Jonathan Turley chimes in on Obama & the NDAA. Another Constitutional scholar is appalled.

[tpsbmam]

<snip>

President Barack Obama rang in the New Year by signing the NDAA law with its provision allowing him to indefinitely detain citizens. It was a symbolic moment to say the least. With Americans distracted with drinking and celebrating, Obama signed one of the greatest rollbacks of civil liberties in the history of our country . . . and citizens partied only blissfully into the New Year.

<snip>

Obama insisted that he signed the bill simply to keep funding for the troops. It was a continuation of the dishonest treatment of the issue by the White House since the law first came to light. As discussed earlier, the White House told citizens that the President would not sign the NDAA because of the provision. That spin ended after sponsor Sen. Carl Levin (D., Mich.) went to the floor and disclosed that it was the White House and insisted that there be no exception for citizens in the indefinite detention provision.

The latest claim is even more insulting. You do not “support our troops” by denying the principles for which they are fighting. They are not fighting to consolidate authoritarian powers in the President. The “American way of life” is defined by our Constitution and specifically the Bill of Rights. Moreover, the insistence that you do not intend to use authoritarian powers does not alter the fact that you just signed an authoritarian measure. It is not the use but the right to use such powers that defines authoritarian systems.

<snip>

There are also those who continue the long-standing effort to excuse Obama’s horrific record on civil liberties by either blaming others or the times. One successful myth is that there is an exception for citizens. The White House is saying that changes to the law made it unnecessary to veto the legislation. That spin is facially ridiculous. The changes were the inclusion of some meaningless rhetoric after key amendments protecting citizens were defeated. The provision merely states that nothing in the provisions could be construed to alter Americans’ legal rights. Since the Senate clearly views citizens are not just subject to indefinite detention but even execution without a trial, the change offers nothing but rhetoric to hide the harsh reality. THe Administration and Democratic members are in full spin — using language designed to obscure the authority given to the military. The exemption for American citizens from the mandatory detention requirement (section 1032) is the screening language for the next section, 1031, which offers no exemption for American citizens from the authorization to use the military to indefinitely detain people without charge or trial.

More at Turley's blog. So, another Constitutional scholar is appalled and agrees that this bill is horrifying. Turley is someone I've followed for years. I don't always agree with him, but I respect his opinions and the invaluable voice of this Constitutional scholar over the hell of the Bush years......but I guess he's now going to be thrown under the bus, along with the ACLU, Greenwald and others who are trying to warn Americans!

Consider me appalled along with them. Their warnings are justified -- too bad they're falling on so many deaf ears.

[madrchsod]

1. yup....john better look out for the bus.

i`m sure he`ll be on the shit list soon.

[think]

2. especially since only "you know who" is speaking out against this in their campaign

[Dewey Finn]

3. In other words, some anonymous people on the internet will disagree with him.

Yeah, that's some scary bus, huh?

[HangOnKids]

18. You are really a peach

I mean that, the bus stuff is really funny.

[Octafish]

4. Turley stood up to the BFEE

A secret CIA assassination policy for citizens

December 27, 2002|By Jonathan Turley. Jonathan Turley is a law professor at George Washington University Law School.

In a season of lists, last week's disclosure of the assassination list by the Bush administration may be the ultimate gift idea for the agency that is close to having everything. After a post-Sept. 11 windfall of expanded budgets, personnel and power, it was inevitable that CIA officials would return to the one item that they have most coveted: the discretionary use of assassination. Not only does the CIA have a specific wish list of two dozen targets, it is not confined to this list for targets and even citizens could be subject to this lethal form of agency action.

In 2001, President Bush issued a secret order to the CIA that generally authorized the use of assassination as an anti-terrorism tool. When disclosed last month, it was noted that the order conspicuously did not limit assassination to non-citizens, a fact that the White House has never denied. The order signaled a radical change in U.S. policy. In the 1970s, the Church Committee found that the United States had used assassination extensively with often disastrous results. It turns out that (to our credit) we stink at assassination.

While assassinations were sharply curtailed, the United States occasionally dabbled in the dark art. During the Reagan administration, a hit was reportedly ordered on Sheikh Mohammed Hussein Fadlallah, a fanatical cleric with terrorist ties. On March 8, 1985, the CIA used a Lebanese team and money from Saudi Arabia to explode a car bomb outside his mosque. The bomb was detonated when hundreds of Muslims were leaving services, killing more than 80 people and wounding more than 250. One fact in the bombing instantly pegged the attempted hit as a likely CIA operation: The one person left unscathed was Sheikh Fadlallah. It is something of a signature element of past CIA hits: Many die but the target remains.

