Why Obama Needs to be a One Term President

So he's a failure. Barrack Obama has finally spoke out about the TSA's pat downs and once again, he's siding with the governments disregard of Civil Rights. He has consistently failed to defend the Constitution in this area and I'm done with him. I'm wondering who is going to have the guts to run against him in the primary. Russ Feingold? Dennis Kucinich? The Democratic Party had better step up because Barrack Obama won't get my vote even if it's Palin v Obama and it's a tight race.

We've all been hearing about the TSA's procedures. What you have to realize is that this is a Cabinet controlled position. With the wave of a hand, an utterance from his mouth, Mr. Obama can end this trampling of our civil rights. His position? "One of the most frustrating aspects of this fight against terrorism is that it has created a whole security apparatus around us that causes huge inconvenience for all of us." Source "Inconvenience"? "All of us"? Sir, when do you think that you'll be subjecting your daughters to a strip search in front of an entire airport? (Young Boy had this happen.) If your wife ever has a mastectomy, will it be OK if TSA asks her to pull it out in front of everybody like this lady? If you end up with a bladder or colon problem, you won't mind TSA breaking the seal and pushing waste on to your body or clothes, will you? The fact is, you'll never be faced with this. The fact is that for your political position, in the face of terrorism, you'll toss our rights on the burning alter. Sir, my rights are not yours to throw away.

Barrack Obama is a Constitutional Rights attorney. The greatest dissent I have ever read is from Florida v Bostick. The short, a drug mule was on a bus and cops show up doing sweeps. While blocking the aisle way with badges and pistols on hips, they ask to search the bag of the mule. He consents. So would a reasonable person feel free to leave? No. But the court ruled to admit the evidence because he was already captive by being a passenger. Thurgood Marshall wrote the greatest dissent and our President needs to go back and read it again.

"[T]he evidence in this cause has evoked images of other days, under other flags, when no man traveled his nation's roads or railways without fear of unwarranted interruption, by individuals who held temporary power in the Government. The spectre of American citizens being asked, by badge-wielding police, for identification, travel papers -- in short, a raison d'etre -- is foreign to any fair reading of the Constitution, and its guarantee of human liberties.

I sincerely recommend reading this dissent. It's the most common sense rights over fear answer to random searches that I've ever read. Link

Barrack's failure on Civil Rights isn't contained to this one issue. Let's take a look at a few others. I'll try to be brief. In the first month he promised to close down Guantanamo within one year. We are closing in on two years... and it's still open. He's moved from it being wrong to arguing that he can hold people indefinitely without ever filing a single charge. Sir, you are not a king and this isn't your Bastille. People have rights, even if they are our enemy. If you can't even put together a military case, you have to set them free. This isn't even legal argument, it's a moral one.

He's decided that the CIA can carry on with kidnapping people abroad and doing who knows what to him. Yeah, he says that you must follow Army Field Manual, but if he's allowing kidnapping, maybe that position is simply allowing for plausible deniability because clearly he's conflicted on rights in many other places. If you don't know what rendition is, here's the wiki link for you.

He continues a Faith Based Office. He's spending our money on religion. He mocks a popular internet question about his position on Marijuana. "And I don't know what this says about our audience but.." You self-righteous ass. Do you remember this guy? Did you respect him? And when it comes to gays, he doesn't have the courage to stand for equality and instead says that gays shouldn't marry. Source Would you mind if we put in separate but equal water fountains for your daughters sir? I'd like for you to lay out the fundamental difference in those arguments.

Barrack Obama has done some good stuff. I was feeling pretty proud of him early on. But I'm really taking a crap on his Civil Rights positions. Like I said, I will not vote for him. I cannot cast a vote for ignoring my rights. Democrats, either get us a candidate that will respect our rights, or expect no vote from me, and maybe a few million others. It's enough to swing most elections. Your job is to unseat your president and have the courage to vote for America over your fears for what it means to your party. We need to send a message to all future candidates that even within a party, if you don't hold up your end of the bargain, you are through. President Obama, your desire to pat my junk has led to much of your base deciding to kick you in your political junk.

So who do we start to prop up on the interwebs? Feingold? Kucinich? Who has the guts and the track record of always standing up for us regardless of the political consequences?

Tags: Barrack Obama, Civil Rights

1 member likes this

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Gaytor on July 14, 2011 at 3:31am

Your Quote: "I don't agree Gaytor that non-U.S. citizens should receive the same rights as U.S. citizens - particularly unlawful enemy combatants caught on the battlefield without representation of an official military or sovereign nation. That's why we have military tribunals."

The Majority Opinion: "The detainees in these cases are entitled to a prompt habeas corpus hearing.. . . . Within the Constitution's separation-of-powers structure, few exercises of judicial power are as legitimate or as necessary as the responsibility to hear challenges to the authority of the executive to imprison a person."

