Obama Enrages Civil Libertarians (Again)

“Three reasons why the ACLU must be wondering what the point of changing presidents in January 2009 was”

Much of Obama’s base is wondering the same thing.

“My hunch is that Obama could make an excellent argument against all these positions, and that it pains him to adopt them.”

So far, so good, but then this:

“But also that he gets constant and chilling briefings about the terror threat and would rather be accused of limiting civil liberties than of having been less than fully vigilant. (The same thinking may well apply to his troop escalation in Afghanistan.)”

Orwell weeps in his grave.

And then “sturm and drang”! A movement “in which individual subjectivity and, in particular, extremes of emotion were given free expression in reaction to the perceived constraints of rationalism imposed by the Enlightenment and associated aesthetic movements.”

So, GG is merely subjective/emotional in his handwringing about c-liberties!? And you/yours in the traditional media are coldly rational, objective?

Re Greenwald: “strum and drang”. How about leaving the snark behind Mr. Crowley and tell us how you disagree with Greenwald. I know he is a liberal but you must give us more that a lazy put down regarding his opinion.

I’m guessing this post will be catnip.
.
Good way to end the day.

Calm down, folks, it wasn’t disparaging….

Michael Crowley:
.
Beyond the obvious offense of describing rational, reasoned, liberal opposition to Obama’s policies with the pejoratives “enraged” and “sturm und drang,” there is this strange premise:
.
“…he gets constant and chilling briefings about the terror threat and would rather be accused of…”
.
Wait…you’re immediately assuming this is all some political calculation?
.
It’s basically the venal and corrupt version of the Bush/Cheney rationale, in other words? It’s that our Leaders “know very secret things” of which we ordinary mortals must never be permitted awareness, things that cause them to act in mysterious ways for our own safety? Except, in your telling of the Obama version, this secret knowledge mandates that he reject his own principles out of fear of partisan political criticism from the right?
.
Why isn’t “your hunch” that Obama simply doesn’t share the same values as those who find these rationales for the omnipotent security state less than compelling?
.
Why do you instantaneously empretzel yourself in the position that “it pains” Obama to promote statist and illiberal security state policy, but fear of Liz Cheney’s “less than fully vigilant” criticism compels him to reject an expansive reading of the Bill of Rights?
.
Why isn’t the simpler and more likely explanation that Obama’s political philosophy accepts a vastly and increasingly enlarged role for the security state in American life?
.
Why isn’t it a simpler and more likely explanation that Obama just ain’t a liberal, Michael Crowley?
.
…And what’s this “my hunch” about?
.
Is that code for “due to my access to our Leaders, I know things that you do not?”
.
If you know something, then report on it, if that’s actually in your job description somewhere, Michael Crowley.
.
Or do you believe it is your task to provide Americans with baseless speculation on politicians’ motivations accompanied by insinuations that liberals’ criticisms of Obama are motivated by rage and various romantic, irrational fits?

And here it is again, the pompous “calm down, folks,” as if reasoning people taking your (admittedly) subjective characterizations to task were some sort of uncontrolled outburst on our parts.
.
It’s analysis, not a tantrum.
.
It’s obvious you’d prefer to imagine us as hysterical children, but many of us here are competent adults, actually.
.
Finding Beltway conventional wisdom less than compelling doesn’t make us hysterical, Michael Crowley, it just means we rationally disagree with much of what passes for common knowledge amongst the political press corps.

“My hunch is that Obama could make an excellent argument against all these positions, and that it pains him to adopt them.”
.
The point is, he hasn’t the right to adopt them for any reason, political, national security or otherwise. You would hope that a Constitutional law scholar wouldn’t have to be constantly reminded of that from the “sturm and drang” of a bunch of dirty hippies.