It is not clear whether the CIA will return to the use of car bombs, which has taken on a certain pejorative tint of late. However, it now has authority to engage in a level of assassination that we have not seen since before Nixon.

CONTINUED...

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2002-12-27/news/0212270378_1_cia-assassination-al-qaeda

[MisterP]

7. "why didn't he ever criticize Bush?!!!"

I sh*t you not, people are saying that

what sort of thought process is going on there?

[Octafish]

27. Remember in 2001, how most everybody's brains turned to mush after 9-11?

Not Turley's. He sees evil as evil:

Prof. Jonathan Turley: “Stop Being a Country of Chumps!”

William Hughes
September 20, 2006

“Wherever the real power in a government lies, there is the danger of oppression.” - James Madison (1)

Baltimore, MD - On September 18, 2006, the Maryland Institute College of Art (MICA) held a very informative program to honor the 219th anniversary of the birth of the U.S. Constitution. One of the featured speakers at the splendid event, entitled “Constitution Day at MICA,” was Professor Jonathan Turley of the George Washington U.’s School of Law, in the District of Columbia. He’s a nationally recognized expert on Constitutional law, national security and terrorism-related legal issues.

Professor Turley began his lecture by recalling the struggle to create the Constitution. He called it “a novel experience” and praised its prime architect, James Madison of Virginia, for his genius and tenacity in writing it. (1) “The Constitution,” he continued, “is a common article of faith that binds us, no matter how hateful the debate, because we have a common legacy found in that document. That is why, it drives me crazy when the President (George W. Bush) says: ‘This is our defining moment.’ We had that defining moment in the 1700s, when we agreed to a Constitution that bound us all and it required a leap of faith.

I happened to believe we are living through a crisis of faith,” Professor Turley emphasized. “There are people in our government, who for some reason, have lost faith in their heritage...There is only one rule, in the Madisonian system, that can never be broken. And, that rule is: you cannot go outside the rules...Madison built a system that is idiot proof. God knows we have tested that. We have had morons for president and we are still here. It is a system designed to survive...You have to take the leap of faith. President George Bush is a relativist...He’s a legal relativist. He believes the law is a technicality...He always has. It doesn’t make him evil. It just makes him a man of zeal.”

Background on the Maryland Institute College of Art (MICA), the site of the conference: It predates the American Civil War. It was founded in 1826, just nine years after Madison finished his second term as president. It is the oldest college of arts in the country and is located on Mount Royal Avenue in the “Monumental City,” near the Meyerhoff Symphony Hall and the Bolton Hill neighborhood. During WWII, MICA helped to facilitate the training of students to work in jobs, requiring expert drafting and drawing skills, in the important aircraft and maritime sectors, related to the war effort. The organizer for the “Constitution Day” program was MICA’s Robert Merrill, a Professor of Literature and Humanities, who also gave an inspiring keynote address at the affair.

After 9/11, Professor Turley said the Bush-Cheney Gang spoke of the Constitution “as if it were the threat! Why,” he wondered, “after 200 years, this loss of faith in our system? I suggest it is because this administration intentionally set a course before 9/11 to reinvent the presidency...to have an uber presidency...After 9/11, they could have asked to hang Americans on meat hooks and Congress would have granted it. They were getting everything they wanted--immediately...Why wouldn’t the Bush administration go to the Congress and ask for the authority of a military tribunal?”

Professor Turley further asks: “Why would the President assert the authority to create a legal system, that he alone designed--a prison system, that he alone ran--a court system that he created by his own rule and through this, people could be held indefinitely--even put to death--at his discretion? Why would you do that? I think it is all about reinventing the office of the presidency...The checks and balances in the Constitution...designed by Madison...keep ambitions in check-and it [the Constitution}is stable...What has occurred in the last few years is the greatest threat to the separation of powers in the history of this government...Meanwhile, Congress has completely failed to exercise oversight...We’re afraid and when you’re afraid, the Constitution becomes an abstraction...It is treated as a piece of paper...Our worst injuries [as a country] in history have all been self-inflicted...Sending Japanese-Americans [during WWII] into camps, the Palmer Raids and arrests [during WWI]..We always hear about how bad they are [the terrorists], but we never hear about: ‘Who we are!..’ Now, we are even having a debate [in the U.S. Congress] about embracing torture, like waterboarding.”