Yick Wo v Hopkins 1886

The rights of the petitioners, as affected by the proceedings of which they complain, are not less because they are aliens and subjects of the emperor of China. . . . The fourteenth amendment to the constitution is not confined to the protection of citizens. It says: "Nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." These provisions are universal in their application, to all persons within the territorial jurisdiction, without regard to any differences of race, of color, or of nationality; and the equal protection of the laws is a pledge of the protection of equal laws.

The rights afforded by the Constitution apply to all, in our custody, regardless of territory unless we are at War in which case military tribunals are possible, but the prisoners cannot legally be held for ten years without charge. This is a matter of settled law since 1886. It's, we don't deny any "person" rights. Citizenship is not relevant.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Arcus on July 14, 2011 at 4:08am

American law is thus supreme to any law in the world. Not that the US is imperialistic or anything, their laws are just so much better than ours that we should be thankful.

Right? ;)

------

Coming next
Is extraterritoriality.
Noting text
Say "extraterritoriality."
You perplexed
By "extraterritoriality"?
Just noting clause
(Don't touch the coat!)
Which say your laws
Do not apply
(Don't touch the coat!)
When we drop by —
Not getting shot,
No matter what:
A minor scrape,
A major rape,
And we escape
(Don't touch the cape!)
That's what is extraterritoriality.

~Pacific Overtures

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Gaytor on July 14, 2011 at 11:57am

Why are you adding to what I said? From two posts up, "The Constitution limits the reach of the government and citizenship is not a qualifier in limiting that reach." Our (US) Constitution prohibits government actions period, and not be branch or division or location in the world. None of what I said supports Imperialism or US law as superior.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Arcus on July 14, 2011 at 12:21pm

"These provisions are universal in their application, to all persons within the territorial jurisdiction,"

1. Guantanamo is not within the US territorial jurisdiction. At least not legally as it is considered occupied territory by the de juro owner. Thus extraterritorial.

2. The historical alternative to detention is shooting the detainees.

3. We are at war, it's a military camp, thus civilian law should not apply.

One further question: Does the term "any state" also include the federal government?

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Sassan K. on July 14, 2011 at 11:46am

Didn't you read what I posted from the very article you posted regarding the opinion of the majority justices in which they ruled that unlawful enemy combatants are not guaranteed the same rights as U.S. citizens as of this ruling? Again:

The justices said the detainees are entitled to legal representation and a chance to rebut the evidence against them. But the court stopped short of deciding whether terrorism suspects can be held for as long as the government believes is necessary.

"It bears repeating that our opinion does not address the content of the law that governs [their] detention," Kennedy said. "That is a matter yet to be determined."

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Gaytor on July 14, 2011 at 12:18pm

When cases are raised before the Supreme Court, they address specific matters. In this case it was the matter of being able to be seen by a judge. The Detainee Treatment Act (DTA) is the content of the law that was yet to be determined. A quote from another article makes it much clearer.

“[T]he cost of delay can no longer be borne by those who are held in custody. The detainees in these cases are entitled to a prompt habeas corpus hearing.” - Justice Kennedy

Link: http://ccrjustice.org/learn-more/faqs/legal-analysis%3A-boumediene-...
(Chrome not allowing text editing for me)

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Arcus on July 14, 2011 at 12:36pm

Weren't the habeas corpus rulings dealt with via changing the underlying laws in Congress? And I do recall Obama signing some laws regarding the status of the detainees too, but not sure if those were relevant to habeas.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Arcus on July 14, 2011 at 3:05am

I was not aware that the supreme court of the USA had a say over occupied Cuban territory or anywhere else outside the US border. I though detainees on Cuba were under military law.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Gaytor on July 14, 2011 at 3:10am

Now you are aware.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Sassan K. on July 14, 2011 at 3:17am

Gaytor, you admit you were mistaking now, at least partially? And I apologize BTW for calling you an unfortunate/inappropriate term earlier in this thread.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Arcus on July 14, 2011 at 3:18am

Where else extraterritoriality might it apply, if I may ask? What if detainees were tortured in the UN building?

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Sassan K. on July 14, 2011 at 3:19am

We are not talking about torture - with detention without trial. We can all agree torture is in principle wrong.

As in the Supreme Court case - to detention centers outside of the country - such as a 3rd party nation.

▶ Reply

‹ Previous
1
…
18
19
20
21
Next ›

RSS

Welcome to
Think Atheist

Get Started Now
or Sign In

Or sign in with:

What's new today

1	Bill Nye Boo'd In Texas For Saying The Moon Reflects The Sun
2	Why do atheists ask for so much proof to believe in God?
3	We cannot think like our ancestors
4	The Racists Really Won't Like This!
5	An Atheist's Creed
6	It's little companies who are destroying the middle class
7	Are people stupid?
8	What is not believing in God like?