over two hundred years, but now appears to have only token acknowledgment.
I hear it said that we’re in the NEW century, and the Constitution is passe, no longer relevant. Those that express such words find the Constitution inconvient. This Country would be well-served to find these detractors and determine their reasons. Could be very interesting, but I don’t know of many challenges been voiced.
Likely, some will want to jump back to Bush here, but, that’s not good enough if we’re talking about Obama himself. If we do go back to “those thrilling days of yesteryear” and use that as justification for Obama’s actions, that is escapism at it’s best.
Thank you for taking your time to share your thoughts. It’s a courtesy not always offered.
Tom Fitchue