CONTINUED...

http://www.sanfranciscotelegram.com/articles/view/13799

PS: Some people prove Santayana, regarding repeating the past of Tail Gunner Joe McCarthy, where anyone who thinks something that they shouldn't is an "enemy."

[Little Star]

89. I respect Turley. He calls em' like he sees em'! n/t

[bhikkhu]

5. The "constitutional scholar" seems to rely on hyperbole, rather than the constitution, for arguments

I noted a lack of any specific reference to constitutional law on his site. Like many others, he seems to miss that the bill simply repeats the authority granted by the 2001 military authorization, and is not substantially different from any prior military authorization in its terms, going back as far as the civil war.

I would think all this energy would be more usefully be channeled toward a demand for an end to the war - which would retire the AUMF and the detention authority - rather than against the current president and party, where it more likely has the effect of distracting from the importance of the next election and potentially prolonging the war.

[Bluenorthwest]

6. Put this in quotation marks:

Currently Turley holds the Shapiro Chair for Public Interest Law at The George Washington University Law School

Just saying. Sort of a good gig. Or should I say "good gig"?

[TheKentuckian]

9. End the war, how? Especially without rocking the party vote?

[msanthrope]

42. Said "constitutional scholar" just lost a case against Obama, and got spanked by the judge.

Note how neither Turley, nor the OP mention that.

See my post below--# 40, for details.

[bhikkhu]

52. Thanks for the information about him

It reinforces my opinion based on reading just a piece or two - when someone relies on "gut" language and hyperbole like he does, the argument is generally worthless and poorly constructed, and has hidden motives.

Some writers leave one no more informed, no more effective, and no more capable after having read them than before; when a writer gives nothing but a foul taste in the mouth, its probably not worth spending time with.

[i_sometimes]

64. Fixed.

Some posters leave one no more informed, no more effective, and no more capable after having read them than before; when a poster gives nothing but a foul taste in the mouth, its probably not worth spending time with.


Its fun to read threads like this.
First a poster slightly attacks the messenger, then back up arrives, then more back up, then the messenger really gets it and soon, the Blue Link Brigade shows up.
Then the big guns come out and the same four posters suddenly have many posts in the same thread, each attacking the messenger harder as the thread grows.

Interesting.
But what a farm to harvest when it comes to making my DU experience better by using the tools at hand.

[msanthrope]

68. Welcome to DU!!! You are very comfortable for such a newbie! Welcome! Edit-

My spidey-sense must have been tingling....

I see you posted that you were here in '08, and that you left because it was too 'toxic.'

Now you are back for another election year, under a user account that was opened only last month.

Quite interesting--who were you in your past DU life???

[i_sometimes]

75. Lol, good girls never tell!

But yeah, was here at the beginning (more like 03) but 08 was so nasty during the primaries, kind of like now but without Hillary , I was disgusted. Most of those posters are gone but there are allot of the same people here, doing the same thing.
I found myself stopping by less and less. I am not the most articulate person and do not respond well to walls of text telling me so. I am still logged in at DU2...lol!

I always kept a bookmark for latest breaking as DU has some very good posters who find the neatest stuff, articles I do not see any where else but maybe Reddit. But Reddit is a time suck while DU is so out of control its tough to spend more than a few minutes here.


I have vowed to stay away from most of DU this time, I read it but it seems like we have no common enemy but ourselves here. Blind allegiance, name calling and snark that would have earned tombstones, its not like it was but what really is?

I do credit DU with my involvement in local politics, I have been very active in local issues and take great pride in that. DU once taught me how it all works.
Now...well, its good to see old friends!

Have yourself a great day!

[msanthrope]

79. So you post on DU2 on one name, and DU3 as another? nt

[eridani]

54. And the fact that the 2001 military authorization is appalling is beside the point?

Turley doesn't think so.

[i_sometimes]

65. This.

The 'normal' is the Patriot Act, wtf?

[msanthrope]

73. Welcome! What was your previous username, so we all know who you are?

I read a post where you stated you left in '08, but you only signed to this account last month.

Just here for the elections???

[bhikkhu]

70. Exactly - it is the primary point

Along with improving income equality, ending the wars and retiring the AUMF is the one most important thing that should be the issue of the next election, as I've said over and over here every time the NDAA is brought up. Its absurd to say "Obama just did this", "this has never been done before", "now its a police state", etc...absurdity that misses the primary point serves no purpose but to make people less intelligent, and a productive outcome at the next election less likely.