“Money Transfers Could Face Anti-Terrorism Scrutiny”

Great. So we will finally “scrutinize” these transfers, right?

http://michaelfury.wordpress.com/2008/08/20/the-ghost-in-the-machines-the-mystery-of-the-wtc-hard-drive-recoveries/

I just heard a story on this on All Things Considered which left me with such a distinctly different impression about what was being proposed that I had to come back here for another look. Unfortunately the transcript won’t be up until early evening, but there was much more discussion of law enforcement than terra and of getting subpoenas, etc. and that this was the beginning of an anticipated long discussion. Haven’t had time to look at the Greenwald post yet…

Thanks for popping up in thread.
-
I hope you realize that people here are all sad because these two sentences read like a parody of uninformative press coverage: “My hunch is that Obama could make an excellent argument against all these positions, and that it pains him to adopt them. But also that he gets constant and chilling briefings about the terror threat and would rather be accused of limiting civil liberties than of having been less than fully vigilant.”
-
As to the hunch about what lurks in Obama’s heart, yeah, ok, don’t care, not news. Not what’s in his heart, nor what we think might be in there.
-
And the horse racesque “he would rather be accused of this rather than that” is (a) no substitute for a look at the substantive arguments for and against an issue, and (b) an unintentional but chilling indictment of a political culture divorced from reality, concerned only with the data-averse parlor game of speculating whether a given policy will play in Peoria.
-
“His perceived mismanagement of the fire response might hurt his standing among urbanites, but his everymanish enthusiasm for down-home music could really help shore up Nero’s base among fiddle-loving rural patricians.”

And another thing, if more folks in MSM were doing yeoman’s work like Greenwald, the title of this post would read: “Obama Enrages Citizens (Again)”

But hey, we really should be afraid of Rand & Sarah & Wiccans oh my! B/C democrats able to murder US citizens, that’s not scary at all.

The fact that known liar, manipulator, and war criminal Robert Gates has Obama’s ear really makes a difference.
excellent bio at tomdispatch by Roger Morris, here:

http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/174812/roger_morris_the_gates_inheritance

I have to confess that I have also harbored the Michael Crowley “hunch” about Obama. It’s so much more comforting to believe that deep down the President thinks the same way I do but he’s just got this big job and all and he has to compromise.

But don’t we have to judge a president by what he does, not by what we imagine he’s thinking while he does it?

Sheesh, just read the “critics balk” link and it’s a good round up of dissenting points of view. But the attributions are hilarious.

The first source “writes.”

The next “told the Times”

The next two simply “said” what they had to say.

Glenn Greenwald? He “fumes.” Nobody else had any emotion attributed to them at all but Greenwald is your Dad after you tried to park his Mercedes without opening the garage door.

How about “writes” like the rest of them? If you’re going to say he’s “fuming” shouldn’t you call and ask him about his mental state?

Not that I am for it, but why does anyone thing that our Gvmt would be able to sift through even MORE information than they already get in any more efficient manner than they already do. We still no longer are able to hire the best and brightest away from private companies. The services never have seemed able, or have enough resources to do this well in the first place. I guess that is why it is more about political wrangling than practical usage (IMO). Maybe that ought to be examined. At any rate, as I understand it, it’s not like they will be watching everyone’s FB status but rather *if* they have reason to get a warrent for someone they have a way to access certain communications. But I could be off. Anyone have a copy of the actual language in the legislation?

OK, read Greenwald’s post. Obviously National [Re]Public[an] Radio was minimizing again. I am now appalled on all counts.

chupkar, I agree. It would be helpful to know the legislative language. Maybe Mr. Crowley could work on that instead of trying to “mind meld” with President Obama and Glen Greenwald. If he doesn’t want us to be “hysterical” and Joe Klein doesn’t want us to be sordid, it might be helpful if they considered their words before posting.

This is the sort of bulls hit I voted against 2 years ago. And Obama wonders why his numbers are dropping.

Why would the ACLU be wondering about the point of changing presidents?

As far as I know they can not and do not endorse political candidates. They are a non profit, they can only advocate for or against issues.

We are strong and resilient enough that we can absorb a terrorist attack, yet are presumably weak and fearful enough to be expected to cede even more personal, private ground…

I question whether trading a slightly lessened feeling of fear for greater government access into our personal lives is a good deal.

…see Greenwald for the full sturm und drang.

I wouldn’t characterize Greenwald as ‘enraged’. However, I would characterize him as being ‘mostly correct’.

