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: Ellsberg has said that Obama should be impeached (updated) [View all]muriel_volestrangler
(106,113 posts)96. Those are not the links you're looking for
Your OP is about Ellsberg discussing the NDAA, and indefinite detention without trial (plus, for no apparent reason, James Goodale talking about press freedom). Your links are about Snowden. And your OP is not about Snowden, is it?
I'll help you out - here's the transcript of what he said:
DANIEL ELLSBERG: Yes. Well, as an American citizen, Im really almost whipsawed by emotions this morning. On the one hand, Im here to attend the court hearing at the circuit court on Wednesday at the Federal Court Building, where I expect to see the Obama administration color itself with shame in arguing that an American citizen can be detained indefinitely in military custody without charges, indefinitely, violating really the core principles of law that go back to the Magna Carta. On the other hand, I was up late last night reading the 112-page document of Katherine B. Forrest, and I have to say, at the end of that
The judgment, again, granting an injunction, saying that these provisions of the law that will be argued and defended byshamefully, by the Obama administration and by three U.S. senators, who will be claiming that the detention is constitutional and legalher argument was that it was facially unconstitutional. And when I read her detailed argument, 112, taking each point of the prosecution over a period now of nearly a yeartheir evidence, their lack of evidence, their argumenttaking each argument that this was constitutional and smashing it on this, I felt pride as an American. I thought, this is the American citizen that I fought for as a marine. This is a constitutional order, a rule of law, a judge, appointed by Obama, whos willing to say that her boss was mistaken in claiming that this rule is compatible with our rule of law.
It really says to me, at last, I think, that President Obama, who was a constitutional teacher, like Professor John Yoo, Y-O-O, of Berkeley, who authored most of these torture memos in the first placeI think that, like Yoo, Obama has to be seen as either a rotten constitutional lawyer or a man who, like Yoo, believes that the Constitution simply does not bound an American prisoner in any way in an indefinite law of torture. And either way, I believe we have here impeachable offenses by all of the people arguing this case, including the three senatorsMcCain, otherswho will be arguing today on this. We should be looking at Brennan and the other people connected with the torture program not in terms of confirmation hearings, but in terms of impeachment hearings and convictions.
http://www.democracynow.org/2013/2/5/daniel_ellsberg_ndaa_indefinite_detention_provision
The judgment, again, granting an injunction, saying that these provisions of the law that will be argued and defended byshamefully, by the Obama administration and by three U.S. senators, who will be claiming that the detention is constitutional and legalher argument was that it was facially unconstitutional. And when I read her detailed argument, 112, taking each point of the prosecution over a period now of nearly a yeartheir evidence, their lack of evidence, their argumenttaking each argument that this was constitutional and smashing it on this, I felt pride as an American. I thought, this is the American citizen that I fought for as a marine. This is a constitutional order, a rule of law, a judge, appointed by Obama, whos willing to say that her boss was mistaken in claiming that this rule is compatible with our rule of law.
It really says to me, at last, I think, that President Obama, who was a constitutional teacher, like Professor John Yoo, Y-O-O, of Berkeley, who authored most of these torture memos in the first placeI think that, like Yoo, Obama has to be seen as either a rotten constitutional lawyer or a man who, like Yoo, believes that the Constitution simply does not bound an American prisoner in any way in an indefinite law of torture. And either way, I believe we have here impeachable offenses by all of the people arguing this case, including the three senatorsMcCain, otherswho will be arguing today on this. We should be looking at Brennan and the other people connected with the torture program not in terms of confirmation hearings, but in terms of impeachment hearings and convictions.
http://www.democracynow.org/2013/2/5/daniel_ellsberg_ndaa_indefinite_detention_provision
This is this case: http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002695332 As you pointed out then (proudly?), Forrest was appointed by Obama.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
148 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
If some of these infallible characters they worship were ever elected to office
AllINeedIsCoffee
Jul 2013
#2
You nailed it. People yearn for infallible heroes to follow without question
Californeeway
Jul 2013
#7
Obama traded off raising taxes on the rich so he could get DADT overturned....NOT!
Left_Is_Right
Jul 2013
#128
With 33 posts what do you know about "DU's world of black and white moral clarity"?
boston bean
Jul 2013
#98
the Constitution is such a ridiculous pet issue - why is ANYONE the least bit bothered about it?
Douglas Carpenter
Jul 2013
#18
The folks stealing food off the table are the ones Ellsberg and others here are attacking.
Waiting For Everyman
Jul 2013
#22
Not a traitor. Just someone who throws the word 'impeach' around too loosely. n/t
Scurrilous
Jul 2013
#31
He can talk all he wants, if the repukes can't get a super-majority in Congress next year
Amonester
Jul 2013
#80
Two things: When did 51.1% become a "landslide", and why do you make this about President Obama?
cherokeeprogressive
Jul 2013
#20
You didn't post this because you're worried a whit about what Daniel Ellsberg thinks and you know it
cherokeeprogressive
Jul 2013
#34
So you *are* saying it's a popularity contest; and that a popular pres can get away with illegality
muriel_volestrangler
Jul 2013
#97
Democracies generally are. Of course, the extreme left's fantasy of coup by
geek tragedy
Jul 2013
#101
I am more disturbed that Obama didn't go after bush for his crimes and locked out single payer folks
The Straight Story
Jul 2013
#55
The day thay most of DU wants to impeach President Obama is the day I pack up my gold star and...
Walk away
Jul 2013
#118
Like arguing with Birthers, who also claim it's all about the constitution. nt
geek tragedy
Jul 2013
#110
Obama ordered his "plumbers" to break into DNC headquarters and then lied about it?
ucrdem
Jul 2013
#95
"I believe we have impeachable offenses by all of the people arguing this case."
Zorra
Jul 2013
#137