How clearly have any candidates standing for the next election stated their positions on continuing the war, or their plans to bring it to a close? Yet we have endless criticism and chest-thumping over the wording of a nearly irrelevant recent document - leading to nothing.

As far as Turley, he was involved as a supporter of the Clinton impeachment, which is about all I need to know. Perhaps that makes me closed minded, but anyone who was paying attention back then is likely to understand.

[i_sometimes]

76. Clinton broke the law.

Some of us found it disgusting what he did while in the highest office in the land.
So yeah, beat that horse...

[msanthrope]

80. Tell us which law he broke. Cite the statute? nt

[i_sometimes]

87. Just got back

from DU2, checked my list, you were on it.
Bye bye.

[msanthrope]

90. You can't answer my question so I go on ignore? Awesome! nt

[ProSense]

8. Turley

<...>

The latest claim is even more insulting. You do not “support our troops” by denying the principles for which they are fighting. They are not fighting to consolidate authoritarian powers in the President. The “American way of life” is defined by our Constitution and specifically the Bill of Rights. Moreover, the insistence that you do not intend to use authoritarian powers does not alter the fact that you just signed an authoritarian measure. It is not the use but the right to use such powers that defines authoritarian systems.

That makes no sense. The President didn't claim that "consolidate authoritarian powers" is what the troops are fighting for. Nor did he claim that the funding has anything to do with the Constitution. The President issued a very clear signing statement:

"My administration will not authorize the indefinite military detention without trial of American citizens," Obama said in the signing statement. "Indeed, I believe that doing so would break with our most important traditions and values as a nation."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/100295851

The almost complete failure of the mainstream media to cover this issue is shocking. Many reporters have bought into the spin of the Obama Administration as they did the spin over torture by the Bush Administration. Even today reporters refuse to call waterboarding torture despite the long line of cases and experts defining waterboarding as torture for decades. On the NDAA, reporters continue to mouth the claim that this law only codifies what is already the law. That is not true. The Administration has fought any challenges to indefinite detention to prevent a true court review. Moreover, most experts agree that such indefinite detention of citizens violates the Constitution.

That is absolutely false. The ACLU:

I'm not sure which was more surprising — that the majority of senators ignored the pleas of countless constituents, or that they also ignored every top national security official opposed to the provisions. Opposition to the detention provisions came from Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta, CIA Director David Petraeus, FBI Director Robert Mueller, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, White House Advisor for Counterterrorism John Brennan, and DOJ National Security Division head Lisa Monaco. The Senate ignored them all.

http://www.aclu.org/blog/national-security/behind-closed-doors-congress-trying-force-indefinite-detention-bill-americans

There are also those who continue the long-standing effort to excuse Obama’s horrific record on civil liberties by either blaming others or the times. One successful myth is that there is an exception for citizens. The White House is saying that changes to the law made it unnecessary to veto the legislation. That spin is facially ridiculous. The changes were the inclusion of some meaningless rhetoric after key amendments protecting citizens were defeated. The provision merely states that nothing in the provisions could be construed to alter Americans’ legal rights. Since the Senate clearly views citizens are not just subject to indefinite detention but even execution without a trial, the change offers nothing but rhetoric to hide the harsh reality. THe Administration and Democratic members are in full spin — using language designed to obscure the authority given to the military. The exemption for American citizens from the mandatory detention requirement (section 1032) is the screening language for the next section, 1031, which offers no exemption for American citizens from the authorization to use the military to indefinitely detain people without charge or trial.

That is patently absurd. Human Rights Watch, 2003:

Based on the limited information available, Human Rights Watch did not criticize the attack on al-Harethi as an extra-judicial execution because his alleged al-Qaeda role arguably made him a combatant, the government apparently lacked control over the area in question, and there evidently was no reasonable law enforcement alternative.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/100299985

That is essentially the President's position.

His assertions about what Senators believe ignores that all of this is about ambiguity in the existing law, not because all Senators agree.

<...>

But Senator Mike Lee, Republican of Utah, said citizen terrorism suspects should retain their “fundamental civil liberties” in order to protect the founding principles of the United States.

“I think at a bare minimum, that means we will not allow U.S. military personnel to arrest and indefinitely detain U.S. citizens, regardless of what label we happen to apply to them,” he said.

Before voting to leave current law unchanged, the Senate rejected, 55 to 45, a proposal by Senator Dianne Feinstein, Democrat of California, to instead say that Americans are exempt from detention under the 2001 authorization to use military force.

