Monday, January 2, 2012

Being Barack Obama

President Obama signed the indefinite detention bill into law after initially having "serious reservations" about it. This seems to be Obama's MO: to claim either to be against something or in support of something and then do the exact opposite--think the extension of the Bush tax cuts, single payer health care, and now this indefinite detention bill.

This new bill is an extension of the Patriot Act which erodes American liberties and is endorsed by Obama. Liberals were frothing at the mouth Sunday about Ron Paul's comments on the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and lying low about Obama's signing of this outrageous bill over the holiday in Hawaii on Saturday. What tools liberals and libertarians are!! Sadly, obviously presidents, including this one, are tools too.

Funny, I searched high and low for articles by the mainstream media about this indefinite detention bill on the internet and found none. From the looks of things, along with Congress and the Supreme Court, the mainstream media seems complicit in destroying the freedoms of the Constitution and Bill of Rights through laws passed or the sanctioning of such. Consider this indefinite detention bill, the Patriot Act, and Citizens United.

If presidents, Congress, the Supreme Court, and the mainstream media will not speak for the American people, who will? President Barack Obama most certainly did not.

34 comments:

Big Mark 243 said...

History will look back and wonder where the protest and demonstration were when the pursuit of our own individual lives were taken away and rights lost. They will see a big cloud of smoke from 10 years ago that represented fear-inducing attacks and then the more quiet easing into perpetuity of the past weekend.

Did I wish you a Happy New Year? If not, have a great one of those..!

zorro said...

NY Times report on the bill.
http://tinyurl.com/6vx977s

Judith Ellis said...

Thanks, Zorro, but it's a milquetoast piece. It's interesting that it does not use the language "indefinite detention," what the focus of the bill has largely become for Americans and organizations like the ACLU, Human Rights Watch and the American Civil Liberties Union. It is also equally as interesting that the bill was not the main topic of the Sunday shows from what I have read. (I don't watch television.) Did you, by chance, find any other mainstream sources?

Judith Ellis said...

Happy New Year, Mark!

Zorro said...

I think it's a big overreaction to think this is a big assault on liberty. Also, it might not be constitutional depending on the make of the supreme court. Also, it could be knocked out by a simple majority vote in congress. The amendment to strip out this provision won on the Democratic side of the senate. I think it was something like 35-15. I don't know if it was covered in the previous weeks on the Sunday morning shows. The times had an editorial against it several weeks ago mentioning that the FBI and the dept of defense did not see the need for it.

Judith Ellis said...

Zorro - I will take the ACLU, Human Rights Watch and the American Civil Liberties Union over your opinion. By the way, what makes you think it's a "big overreaction?" I do not think I have ever read you be critical of the Obama administration. Obama gets passes that Bush never got. I suppose you think the Patriot Act is also a "big overreaction." Probably not. Your continual praise and forever maneuvering on behalf of this White House is sad. Is there one thing you think this president has done that at least raises eyebrows? Again, probably not.

zorro said...

The majority of the Democrats wanted the provision stripped out. More Dems in the Senate and House and this would might not be an issue. Obama made a political decision to sign the bill (because its very likely a veto would be overridden) - If Obama gets reelected and he gets to appoint the next supreme court justice, the law might get stricken down. If he gets the congress back, the provision might go away.We have the same goals, just different ideas as to the most successful way of achieving them. My bet is that very few people will be negatively affected by this law.

zorro said...

Its a risk, but thats life. Obama will and has done things I don't like. This law is worrisome. I just do not believe it is as big an assault on our freedoms as some do. Its has potential to be abused in a big way. I don't think it will be abused. But thats only my bet.

Judith Ellis said...

"I don't think it will be abused. But thats only my bet."

Poor, poor bet.

Judith Ellis said...

I don't like bets. I like clarity and less legalese whether the administration is Democrat or Republican. The Bill of Rights is a great example of such clarity.

Judith Ellis said...

The more ambiguous the law the more abuse we will see.

Judith Ellis said...

Bet on it!!

zorro said...