Calm down, folks, it wasn’t disparaging….

Wow, thanks, Michael Crowley. That was certainly the source of my anxiety.

Another disappointing note for hope from the Obama administration. Maybe not the best time to press this what with the TPers suspicion of gov’t, the left sideways glances at Obama, and the government continuously asserting it’s right to secrecy relating to civil rights for charged and not charged terrorists, CIA operations, including torture and secret prisons and all that. Plus the fact that they can’t handle all of the data they will receive to begin with, as they don’t have an exactly sterling record handling what data they have now. I had to laugh when I read an FBI expert says that it would help investigations following terrorists acts. Get it? Following criminal acts.

This is the most interesting thing to me (aside from the obvious fact that the blogger is not a journalist): TPers suspicion of gov’t.

Here we have a movement that is allegedly based on the desire to go back to the good old days of following the Constitution and not wanting to give the government any more power than the too much it already has.

Yet, they are in favor of the state having the right to execute people when it is clear that innocent people are often convicted of capital crimes; they want, apparently, even more snooping into our private lives; they want more government control of women’s private biological decisions, among so much more.

Kind of makes me suspicious.

My hunch is that Obama could make an excellent argument against all these positions, and that it pains him to adopt them.
.
My hunch is that this is a pretty f@cking terrible excuse for those headlines, and you’re an ass for offering it up.
.
PS: Go f@ck yourself Michael Scherer Crowley.

“My hunch is that Obama could make an excellent argument against all these positions, and that it pains him to adopt them. But also that he gets constant and chilling briefings about the terror threat and would rather be accused of limiting civil liberties than of having been less than fully vigilant.”

Translation: The spooks are calling the shots.

http://michaelfury.wordpress.com/2008/10/09/the-protection-racket/

Save the American freedom and liberty village by destroying it. That’s been our policy since 9/12/01.

My “hunch” is that Crowley has “neither the time nor legal expertise to figure out who is right on this issue”…

The notion that the President might want to adapt certain policies but doesn’t feel he can points to a much scarier notion. Is Obama or is Obama not actually in charge?

Of course whenever the subject of Democrats and civil liberties comes up, I always repost this link:

http://www.badattitudes.com/AshWeb.html

The surveillance state is utterly bipartisan.

Maybe the ACLU could help out on this Situation.
.
Dems’ Campaign to Silence Dissent
.
POLITICO; By: Fred Upton September 27, 2010
.
Judging by the flurry of recent speeches, press releases and op-ed articles criticizing right-of-center organizations and donors, the left appears to have taken a chapter out of the Nixon playbook.
.
These efforts look like an orchestrated campaign to intimidate and silence opposition to President Barack Obama’s agenda. Any other day, these same people would be the first to trumpet the virtues of free speech. But in the wake of the Supreme Court’s Citizens United vs. FEC decision, the administration and its congressional allies seem to have decided that the First Amendment takes a back seat to their political priorities.
.
Despite controlling the White House and both houses of Congress by wide margins, despite passing much of their domestic agenda and despite adding trillions of dollars to the deficit, Democrats have been unable to reduce unemployment or restart America’s economic engine.
.
Rather than changing course and pursuing policies to cut spending and help small businesses grow, they have instead concentrated on self-preservation — focusing their energies in search of a scapegoat.
.
Few have been spared from attack: the Republican Party, the tea party movement, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Fox News, energy producers, small business folks, health insurers, bankers, the Supreme Court, you name it. Attacks on grass-roots groups like Americans for Prosperity — loyal partners in the fight against a climate tax, and on individuals who support them — have become more frequent, personal and calculated.
.
For a White House to target and attack private citizens and organizations merely because they have the temerity to oppose an agenda that they believe is destroying jobs and undermining U.S. competitiveness is something that should be of concern to all Americans.
.
We face serious problems that require serious discussion. Unemployment, economic uncertainty and out-of-control spending call for responsible governing and strong leadership.
.
As another president, Thomas Jefferson, so eloquently stated during his 1801 inaugural address, “every difference of opinion is not a difference of principle.”
.
Reasonable people can disagree on many things — but using strong-arm tactics to trample First Amendment rights is not one of them. We are clearly at a crossroads and must return to the principles that made our nation great. The president and his allies need to decide if they stand for principle or politics.
.
Hopefully, they will take a cue from Jefferson on this.