The uncertainty over the current law added confusion. Some, like Mr. Graham and Mr. Levin, insisted that the Supreme Court had already approved holding Americans as enemy combatants, even people arrested inside the United States. Others, like Senators Feinstein and Richard J. Durbin, Democrat of Illinois, insisted that it had not done so.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/02/us/senate-declines-to-resolve-issue-of-american-qaeda-suspects-arrested-in-us.html?_r=1

Turley is using hyperbole and conflating situations to make his opinion (not a legal argument) more convincing.

He give the impression that there are no valid opinions that challenges his assertions that the law doesn't do what he claims.

NDAA FAQ: A Guide for the Perplexed
http://www.democraticunderground.com/100248562

[TheKentuckian]

10. As do you, going so far to ignore some of those who wrote the damn thing.

Just on this basis the law is poorly constructed, at minimum.

[ProSense]

20. Oh,

"As do you, going so far to ignore some of those who wrote the damn thing. Just on this basis the law is poorly constructed, at minimum."

...I'm fairly certain there the bill is flawed. Still, logic prevents me from ignoring a few things:

1) More than 80 Senators voted for the bill, which means it passed by a veto-proof margin.

2) The bill did not change existing law with the exception of a weak clause inserted by Feinstein

3) The President's signing statement (See I'm not interested in making this about Obama's character as Turley seems to want to do)

Now, given where the situation stands, there are things that should be more pressing, like fixing the problem: http://www.democraticunderground.com/100225975

[GeorgeGist]

60. Did you know that Obama has executed American citizens without trial?

If so, then I can see why you don't want to talk about his character.

[msanthrope]

74. So did Lincoln. The Constitution allows this during times of war. nt

[Enrique]

11. shorter version

Turley criticized Obama.

[City Lights]

12. LOL!

[ProSense]

22. Right

"shorter version Turley criticized Obama."

...but do you have an opinion on my assessment of Turley's point:

There are also those who continue the long-standing effort to excuse Obama’s horrific record on civil liberties by either blaming others or the times. One successful myth is that there is an exception for citizens. The White House is saying that changes to the law made it unnecessary to veto the legislation. That spin is facially ridiculous. The changes were the inclusion of some meaningless rhetoric after key amendments protecting citizens were defeated. The provision merely states that nothing in the provisions could be construed to alter Americans’ legal rights. Since the Senate clearly views citizens are not just subject to indefinite detention but even execution without a trial, the change offers nothing but rhetoric to hide the harsh reality. THe Administration and Democratic members are in full spin — using language designed to obscure the authority given to the military. The exemption for American citizens from the mandatory detention requirement (section 1032) is the screening language for the next section, 1031, which offers no exemption for American citizens from the authorization to use the military to indefinitely detain people without charge or trial.

That is patently absurd. Human Rights Watch, 2003:

Based on the limited information available, Human Rights Watch did not criticize the attack on al-Harethi as an extra-judicial execution because his alleged al-Qaeda role arguably made him a combatant, the government apparently lacked control over the area in question, and there evidently was no reasonable law enforcement alternative.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/100299985

That is essentially the President's position.

[Enrique]

24. i haven't read your analysis yet

before I do, I'd like to know, do you have any strong biases regarding President Obama that might skew your analysis?

[ProSense]

25. Isn't

"i haven't read your analysis yet
before I do, I'd like to know, do you have any strong biases regarding President Obama that might skew your analysis?"

...this a bit strange? I support the President. Do you consider that a bias? I mean, regardless of the answer, you should be able to comment on my assessment.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

61. Lol.

[NCTraveler]

83. No doubt.

[msanthrope]

43. Incomplete--Turley just lost a case to Obama. Turley now criticizes Obama. nt

[Occulus]

88. Was the case related, even tangentially, to the NDAA?

[msanthrope]

44. Turley just lost a case to Obama in a very public way--see post 40.

Note how neither Turley, nor the OP mention that fact.

[boxman15]

13. This is a terrible provision of the NDAA, but where's the outrage at Congress?

In my opinion, all the vitriol being aimed at Obama would be better served being aimed at Congress, which would have overridden any veto. Our anger should be directed at them. Make sure this provision is not in the 2013 NDAA.

[killbotfactory]

14. Congress gets a free pass, because it's easier to bash Obama

And a good president can just force congress to do what he wants, apparently. Even though no president in the history of our country has been able to accomplish such a task. Obama is a bad president and deserves the blame for all that is wrong, and shame on anyone who claims otherwise.

