Where Did the Obama that Cared About Civil Liberties Go?

For eight years under George W Bush we suffered through the brazen and continual dismissal of many basic constitutional rights. During Bush’s second term and during his campaign, Barack Obama touted a plan for Change and much of that was a promise to restore civil liberties to the American people and abroad.

Instead, Obama has enforced the very civil liberty laws Bush saw into action enforced, expanded and in a few cases he has even lead the charge to remove even more.  Trevor Timm from the Electronic Frontier Foundation has a great story on the current state of the Democratic Party and their stance on our constitutional rights in Al Jazeera:

Listening to Obama’s famous keynote address from the 2004 DNC – his springboard onto the national stage – Obama sounded like an entirely different politician. Then he argued, “If there’s an Arab-American family being rounded-up, without benefit of an attorney, or due process,” he said, “that threatens my civil liberties.”

Ironically, on the same day Obama gave his latest DNC speech this year, a federal judge in DC issued a ruling excoriating his administration’s recent decision to unilaterally restrict Guantanamo detainees’ access to attorneys, saying “this country is not one ruled by executive fiat”.

In fact, his administration’s position on due process has been the most controversial of his presidency. Last year, he signed the National Defense Authorisation Act (NDAA), which contains provision authorising the indefinite detention of terrorism suspects that could potentially be used against American citizens. Another federal judge recently blocked the implementationof that law, saying it violated both the free speech and due process clauses of the Constitution. The Obama administration has predictably appealed. In-depth coverage of the US presidential election

When it came to defending US drone strikes that have extrajudicially killed at least three American citizens in Yemen – including a 16 year old who has never even been accused of terrorism – the administration has tried to change the definition of “due process” all together. Attorney General Eric Holder put forth a unique legal theory, claiming “due process” and “judicial process” are not one in the same. Given the executive branch debated and weighed evidence against the victims of the drone strikes internally, due process was satisfied and they didn’t need a court, Holder explained.

This mangling of the founding fathers’ words led to widespread rebuke in legal circles, but it was satirist Stephen Colbert who most aptly summed up the absurdity of Holder’s definition: “Due process and judicial process are not one and the same. The Founders weren’t picky. Trial by jury, trial by fire, rock-paper-scissors – who cares? Due process just means there’s a process that you do.”

I recommend you check out the full text: The DNC was a win for Obama, but a loss for civil liberties.

Always remember during these election years, the choice is really between a giant douche and a turd sandwich: South Park