Yes.

3xfire3:
.
“the left appears to have taken a chapter out of the Nixon playbook”
.
If anything has been demonstrated without doubt to be the case, it’s that “the left” are not the Democratic Party. In order “to have taken a chapter out of the Nixon playbook,” “the left” would actually have to have some sort of positive relationship with the Administration or executive agencies, in order for abuse of power to be even within contemplation. The left could not possibly wield enough influence within the Obama apparatus to do anything Nixon-like.
.
If this guy means “Obama” or “Diane Feinstein” or “Democrats,” then he should say so, instead of talking about the excluded, disdained “left.”
.
“But in the wake of the Supreme Court’s Citizens United vs. FEC decision, the administration and its congressional allies seem to have decided that the First Amendment takes a back seat to their political priorities.”
.
What does that mean? What First Amendment abrogations or planned abrogation is this person implying exist?
.
“Few have been spared from attack…”
.
“Attacks…have become more frequent, personal and calculated”
.
What “attacks?” Are we talking about name-calling? Rhetorical attacks? Planned, harsh, political criticism on a frequent basis? That sort of “attack?”
.
“For a White House to target and attack private citizens and organizations…”
.
What does this guy mean by “target and attack?”
.
Is he suggesting that the Administration is sending in predator drones, or Special Forces, or the FBI, or something?
.
That sounds like obvious hyperbole, doesn’t it?
.
Why should it be “of concern to all Americans” for the White House to engage in political conduct, including rhetorical attempts to discredit their political enemies, both private and public? What about the fact that they’re willing to talk about their opponents is dangerous or cause for concern? Isn’t that normal American politics?
.
“Reasonable people can disagree on many things — but using strong-arm tactics to trample First Amendment rights is not one of them.”
.
What “strong-arm tactics?” What specifically has anyone done to “trample First Amendment rights?”
.
Why can’t this guy actually state what the problem is?
.
What’s with all of this innuendo about trampling, and strong-arming, and “the Nixon playbook?”
.
What’s the specific problem, apart from the usual, if sometimes ugly and dishonest playing of politics by the Administration? What actual, physical or legal “attacks” is this guy talking about?
.
You know, like, is it states’ secrets doctrine, or the claimed assassination and detention powers, or the abandonment of due process, or the surveillance state powers, or…what?
.
Other than publicly disagreeing with conservatives and Republicans, what’s the issue?
.
Can you help me understand what it is that this guy won’t come out and say, why he won’t say it?
.
And why is he spinning yarns about “the left,” when we’re on record again and again standing up to the Obama Administration’s rejection of Bill of Rights protections, and continuation and expansion of the Bush-era security state?

I am all for killing American Terrorists.

Democrats to base, “yes we keep doing things you are opposed to but it would be much worse if it is Republicans doing the same things we are. Now get out and vote and send money. Oh, and stop whining.”

“Plugs” Biden, is that you?

Yeah we’ve been on record against Obamacare; what’s your point?

The government will do what it wants, what it needs to do, what is thinks will benefit and preserve government.

Welcome to the club.

Don’t worry, they know better than you do about what you want.

“Plugs” Biden?
.
Really?

I find 3x’s logic fascinating. Deploying free speech is apparently an abrogation of free speech.

Stellar………

Yep, typical horse-race horse-sh!t. With a few “loaded” terms thrown in to “flavor” the dish.

Fox News, etc.– loyal partners…
.
You DO understand what you are implying there, don’t you, 3x?
.
That Fox News is NOT an objective player but a “loyal partner” of the RW “information” machine?
.
Can’t be both “loyal” and objective. Objectivity requires you to sometimes vary from the “company” line.

Paul,
.
Trying to follow 3x’s “logic” trail wore me out a LONG time ago.