[piratefish08]

16. Congress is useless and ineffective on both sides. Obama could have vetoed.

it's a shame he's so powerless.

[HangOnKids]

21. Damn Shame n/t

[killbotfactory]

23. This bill was passed with VETO PROOF majorities. nt

[tledford]

33. So if vetoing a bill is the right thing to do ...

... BUT the veto can be overridden, then there is no point in issuing the veto.

Interesting but bizarre point of view.

[killbotfactory]

37. It's not that bizarre. It would take congress another month or two to pass it.

Everything else the bill authorizes, like funding contractors and military personnel, would be halted until that time. It would negatively impact a significant amount of people for the reason of a protest veto which would change nothing about the negative aspects of the bill that would then be passed. In the meantime, Obama would be blamed for the negative consequences of a delay.

[Robb]

45. Two months of no funding for the VA. I can imagine how kindly the "liberal media" would treat that.

To say nothing of the fact of, you know, no funding for the VA.

[uponit7771]

99. Nah, better to do childish shit just to prove a point rather than do something constructive

[Autumn]

30. Now stop that. He did have reservations about signing it.

Personally if I have reservations about doing something, then I don't fucking do it.

[leftyohiolib]

91.

[truebrit71]

78. Ummm, George Dumbya Bush got EVERYTHING he wanted from congress....

...regardless of which party was in control...

[killbotfactory]

92. No, he didn't.

He got a lot, because there were enough right leaning dems who supported some of his crap, but he didn't get everything. The democrats also didn't have a policy of obstructing everything and grinding the government to a halt, unlike the republicans.

[truebrit71]

94. Umm, yeah, he kinda did...

... you know, his tax gifts to the wealthy, the Iraq War, the (un)Patriot Act, no proper investigation into 9/11, torture, indefinite detentions, massive bail-out of Wall Street....

[killbotfactory]

96. He wanted to destroy social security, as I recall.

The democrats put a stop to that, thankfully.

I fail to see how a weak democratic congress vs. a republican congress hellbent on fucking things up so people will blame Obama is Obama's failing, however.

[tavalon]

95. Congress is getting a free pass

Because Obama signed it, thereby making it his own instead of vetoing and making Congress override and therfore own it. You sign for it, you own it.

[killbotfactory]

97. There would be negative consequences to a veto

And those consequences would be blamed on Obama, and congress would just override the Veto eventually, anyway. It was passed by a veto proof majority in congress.

It is amazing how many times congress can fuck shit up and have the blame pinned on Obama, because so many people are hung up on the idea that Obama sucks and will use any straw they can grasp to promote that idea. Stunning.

[Enrique]

17. Congress has a 9% approval rating n/t

[killbotfactory]

26. And yet, most people stay away from voting in a non-presidential election year.

Funny that.

Maybe it's because they can't vote out other people's congress people.

[piratefish08]

15. scootch over Greenwald - you have more company under the bus.

he must be another lying Obama hater, huh?


seems to be a trend.

[lillypaddle]

31. What is your problem

with people not eating up Greenwald's shit? Funny that Obama supporters are called all kinds of names, but god forbid anyone say anything against Glenn or Cenk ... what a bunch of hypocrisy! Some people can dish it out, but get their panties in a wad when the tables are reversed.

[one_voice]

34. !!!!!

I was thinking the same thing today.

Cenk, Glenn Greenwald, David Swanson, FDL, and host of others....

[lillypaddle]

36. They're bullies

intimidation is their weapon.

[JackRiddler]

19. Can Turley wait his turn please? This board is not yet done with the Greenwald hate festival.

[lillypaddle]

32. see #31

nt

[Dewey Finn]

35. Yes, you must be getting impatient

for the conversation to swing back to the typical targets of your scorn instead. Don't worry. I'm sure it won't be long.

[Oilwellian]

28. Oh no!

And Turley too?

[lillypaddle]

29. I'm listening to Norman Goldman,

who is an attorney, but who is NOT an Obama fan. He says it's bullshit, and that people are waaaay over-reacting. He doesn't read it that way, for whatever that is worth.

[WinkyDink]

38. Turley went after Clinton in Monicagate. No time for him.

[msanthrope]

41. Turley sued Obama and lost. Note how neither Turley, nor the OP, note that.

See my post below...

[eridani]

55. Because our pro Citizens United court system is just so wonderful, right? n/t

[ProSense]

66. So

"Because our pro Citizens United court system is just so wonderful, right? "

...libertarians like Greenwald and Turley support that ruling. Turley is more guarded in his comments, but he would have voted for it.

