Skip to main content

View Diary: Civil Liberties under Obama (55 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  I dispute the notion that Obama has not tried (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    to change Gitmo and detention policies for the better.  He reiterated torture as an illegal act and included water boarding.  The DoJ has opened investigations on abuse, but yes I wish they would go after bigger fish.  Obama is in many ways improvment over Bush, he's no civil libertarian (and thank goodness for that) but he isn't totolitarian either.  I have no real issue with the dead or alive policy (& I didn't under Bush) on wanted terrorists b/c I don't think it is any different than how the US has ever operated, if they want trials they can surrender to authorities.  The Bradly Manning stuff I'm not well informed of, but I do no he was in military service (voluntarily) and thus he gave up rights he would have as a civilian.

    And yes, I think Greenwald believe things are happening that are not actually occuring and is blinded by his own narrowmindedness to see that this administration is doing great things for civil rights and liberties.

    •  So you also have no problem (6+ / 0-)

      with targeting US citizens on foreign soil for assassination?  I mean who is to say that there is a good reason for that?   The government?  That kind of circumvents the Constitution as well, don't you think?

      We can argue all you  want about whether or not non-US citizens have any rights (I think all people have the right for us to not kill them at will because we just say they are terrorists) but we are supposed to have laws that protect US.  

      I'd rather die than give you control ~ Trent Reznor

      by JustJennifer on Mon Jul 18, 2011 at 04:32:41 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  If they are avoiding arrest (0+ / 0-)

        and causing/threatening physicle danger and/or risk to those authorities who would arrest them, then yes, I think the government is allowed under the constitution to take them dead or alive.  Are the authorities allowed to kill them if they surrender and request trials, no and that is not what is happening.

        •  "Dead Or Alive" (4+ / 0-)

          Isn't that what W said? By the way, you can't go around killing people - at least not here in the US, yet - because they might pose a risk. Cops all the time face risk when pursuing and arresting suspects, yet only under extremely limited circumstances can cops shoot to kill or for that matter shoot at all. I hope we don't end up in a society where in the name of the Constitution the police force goes around killing every suspect who doesn't immediately surrender to them and ask for a trial.

          •  If you are suspected of being a threat to the (0+ / 0-)

            country and its citizens police are entitled to attempt to apprehend you, if you attempt to flee or threaten force they are allowed to use lethal force.  If a US citizen is in violation of US law and is avoiding arrest by creating an extremely dangerous situation for law enforcement then I have no qualms with authorities using lethal force.  I had no problem when this was done by Bush and no problem when its done by Obama.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site