Just try to remember – he’s older than dirt so that means… something.

afguy and Stuart,
.
“You DO understand what you are implying there, don’t you, 3x?
.
That Fox News is NOT an objective player but a “loyal partner” of the RW “information” machine?”
.
I’m not implying anything. I simply posted the Politico Article.
.
I will say one thing that I feel is wrong and that is for the President personally to continually get involved in all the negative comments about his political opponents. I have never seen, in my 71 years, any President to personally make so many negative comments about their opponents.
.
Usually Presidents let their staff and others do that kind of dirty work. The President usually tries to project a more Professional Image as the Leader of the country and all the people.
.
Obama seems like he’s still running for office and is constantly in a campaign mode attacking his opponents. His willingness to get down in the gutter and demonize his opponents on almost a daily bases is very Un-Presidential.
.
Other Presidents have had just as many reasons and excuses to make a lot of negative comments but no one has come even close to Obama’s negativism.

Read 25.4

Usually Presidents let their staff and others do that kind of dirty work.
.
3x,
.
And you applaud that type of patrician “delegation of labor”? Strange, but that’s what I always disliked about the Bushes (both of them).
.
They would banish Karl Rove from polite society until the campaign started to waiver, then bring him back for the dirty work while they went on vacation to the compound back in Maine. Reagan used Lee Atwood for the same purpose.
.
It’s like a Mafia don calling a hit man to “eliminate a problem” while they head to the Bahamas.
.
I don’t consider that type of activity especially admirable, 3x. I’d rather the politician take care of his own “dirty work” sometimes.
.
As for the previous posting, how about answering the question without hiding behind Politico: do you consider Fox News a “loyal partner” in the RW information “machine” as Politico does?

3xfire3:
.
Assuming for the sake of argument that your impression is true, that this President is personally attacking his rightist critics in an unseemly or even dirty manner, what does that have to do with the opinion-writer’s charge, that the White House is
.
“using strong-arm tactics to trample First Amendment rights”
.
?
.
What is he talking about?

Stuart,
.
“using strong-arm tactics to trample First Amendment rights”?
.
What is he talking about?”
.
Stuart I have a difficult time understanding how you could ask such a question with such obvious answers.
.
Some of the areas where Obama has used strong arm tactics and intimidation to try silence his cretics are as follows:
.
Obama and his staff a couple months ago all said to the media that FOX wasn’t a news organization. They then warned the other medias to not be like FOX.
.
Obama himself has demonized The Chamber of Commerce, Banks, CEOs, Insurance companies, Glenn Beck, FOX News, Senators and Congressmen, the Supreme Court and a ton of other people and organizations.
.
These are but a few examples.

afguy,
.
“As for the previous posting, how about answering the question without hiding behind Politico: do you consider Fox News a “loyal partner” in the RW information “machine” as Politico does?”
.
Where did you get the idea that Politico thinks FOX News is a loyal partner in some RW information machine?
.
I cannot find that comment in the article.
.
I certainly do not believe FOX News is apart of some RW information machine. That appears to be the belief of a relatively small segment of the American public.
Usually very partisan LW individuals.