<...>

I was sympathetic with Citizens United and the free speech groups. In the end, I have to favor more speech than less in such conflicts. While I would have written a concurrence and have difficulty with aspects of the majority opinion, I probably would have voted to support the majority in the result in this case. However, I do consider this to be one of the most difficult free speech cases to hit the court in decades. Many of my friends are on the other side and I understand that this is quite a blow. People of good faith can disagree on such issues. It really broke along a fine line. It depends on whether your gravitational point tended to fall along the free speech line or the good government line. It is a rare case where those lines ran perpendicular rather than parallel with each other.

http://jonathanturley.org/2010/01/21/supreme-court-rules-5-4-against-campaign-limitations-in-the-hillary-the-movie-case/

[msanthrope]

69. Um, Turley liked CU. And chose to file in the court system that gave that

decision.

[QC]

39. Jonathan Turley never really loved him!

[msanthrope]

40. I take it Turley's still sore over the public spanking he got in Kucinich v. Obama?

This 'constitutional scholar' was recently taken to task by a federal judge for filing a case he knew would be thrown for standing--so either Turley was too stupid to understand the standing question, or, as Judge Reggie Walton pointed out, he's a political hack.

4. Interestingly, Representative Kucinich, the lead plaintiff in Kucinich v. Bush, the case in which these words were written, is the lead plaintiff in this case in which members of Congress are again attempting to bring an action against Executive Branch officials. Indeed, the plaintiffs "acknowledge the contrary result" reached by the District of Columbia Circuit in a case also involving alleged presidential violations of the War Powers Clause and the War Powers Resolution. See Pls.' Opp'n at 17. While there may conceivably be some political benefit in suing the President and the Secretary of Defense, in light of shrinking judicial budgets, scarce judicial resources, and a heavy caseload, the Court finds it frustrating to expend time and effort adjudicating the relitigation of settled questions of law. The Court does not mean to imply that the judiciary should be anything but open and accommodating to all members of society, but is simply expressing its dismay that the plaintiffs are seemingly using the limited resources of this Court to achieve what appear to be purely political ends, when it should be clear to them that this Court is powerless to depart from clearly established precedent of the Supreme Court and the District of Columbia Circuit.


https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2011cv1096-14

I note that Turley didn't disclose that he'd recently lost a case against Obama--and felt it necessary to take to his blog to defend himself against said footnote---but we are supposed to see him as impartial? Fair???

http://jonathanturley.org/2011/10/20/federal-judge-dismisses-war-powers-challenge-by-members-of-congress/#more-40743

[Robb]

46. Interesting.

But I'm not even getting into this one until Turley posts a good Ron Paul love letter. It's early yet.

[ProSense]

48. Too

"But I'm not even getting into this one until Turley posts a good Ron Paul love letter. It's early yet."

...late!

This leave Ron Paul as the only candidate in the presidential campaign fighting the bill and generally advocating civil liberties as a rallying point for his campaign. Paul offered another strong argument against the Patriot Act and other expansions of police powers in his last debate. He also noted that the Patriot Act provisions were long advocated before 9-11, which was used as an opportunity to expand police powers. As discussed in a prior column, Obama has destroyed the civil liberties movement in the United States and has convinced many liberals to fight for an Administration that blocked torture prosecutions, expanded warrantless surveillance, continued military tribunals, killed Americans on the sole authority of the President, and other core violations of civil liberties.

http://jonathanturley.org/2011/12/15/obama-breaks-promise-to-veto-bill-allowing-indefinite-detention-of-americans/

Evidently Ron Paul is the next FDR in Turley's mind. Oops!

What's interesting is the following is from the piece linked to above. It includes the same language as in the OP:

The White House is saying that changes to the law made it unnecessary to veto the legislation. That spin is facially ridiculous. The changes were the inclusion of some meaningless rhetoric after key amendments protecting citizens were defeated. The provision merely states that nothing in the provisions could be construed to alter Americans’ legal rights. Since the Senate clearly views citizens are not just subject to indefinite detention but even execution without a trial, the change offers nothing but rhetoric to hide the harsh reality. THe Administration and Democratic members are in full spin — using language designed to obscure the authority given to the military. The exemption for American citizens from the mandatory detention requirement (section 1032) is the screening language for the next section, 1031, which offers no exemption for American citizens from the authorization to use the military to indefinitely detain people without charge or trial.

[Luminous Animal]

47. Yes. He's stamping his widdle feet in a snit.

That must be why.

