A Brief History of the Patriot Act

or

“How Both Democrats and Republicans are Enemies of Civil Liberty.”

(Source: theamericanbear, via political-cartoons)

Obama 2012

Steve Benson’s political cartoon here is a powerful critique against leveraging the repercussions of 9/11—visualized here in the physical ruins of the World Trade Center, but in Obama’s case, the assassination of Osama bin Laden—to gain political standing meanwhile while justice via rule of law and habeas corpus seem to no longer be the American way—instead the prerogative of the despot executive. He is drawing a striking parallel between Obama and Dubya.

[via:azspot]

Obama’s Birth Certificate Through The Eyes Of A Birther

Marvelous mockery!

Trump Unable To Produce Certificate Proving He’s Not A Festering Pile Of Shit (via The Onion)

Glenn Greenwald’s post today properly excoriates President Obama for what started as a perversion of rule of law through his and his administration’s actions to its mockery in his rhetoric. Below is an excerpt but is a must-read for progressives who cannot and should not turn a blind-eye to this kind of disregard of rule of law that harks back to his predecessor, George W. Bush.

Protesters yesterday interrupted President Obama’s speech at a $5,000/ticket San Francisco fundraiser to demand improved treatment for Bradley Manning. After the speech, one of the protesters, Logan Price, approached Obama and questioned him. Obama’s responses are revealing on multiple levels. First, Obama said this when justifying Manning’s treatment (video and transcript are here):

We’re a nation of laws. We don’t let individuals make their own decisions about how the laws operate. He broke the law.

The impropriety of Obama’s public pre-trial declaration of Manning’s guilt (“He broke the law”) is both gross and manifest. How can Manning possibly expect to receive a fair hearing from military officers when their Commander-in-Chief has already decreed his guilt? Numerous commentators have noted how egregiously wrong was Obama’s condemnation. Michael Whitney wrote: “the President of the United States of America and a self-described Constitutional scholar does not care that Manning has yet to be tried or convicted for any crime.” BoingBoing’s Rob Beschizza interpreted Obama’s declaration of guilt this way: “Just so you know, jurors subordinate judging officers!” And Politico quoted legal experts explaining why Obama’s remarks are so obviously inappropriate.

It may be that Obama spoke extemporaneously and without sufficient forethought, but it is — at best — reckless in the extreme for him to go around decreeing people guilty who have not been tried: especially members of the military who are under his command and who will be adjudged by other members of the military under his command. Moreover, as a self-proclaimed Constitutional Law professor, he ought to have an instinctive aversion when speaking as a public official to assuming someone’s guilt who has been convicted of nothing. It’s little wonder that he’s so comfortable with Manning’s punitive detention since he already perceives Manning as a convicted criminal. “Sentence first - verdict afterward,” said the Queen of Hearts to Alice in Wonderland.

But even more fascinating is Obama’s invocation of America’s status as a “nation of laws” to justify why Manning must be punished. That would be a very moving homage to the sanctity of the rule of law — if not for the fact that the person invoking it is the same one who has repeatedly engaged in the most extraordinary efforts to shield Bush officials from judicial scrutiny, investigation, and prosecution of every kind for their war crimes and surveillance felonies. Indeed, the Orwellian platitude used by Obama to justify that immunity — Look Forward, Not Backward — is one of the greatest expressions of presidential lawlessness since Richard Nixon told David Frost that “it’s not illegal if the President does it.”

But it’s long been clear that this is Obama’s understanding of “a nation of laws”: the most powerful political and financial elites who commit the most egregious crimes are to be shielded from the consequences of their lawbreaking — see his vote in favor of retroactive telecom immunity, his protection of Bush war criminals, and the way in which Wall Street executives were permitted to plunder with impunity — while the most powerless figures (such as a 23-year-old Army Private and a slew of other low-level whistleblowers) who expose the corruption and criminality of those elites are to be mercilessly punished. And, of course, our nation’s lowest persona non grata group — accused Muslim Terrorists — are simply to be encaged for life without any charges. Merciless, due-process-free punishment is for the powerless; full-scale immunity is for the powerful. “Nation of laws” indeed.

One final irony to Obama’s embrace of this lofty justifying term: Manning’s punitive detention conditions are themselves illegal, as the Uniform Code of Military Justice expressly bars the use of pre-trial detention as a means of imposing punishment. Given how inhumane Manning’s detention conditions have been — and the fact that much of it was ordered in contradiction to the assessments of the brig’s psychiatric staff — there is little question that this is exactly what has happened. The President lecturing us yesterday about how Manning must be punished because we’re a “nation of laws” is the same one presiding over and justifying Manning’s unlawful detention conditions.

Read the complete post here.

In yet another example of President Obama’s hypocritical rhetoric starkly contrasting his actions and that of his administration, the President said in a statement:

I strongly believe that the American system of justice is a key part of our arsenal in the war against al-Qaida and its affiliates, and we will continue to draw on all aspects of our justice system – including (federal) courts – to ensure that our security and our values are strengthened,” Obama said in a statement. Going forward, all branches of government have a responsibility to come together to forge a strong and durable approach to defend our nation and the values that define who we are as a nation.

and yet proceeded to recommence the military trials of terrorism suspects held at Gitmo. So much for rule of law, habeas corpus, separation of powers, and all that nonsense. Apparently, it’s better to bow to congressional asshats who cannot stomach trying the detainees in civilian courts and on U.S. soil. EPIC FAILURE OF PRINCIPLE, Mr. President.

+ here

+

For 8 hours and 37 minutes, Independent Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont schooled the American people on what is in the Obama-GOP tax deal and the current tax code. It was just fantastic to watch the 69-year-old senator clearly articulate the outrageous injustice in our tax system, literally stand on principle, to draw attention and to dispel the distortions that GOP politicians have created with regards to how working people are affected by our tax system and the Obama-GOP deal. I hope you all had an opportunity watch some of it and well share you feelings on Senator Sanders quasi-filibuster.

Read more about it here.

Don’t let President Obama’s narrative of “sensible centrism” and bipartisan compromise blather obfuscate the fact that the “deal” gave even more to the super wealthy so that the most invulnerable can get minimal support from our government. Salon.com writes:

The questions for liberals are a) whether they buy that formulation and b) whether they think the president overpaid. Not only did Republicans win on extension of tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans, they also won a new lower rate for the estate tax, and a higher exemption for it.

How is this smart bargaining? And worse, who will be the Democratic apologists who will defend handing the wealthy even more benefits in exchange for peanuts for the poor, or the middle class unemployed?

+ here

If I were a Kentucky resident and had half a brain, I’d more so furious at the dickbags who voted for Rand Paul, which allows him to dangerously and embarrassingly march into the Senate with inane comparisons of President Obama and to the rise of Hitler. But then again this man is the same one who has gone on record to criticize the 1964 Civil Rights Act and defend BP post-oil spill. As HuffPo reported:

Dating back to 2007, Talking Points Memo pulled a compilation of at least six instances in which the then-Senate candidate had invoked Hitler on the campaign trail and in other appearances, not including a speech in which Paul claimed that economic worries could catalyze some sort of Obama-to-Hitler transformation.

+ here with video