This comes on the eve of the eleventh anniversary of 9/11, that moment in history when the destruction of civil liberties and the rule of law flipped into high gear. What has been Obama's impact?
The article at the end of this diary presents a Socratic discussion between activist actor John Cusack and GWU law professor Jonathan Turley on the constitutional abuses that Obama has instituted in the shadow of the former Bush administration. It describes in great detail how Obama and his administration have taken the hand-off from the Bush administration and rather than turn the clock back on their abuses, have in fact accelerated and institutionalized them.
So what are we talking about?
Continuation of an undeclared war in Afghanistan.
Willful failure to prosecute war crimes in the Bush administration ("let's just move on" - in violation of international treaties).
Unilateral orders to kill American citizens (usurpation of due process).
Political assassination - (can anyone say "Osama bin Laden")
Disabling of the Nuremburg principle (allowing the defense of 'just following orders').
Arrest the whistleblowers - National Defense Authorization Act.
Privatization of the military through use of "contractors".
I am sorry they did not expand the conversation into Obama's equally offensive embrace of the criminals in the country's financial and corporate circles. It is clearly in these two realms, national security and business & finance where the Obama administration is bought and paid for and most willing to disregard the rule of law to further the agenda of their handlers.
Some of my progressive friends have called me out in the past for my lack of support for a second Obama term - I would have actually preferred to submit him to primary competition. So now faced with a contest between Obama vs. Romney and a clearly established track record on Obama's part of kicking us in the ass in regard to constitutional national security issues (and equally well documentable crimes in support of the financial/business community). The choice for voters seems to come down to supporting the outwardly sociopathic approach of the republicans or the equally illegal but kinder and gentler approach of the democrats, the classic lesser of two evils dilemma. The question becomes: how does a progressive righteously proceed (presuming that the conservative will continue to vote for Romney)?
It seems we have a few choices.
Embrace it - hell yes he is right. American exceptionalism should always prevail because our intentions are pure (and ordained by God according to some).
Accept it - go ahead and vote for the guy knowing that he is tarnished. It is the pragmatic thing to do because in the progressive mind, the outcome will be better than allowing a Romney administration to come in and pillage the country. Being mindful that if you accept this position, you are condoning Obama's illegal policies.
Head in the Sand - don't vote. You'll probably be handing the reigns over to Romney and whatever future grief that involves, but at least your hands are clean.
Passive resistance - Mount your resistance ala OWS, but resist the Obama administration as much as the right.
Rebellion - Passive resistance evolved into anger and destruction. Prepare yourself for a lesson on just how powerful our police state has become.
Expatriate - Get the hell out of Dodge. But wait, where are you going to go?
Here is the opening to the article
John Cusack Interviews Law Professor Jonathan Turley About Obama Administration’s War On the Constitution
I wrote this a while back after Romney got the nom. In light of the blizzard of bullshit coming at us in the next few months I thought I would put it out now.
______
Now that the Republican primary circus is over, I started to think about what it would mean to vote for Obama...
Since mostly we hear from the daily hypocrisies of Mitt and friends, I thought we should examine "our guy" on a few issues with a bit more scrutiny than we hear from the "progressive left", which seems to be little or none at all.
Instead of scrutiny, the usual arguments in favor of another Obama presidency are made: We must stop fanatics; it would be better than the fanatics—he's the last line of defense from the corporate barbarians—and of course the Supreme Court. It all makes a terrible kind of sense and I agree completely with Garry Wills who described the Republican primaries as " a revolting combination of con men & fanatics— "the current primary race has become a demonstration that the Republican party does not deserve serious consideration for public office."
True enough.
But yet...
... there are certain Rubicon lines, as constitutional law professor Jonathan Turley calls them, that Obama has crossed.
All political questions are not equal no matter how much you pivot. When people die or lose their physical freedom to feed certain economic sectors or ideologies, it becomes a zero sum game for me.
This is not an exercise in bemoaning regrettable policy choices or cheering favorable ones but to ask fundamentally: Who are we? What are we voting for? And what does it mean?
Three markers — the Nobel Prize acceptance speech, the escalation speech at West Point, and the recent speech by Eric Holder — crossed that Rubicon line for me...
Here is the rest of the article
Adding this postscript after it was buried in comment stream.
Certainly seemed to stir up some vitriol here, so I'll share some of my midstream thoughts with the peanut gallery.
First, I'll cop to the selection of Sophie's Choice as an unfortunate comparison and will take the well deserved heat for that. At the time, my thinking was regarding the figurative "Sophie's Choice" of being an unbearable decision with out focusing on the literal implications of a decision involving the gas chamber. For that, I apologize, but for truth in publishing, the title stays (no need for a screen grab). With the benefit of hindsight, I would have been smarter to replace the word 'Sophie's' with 'Troubling'.
Second, for those who accuse me of being a Ron Paulist or GOPer in disguise, i fully assure you I am not. I am reluctantly an Obama supporter. As referenced here, his work on SCOTUS appointments, social issues such as SSM and universal healthcare are all excellent achievements. Which makes his national security and business/financial injustices that much harder to swallow.
I am a believer in the rule of law. To the degree that this president or any other president takes steps to weaken that rule of law, it harms us all. Not just today, but due to the phenomenon of the growing Imperial Presidency, for future generations. Every step that Obama takes to weaken the Constitution and place more discretionary power in the hands of the executive will most certainly be expanded upon and abused by future republican administrations.
Did I equilibrate a second Obama term to the election of Romney? I don't think that I did. I think I said that Obama has his problems and that leads progressives to a number of choices of action - without specifying which I would choose. But I was careful to note that a Romney election would (IMHO) lead to pillage, which I definitely believe.
And for those who commented on the apparent fail in the title, apparently HTML does not play nice with the title, but displaying the tags it gets the point across.
The title would read:
Obama vs. Romney - A "Sophie's Troubling Choice"
If one could put HTML in the title.
Thank you for your kind comments - all.