Perhaps you could also look into your crystal ball and tell us why he also regularly wrote about Bush's assault on the Constitution.

Laura wouldn't flirt with him?
Bush called him Johnnie?

[msanthrope]

50. He's been in a snit ever since he supported the Clinton impeachment--

and got his ass handed to him, then.

Mr. Turley allowed himself to be used like a Kleenex by the impeachment Republicans because back then, Turley thought being a Libertarian would get him a reputation of being 'unbiased.'

You see, I remember them quoting him, on the Senate floor, as justification for why the election of 1996 should be overturned. Read Rogan's speeches--they were based on Turley.

I remember him writing in the Wall Street Journal about how wrong it was for the federal grand jury to return a 'no bill' against President Clinton.

Mr. Turley despises the Clintons and by extension, anything to do with Hilary Clinton's State Department. That's why he sued over Libya, and that's why he's stamping his feet, now...

Some of us don't forget--you try to impeach a duly-elected Democratic president, and you are on my shit list, FOREVER.

As for critiquing Bush, come on--wasn't that shooting fish in a barrel?

[The Magistrate]

53. Hear Hear, Ma'am!

[joshcryer]

56. Ouch.

[ProSense]

63. It's

becoming more clear that libertarians would rather a Republican win than a Democrat.

[ProSense]

49. Fascinating!

"the Court finds it frustrating to expend time and effort adjudicating the relitigation of settled questions of law. "

[msanthrope]

51. Frankly, Judge Walton took the same tone with Orly Taitz, too.

I don't know what Judge Walton did in a past life to get Turley, Taitz, Bob Barr, and Dennis Kucinich in his courtroom, roughly all at the same time, but it must have been something that rent the karmic curtain.

[FirstLight]

57. too many deaf ears..

for sure.

all i can think of is the contrast between being a winner of the fucking Nobel Peace Prize and NOT vetoing this shit!

[Dewey Finn]

58. Then you should consider broadening your horizons

so that you can think beyond the constraints you've apparently set for yourself. "Deaf ears" seem to have nothing on you.

[woo me with science]

85. Quite a contrast, indeed. nt

[fasttense]

59. When Pinochet used the Army to capture and threaten the Chilean parliament

I'm sure many a legislator in Chile wished they had NOT given such power to the military.

Do these idiots in congress really believe they are exempt from indefinite detention, torture and murder by the military?

In fact legislators are one of the prime targets of the military when they are handed so much power.

[NorthCarolina]

67. Wow, who to believe...Jonathan Turley

or a handful of Obama sycophants on DU. Tough choice, but I think I'll go with Turley on this one.

[i_sometimes]

77. Durn Tarheel sensibilities!

Lol, I am with ya.
(Former New Bern resident here)

[truebrit71]

81. Me too...

...shame the "Constitutional Scholar" in the WH doesn't agree...

[ProSense]

84. "Obama sycophants on DU"

Not a tough choice.

[T S Justly]

71. Turley's is a reasonable if somewhat mild response to a fascist law. K&R (nt)

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

72. Oh, c'mon. We can trust the miliatary and government to do the right thing.

Especially if it's run by a Democrat. Like....Tonkin Gulf.

[WillyT]

82. K & R !!!

[woo me with science]

86. How far we have fallen. nt

[struggle4progress]

93. feh. turley likes to get his name in print. the compromise language makes clear that the ndaa cannot

be cited to change existing law on detention of citizens. so it leaves us exactly where we were before in the very long ugly debate between authoritarians and civil liberties folk on this topic: the right wing has argued at least since the nixon era that the government has the authority to detain us without trial. we've been protected some by the decisions of the courts pre-reagan. furthering that protection depends on a federal judiciary unsympathetic to the authoritarian wackos

[bluestateguy]

98. He loves the sound of his own voice on TV

And that "constitutional scholar" was a cheerleader for Bill Clinton's impeachment.

I regard that as unforgiveable.

[Maraya1969]

100. What is the point of this signing statemnt then?

http://www.ology.com/politics/obama-signs-ndaa-bill-signing-statement-clarifying-indefinite-detention-provisions/12312011

[Dawson Leery]

101. Turley is proof their are too many lawyers.

It is good to see law schools raising the bar for their acceptance standards.

Johnny supported impeachment of Bill Clinton, even though the investigation was nothing more than a witch hunt.


http://jonathanturley.org/2011/10/20/federal-judge-dismisses-war-powers-challenge-by-members-of-congress/#more-40743