Why does it take an actor to be asking these questions amidst the campaign? Where is our media? I liked this take on the two types of Law Professors, seems right on the money regarding Obama:
- Well, there's a misconception about Barack Obama as a former constitutional law professor. First of all, there are plenty of professors who are "legal relativists." They tend to view legal principles as relative to whatever they're trying to achieve. I would certainly put President Obama in the relativist category. Ironically, he shares that distinction with George W. Bush. They both tended to view the law as a means to a particular end — as opposed to the end itself. That's the fundamental distinction among law professors. Law professors like Obama tend to view the law as one means to an end, and others, like myself, tend to view it as the end itself.
Truth be known President Obama has never been particularly driven by principle. Right after his election, I wrote a column in a few days warning people that even though I voted for Obama, he was not what people were describing him to be. I saw him in the Senate. I saw him in Chicago.
This is it, this is why I think Obama is one of the most dangerous and terrible presidents in the history of our nation. I'd flag this if I had a flag. I voted for the guy and am astounded by what he has done. And for real Green why the hell is it John Cusack bringing this shit up, why do 99 out of every 100 democrats I know shrug this off? Why wasn't there a republican with credibility running on an I'll repair our tattered constitution platform? There is no lesser of two evils in this election for me, neither candidate supports values that I believe in, don't know who I will vote for.
Cusack: And for real Green why the hell is it John Cusack bringing this shit up,
Usually I disdain when actors use their celebrity as an opus to blather about their political leanings but Cusack is doing what I have not heard ANY serious media outlet do and that is to ask what should be some fairly obvious questions. The gild is off the rose, he's been President for 4 years and I can't argue with any of the points made in this interview. You mention that you're not sure who you are going to vote for and I can honestly say that I'm not either.I always thought the duty of a citizen, and even more so as a journalist, had greatly to do with the idea that intellectual honesty was much more important than political loyalty.
-Here, here. If this rings true, Obama is screwed. Not because his former fan base will be jumping ship, but I don't think they'll set out to sail at all. Obama will not get the turnout he did in '08. Should be close.
I haven't watched Charlie in years but I used to really enjoy his style. I recall seeing a Hunter S. Thompson interview with Charlie Rose and it was great. You could tell there was a friendship there and a mutual respect which you don't always find in interviews.
Every Republican was running on a "repair our tattered Constitution" platform; the problem is they meant it exclusively in reference to healthcare, which the Court has decided is Constitutional. One other question is why hasn't the family of one of these victims sued in federal court over these violations? There is no court in the US who could decide that lack of due process is Constitutional, given that due process is explicitly guaranteed (as opposed to implicit guarantees that one can argue about interpretations) to each of us--citizens and non-citizens. The only defense the administration could have in that case is to say that these people have no standing to sue for this or that reason ("enemy combatants", for example). At least we would have to have a debate about it. But as far as I know we aren't at war with Pakistan or Yemen, so how in the hell can we authorize strikes there? On a side note drones scare the fuck out of me for two main reasons. First, it takes the human element out of killing, which is one of the few things that keeps us from prosecuting wars often. If there is no need to put boots on the ground, why not start a war with every Tom, Dick and Harry that doesn't offer us the best financial concessions to set up factories or exploit resources? Second, its way too easy to apply that technology to "homeland defense". Just wait until the police get to have their own unmanned vehicles. That will be the day that the US truly dies as a democracy.
I am almost indifferent to the foreign policy side of the constitutional problems, they pale in comparison to indefinite detention of you or me without due process, NSA letters that you aren't allowed to even discuss with your attorney, VIPER teams setting up paper check roadblocks inside the U.S. I don't really have a problem with drone strikes against terrorist targets either. Letting the C.I.A. get away with torture is pretty disturbing.
I don't give a shit about the life of a terrorist. But, look at the NSA, as you point out. It was a baby step for them to go from tapping suspected terrorists to tapping US citizens on US soil. I don't think its a huge leap from killing US citizens (or others) in a non-war zone with no warrant and no trial, to applying that domestically. Let's imagine that here, say in Texas, where the death penalty is liberally applied. Maybe some hypothetical governor of Texas could decide that he's reasonably sure that John Smith raped and killed that poor little kid in Amarillo, and his advisers have intelligence to that effect. Therefore, he decides that instead of capture that the whole community would be better off if they just went ahead and took out his house (as I'm writing this its occurring to me that this is exactly what happened with the Branch Davidians, except sub Gov for Atty General). Now imagine that with drones. Sounds far fetched, but if you give them an inch...
There is another reason that drones scare the shit out of me, we like to pretend that these technologies are unique to the US, but they're not. Eventually, many other nations will have analogous programs and when you continuously poke someone in the eye, don't be surprised when the reciprocate. I'm sure we have the best "drone defenses" there are but still, I'd rather not have to use them. Our citizenry would raise their arms in shocked disbelief if another nation used drones to bomb military targets in the US and subsequently killed civilians. As if it would be the first time such a thing ever occurred. I agree about removing the human aspect, it's a game changer and allows for easier rationalizations for killing.
Like what would happen if someone else got control of drones flying over US airspace? http://gizmodo.com/5904255/iran-claims-they-have-decrypted-u... http://www.smartplanet.com/blog/thinking-tech/how-college-st...
Here's a serious question, one that b_b kind of poses below: Can a US citizen take the Obama Administration to court over this? If they took my right to vote away, I could file a suit against them. Here they took away my guarantee of due process. Could someone like myself file a suit? Badges? You've got those to give.I'd flag this if I had a flag.
I wondered about that. However, it seems odd that you would have to wait for your family member to be killed before you could take them to task on it. I am granted certain protections under the US Constitution, couldn't I argue that the new law directly affected me by taking away a protection that I previously had? I no longer have the peace of mind that my government can't kill me without due process.
So I came across something very interesting and quite germane to this discussion during some reading today. Turley keeps referencing Nuremberg as a precedent for the "just following orders" defense not working. However, this defense has apparently been rejected since at least 1626, when Parliament impeached the Duke of Buckingham basically for dereliction of duty. The Duke responded by saying he was doing to King's bidding and Parliament rejected those claims, saying:
As it turns out, the code of justice that says that one does not have to obey unlawful orders is centuries old. Informative historical caveat and context.The Laws of England teach us, That Kings cannot command ill or unlawful things, whenever they speak, though by their Letters Patents, or their Seals. If the things be evil, Letters Patents are void, and whatsoever ill event succeeds, the execution of such commands must ever answer for them. (sic)
Simply saying "what's done is done" regarding those that called for torturing enemy combatants, without any prosecution is despicable. The law is the end itself, it's not something anyone, not even a president can manipulate. It is not malleable.All political questions are not equal no matter how much you pivot. When people die or lose their physical freedom to feed certain economic sectors or ideologies, it becomes a zero sum game for me.
Why we allow our politicians to dictate what is and what is not the current "talking point" is maddening. We decide, not them.