When it comes to putting people in power, everything is a bet. My bet is that if the GOP assumes complete control over the gov't in November, all bets are off. Also, the Bill of Rights, should have final say on the matter. I've read where some people say this law is an assault on the Bill of Rights. That is an overstatement, because the Bill of Rights still stand. Hopefully, they will not fall to the assault of a right wing court.

zorro said...

and I understated - it will be abused. I just don't think it will be widely abused. Even crystal clear laws are abused. I'm sure we have far to many wrongly convicted people in prison - wrongly accused of breaking very clearly written laws.

zorro said...

btw, it wouldn't be a bad idea to catch a network news show now and then just to keep tabs on the mainstream media. Also, there have been several studies showing that the same news article read by people who hold opposite political points of view is seen as biased against their point of view.

Judith Ellis said...

We are not talking here about putting people in power, but about passing laws that restrict our freedom according to the Bill of Rights. What are you talking about the Bill of Rights still stands? Of course, it remains. But that isn't the question now, is it? The question is the thwarting of liberties that this law contains. And, you keep talking about it be an overreach. What EXACTLY are you talking about?

Judith Ellis said...

Thanks for your seemingly attempt to show me myself with your suggestion. It is always good to look at ourselves in this light. But the reality is I do not particularly hold a hardline Left/Right position when it comes to politics so I do not view the mainstream media as a means to confirm a particular political ideology.

Judith Ellis said...

I do not watch television, not just media shows. It is largely crap, but the increasing entertainment and corporate components which are often destructive (influence on policy) and biased (opinionated reporting) make network and cable news insufferable. I do, however, read articles from various mainstream media sources online.

zorro said...

Its an overreach to immediately assume the law is a gigantic assault on our rights. Its has the potential - it also my be used very infrequently. We don't know that yet. If it is used too much or in an abusive way, the Supreme Court (or a large majority Democratic Congress) could take care of that. The Bill Obama signed passed by an overwhelming margin - any veto would in all likelihood be overridden. Should Obama veto it to make a stand or let it go and do what he can to get re-elected? Whats the better choice? No one can say. The Bill of Rights is all the defense we have at the moment - and that won't come into play until the law is actually used so it can be challenged. If that happens, it will be interesting to see what the Court does. BTW, people in power passed the laws. Thats what I was getting at. In the fall, we have a choice between putting more Democrats in power or letting the gov't go fully Republican. I bet the overall outcome for the country will be better if we can get a gov't controlled by the Dems rather than the GOP. I'm quite sure we are better off that Obama won in 2008 that we would have been of McCain had won. Recently, someone asked George Clooney if was was disillusioned by Obama. He said he was disillusioned by how quickly his supporters stopped supporting him. I couldn't have said it better. Its how I've felt with 3 months after inauguration day.

Judith Ellis said...

What do you think of the Patriot Act? Your logic of passing a law and then seeing if it's abusive is utter foolishness. And as I have said, any law that uses illusive legal jargon, unlike the Bill of Rights, seems purposeful in its abusive intent such as was clearly the case in the last administration with regards to torture. One other thing, an assault on our freedom is an assault. The degree to which an assault is rendered is still unlawful. That said, I do not cede your point here. Regarding recent presidents, methinks it doesn't matter much. They seem to be largely figure heads or public relations types. Theodore Roosevelt and Franklin Delano Roosevelt are presidents I admire most.

zorro said...

heres the fight Obama is choosing to fight. He's doing recess to the new consumer board.
http://tinyurl.com/6qst6yo
Most people care about this and will be affected by this than the Patriot Act. BTW - FDR who you admire put through and act very similar to the one Obama signed and interned Japanese American citizens. Much more agregous than anything in the Patriot Act. FDR also had an approval of 60% most of the time he was in office. His success was very dependent attitude American Population at the time.

zorro said...

The success of FDR has as much to do with the lack of cynicism in the American population in those days as it had to do with his leadership ability. We have completely absolved ourselves from any responsibility in the success of a President.

Judith Ellis said...

Did you answer my question regarding The Patriot Act? I'm out and on my phone so I don't know the "fight" you reference that Obama will assume. But I would not surprise me if he capitulates there too. Yes, I think you may call it compromise. Regarding cynicism, Americans have every right to be. Some may call it realism.

Judith Ellis said...

The "overreaching" bit is becoming tedious as you keep repeating the same thing without much backing. Instead, you continue to give your opinion which in and of itself does not hold my interests. Have you read the bill? You also write as if the ACLU, Civil Liberties Union, and Human Rights Watch have not meticulously looked into the law and made specific egregious claims. They have.

zorro said...

