Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Where is our President on intervening in the FUBAR situation in Oakland? [View all]BeHereNow
(17,162 posts)28. I've made the trip many times- and I will again if this continues.
And you?
What are you doing about this travesty?
BHN
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
132 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Where is our President on intervening in the FUBAR situation in Oakland? [View all]
BeHereNow
Jan 2012
OP
This is a corporatists vs. WeThePeople matter. And there are an amazing number of DU'ers that
rhett o rick
Jan 2012
#8
In other words, this is a 1% vs. 99% matter. And we all know which side Obama is on. n/t
Raksha
Jan 2012
#72
It certainly isnt a D's vs. R's as some would have us believe. That's a distraction. nm
rhett o rick
Jan 2012
#85
Copied and Pasted from Tabatha- PREGNANT woman struck in the stomach with baton?????
BeHereNow
Jan 2012
#2
No government in the history of the world has come out on the side of protesters.
joshcryer
Jan 2012
#21
Well, our Gov't came out to protect labor by threatening the use of Federal troops
Dragonfli
Jan 2012
#27
This government came out under LBJ to protect African Americans during the Civil Rights era.
sabrina 1
Jan 2012
#54
Under the law added by Bush II in 2007 with no known opposition from Obama, a state is not required
AnotherMcIntosh
Jan 2012
#97
He's only the Chief Civil Rights Enforcer Your beef is with the Republicans, lol. K&R (nt)
T S Justly
Jan 2012
#6
Oh, I suppose it's the adulation O will continue to enjoy around here by some, despite the glaring
T S Justly
Jan 2012
#46
Looks like the governor is on board, mayor definitley is, they have other counties on board.
joshcryer
Jan 2012
#19
They didn't take the YMCA. They used it as a means of escape from the kettling by the police.
sabrina 1
Jan 2012
#87
Bullshit. So let the innocent get hammered until injuries and deaths result? (nt)
T S Justly
Jan 2012
#22
You leave out the fact that Williams v. Wallace was a judicial court decision to allow the march.
joshcryer
Jan 2012
#36
You leave out the part that allows us to assemble and make our grievances known
Dragonfli
Jan 2012
#47
They had to get special permission, though. The government didn't "act" until they got it.
joshcryer
Jan 2012
#51
That is contrary to the law added by Bush II in 2007 with no known opposition from Obama.
AnotherMcIntosh
Jan 2012
#98
Because it is not appropriate for Obama to interfere in State and Local Police matters.
Lil Missy
Jan 2012
#23
That is contrary to the statute added in 2007 by Bush II with no known opposition from Obama.
AnotherMcIntosh
Jan 2012
#100
Californians need to contact Gov Brown and get the State Police to intervene and disband Oakland PD
tabatha
Jan 2012
#24
Remember JFK in 1963. Anyone who says that a President cannot take action against state
AnotherMcIntosh
Jan 2012
#37
I think most, like myself simply assume his complicity, they are his state troopers
Dragonfli
Jan 2012
#55
The president should send in troops anytime no other authority will protect citizens from assault
Dragonfli
Jan 2012
#111
The law already authorizes Obama to protect citizens from the Oakland police without a court order.
AnotherMcIntosh
Jan 2012
#119
The full text of Public Law 109-364 is the law. It is the authority referred to in the DU post.
AnotherMcIntosh
Jan 2012
#122
I'm sorry that you've "never seen any reference to [P.L. 109-364] authorizing anything."
AnotherMcIntosh
Jan 2012
#125
Under the statute added by Bush II in 2007, a court order is not required.
AnotherMcIntosh
Jan 2012
#101
If Brown is in fact looking the other way, then the President should step in, however,
Cleita
Jan 2012
#61
In 1973, without the intervention of a court, the Federal government sent Federal Marshals
AnotherMcIntosh
Jan 2012
#64
Was there a federal court ruling to shut down marijuana clinics in states where it is legal?
sabrina 1
Jan 2012
#88
Jurisdiction was established in 2007 when Bush II signed a particular statute.
AnotherMcIntosh
Jan 2012
#102
If it is true that Obama cannot act until a court order is obtained, what's preventing Holder from
AnotherMcIntosh
Jan 2012
#66
Then, we're back to the question you avoided. Who will you support in 2012 ...
T S Justly
Jan 2012
#77
The first progressive who comes along and takes the nomination and the leadership of the Party ...
T S Justly
Jan 2012
#79
Well of course I would support such a person- got one up your sleeve by chance?
BeHereNow
Jan 2012
#80
As a veteran of the anti war movement, there are others who pay these idiots
Capn Sunshine
Jan 2012
#116
Exactly- I don't think the president should remain silent on the brutality of police in ANY
BeHereNow
Jan 2012
#109
And if he came out and said OWS groups should stop trying to take over buildings...
randome
Jan 2012
#115
It would be OK for him to say that governmental agent provocateurs should not take over buildings.
AnotherMcIntosh
Jan 2012
#120
"agent provocateurs" didn't vote for that, Occupy Oakland did, overwhelmingly.
joshcryer
Jan 2012
#127