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]AnotherMcIntosh
(11,064 posts)63. Brown, like Obama, is busy campaigning.
On January 26th, he was scheduled to speak at the Los Angeles Chamber of Commerce's inaugural dinner held in the Diamond Ballroom of the JW Marriott in L.A.
You don't have to pay to see him in person. You can make a contribution at his web site:
http://www.jerrybrown.org/action
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