I'm not upset very much by the patriot act because it has had very little practical effect on our freedom. Cynicism has much more potential to take away our freedom if it helps elect a Republican. Justice Roberts came in under Bush and gave us corporate personhood. This Justice may well do away with the only successful attempt to get us some form of universal health care. I don't need to back my point about over reaching because it is just my opinion. I don't see the law as a big threat to our freedom. And time will tell if I'm right. It can be repealed in the future if the Supreme Court is not 5-4 to the right or Congress is majority Democrat. It's likely it will never be enforced if the Presidency is occupied by a Democrat. The law is ominous,(Obama said as much) but it may never be enforced or it may only be enforced very infrequently. To me, worrying about this law is a bit like being worried about dying in a commercial airplane crash without taking into account the odds of dying on the drive to the airport. Its focusing on the wrong thing.(My opinion) I have nothing to back my opinion up because the law has only be a law for 3 days. Time will tell if I'm wrong. If it abused, I hope the Congress is majority Democrat since the Dem voted 35-15 to strip out the provision in the overall appropriations Bill.

Judith Ellis said...

Your opinion is well noted and your analogy abysmal. We can be assured that males that look more like me than you will be arrested under this act as is customarily the case in this country. But don't worry about it. Let's just wait and see if any unjust law will be abused. How foolish! By the way, if detainees are not allowed a lawyer, how will we know if the law is being abused or even if they are detained? Regarding Supreme Court justices, Reagan nominated Anthony Kennedy and he turned out to be a fair judge.

zorro said...

Please - I'm not anyone - who cares if my analogy is abysmal? (which it isn't)
You stated that the mainstream press didn't cover the signing of the law. It did. You believe the dems and the GOP are nearly equivalent - I happen to think the only way to come to that conclusion is to be ignore the facts.
The Judges put in under Bush are right wing judges. Justice Kennedy is one of the choices the current GOP gripe about all the time and they do whatever they can to keep that from happening again. And for the most part, it has worked. What is broken in the country (I believe) is the electorate. White working class men vote GOP even though it works against them and many progressives or left of center people feel much the same about the GOP and the dems as you do. This only moves the country further to the right. But as a people we don't want to hold ourselves accountable. We'd rather blame the media or big business or wall street - anyone but ourselves. Don't get me wrong - big money etc have a big hand in the problem. But if the electorate would get its act together, we'd be much better off, in my opinion. I'm not sure it will happen and I think it will be the reason for the decline of our country.

zorro said...

Romney wants to eliminate Obamacare. He wants to put 100,000 more troups in the Army. He was at an event with John McCain yesterday and McCain was saying that we should have left 20,000 troups behind in Iraq. Romney wants to do away with the banking reforms recently put in. These are real differences. And again, if a Democrat had chosen the position for chief justice, we would not have corporate personhood today. The Supreme Count is 1/3 of the gov't. That alone is why we should never put a GOP in the office of President again. This is my opinion.

zorro said...

As far as waiting for the law to be abused being foolish - exactly what other plan of action is there? It actually is part of our system of gov't. If a bad law is challenged, the courts get to look at it. Now Obama could veto the bill and immediately see his veto over turned.What would be gained from that? Impossible to say. But he has just pushed through 4 recess appointments that may well accomplish some good and he is picking a fight that he may well win. The veto could simply cloud matters up.

Judith Ellis said...

Repeal the law Obama should have never signed.

Judith Ellis said...

Done here.

Judith Ellis said...

Thanks for the discussion.

chesapeake said...

What Judith said. Can't believe I just read all 32 of those comments.

Oof.

Now the question of "who the hell will I be able to vote for in good conscience in November" remains. Never again with our current President. Never, ever again.

zorro said...

Once again, no workable course of action. So we tack further to the right. And blame everyone else for our failure.Its the status quo response of the left for 40 years. I think it was Einstein who said "Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results". I know what I propose (simply vote for the Democrat) has not been tried since the mid 1960's when poverty was actually dropping and the middle class had rising incomes. But who would want that? Under conditions like that, no one could get articles discussing 'elite power structures' or 'end the fed' articles to go viral.