3xfire3:
.
Maybe you and I have different definitions of the term “strong-arming.”
.
In my book, that means actually holding some kind of power over someone or something else, so that they are threatened by some action of some kind, unless they concede, and perform some obligation.
.
How is it “intimidating” to FOX News, the largest and most successful cable news network in business today, if the Administration finds fault with them, even describing their operation as a Republican propaganda megaphone?
.
What threat is being held over FOX? What threat was implicit in that “warning” to “other medias?”
.
Was the DOJ being held over their heads, some sort of legal harassment? Were they being threatened with criminal sanctions, or arrest –or detainment?
.
Assuming for the sake of argument that Obama “demonized” all of the organizations and individuals you mention, how is that actually “intimidating?”
.
What are these organizations and individuals compelled to do or contemplate doing differently, in the face of such threats?
.
What were they actually threatened with?
.
What have the consequences been for those who routinely ascribe socialist, radical leftist and fascist motives and methods to the Administration –besides being criticized publicly, even demonized?
.
If there’s no threat, then there’s no strong-arming. If there’s only critical words, even harshly critical or dishonest words, then there’s no First Amendment issues, there’s no intimidation and there’s nothing sinister, totalitarian or even Nixon-like about that sort of behavior at all.
.
One of the relatively decent criticisms of the popular right is this tendency to magnify differences with your political enemies such that they become bizarrely monstrous, and so that they fit larger-than-life villain characters in a political narrative that is as far-fetched as that moron Cindy Sheehan’s theory that 9/11 was an “inside job.”
.
I watch this entertainer Glenn Beck get on television and entertain folks with these stories from time to time. It’s important to know the difference between serial episodes of a political novel whose creators know that you would like to believe, and real, honest-to-god facts about your political opponents’ positions and record.
.
It seems to me that you ought to really give some thought to what the difference is between real, actual strong-arm tactics, and politicians saying mean things about the people who don’t like them, 3xfire3, and apply some good old American skepticism to those who would blur the difference because it helps their political cases or candidacies –or because it tells a story that sells.

3x,
You said, “28.3 – Read 25.4″

I did, then I read the fillowing comments responding to your 25.4. Given that what you say in 25.4 was thoroughly trashed, what’s the point in reading it again?

Oh, I get it… it’s the usual Repub play. Say the same garbage over & over & over as if it’s true, and someone will believe it – then quote them when they repeat the garbage to prove that the garbage is true.

That stinks.

Stuart,
.
The power of the Presidency though all the tools of the Government are immense. The President can use the IRS, FCC, DOJ and many other agencies to intimidate and silence opponents.
.
Let me give you one example. Mark Lloyd is the Diversity Czar at the FCC appointed by Obama. Lloyd talks about the changes he would like to make for the Media. They involve forcing managers of Media to step down so minorities can have a chance at power. He wants to limit the role of National Medias and force a larger amount of media control to local programming. He would accomplish this through a large tax of National Medias to be given to local Medias. He is extremely radical in his beliefs and the changes he would like to make.
.
Let me give you one more example of intimidation. Two Lawyers from the DOJ have gone to Cleveland met with the Board of Elections and threatened them with a law suit if they did not have all their ballets printed in both English and Spanish. They used an obscure law regarding Puerto Ricans to try and force this change which would cost many millions of dollars. The Board offered to print ballets in both languages for areas in the county that had significant Hispanic populations. The DOJ people said no it had to be all. When ask for something in writing regarding the DOJ demands they were told that it would not be put in writing.
.
You think this kind of power is not capable of intimidating people? If you do you are very naive which surprises me.

herby,
.
Hay trash talker read 25.9 and 25.10 and give me a sane response.

3x,
Why are you calling me names? I didn’t call you names.
Anyway, I read 25.9 & 25.10.

My response is this:

Please give us links for both of the “stories” you tell in 25.10. Your statement that they are examples of intimidation might fly if it’s based on facts as you state them. Until you cite the underlying story(s), we can only treat your statements as opinion.

Sane enough for you?

herby,
.
“3x,
Why are you calling me names? I didn’t call you names.
Anyway, I read 25.9 & 25.10.
.
Given that what you say in 25.4 was thoroughly trashed, what’s the point in reading it again?”

‘Oh, I get it… it’s the usual Repub play. Say the same garbage over & over & over as if it’s true, and someone will believe it – then quote them when they repeat the garbage to prove that the garbage is true.

That stinks.”
.
Maybe it wasn’t name calling but it certainly wasn’t a mutually respectful reply.
.
He are 2 links.
.
The one on FOX was part of a rather long series of activities. The WH also tried to get FOX excluded from the Networks Pool but the other Networks refused to comply. Even though they are competitors of FOX News they felt it was against the concept of a free press.
.
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/63579-wh-takes-another-shot-at-fox
.
Cleveland is located in Cuyahoga county.
.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/voting-rightsfor-some
.
You may not like the source in that it is a conservative publication but read the story. It is based on interviews with both Republican and Democratic members of the Board of Elections. The MSM tends to not write about these stories.

.
.