It doesn’t cease to amaze me that there are Obama apologist’s willing to cover anything that he, and his administration, does no matter how bad. What does get me is when someone, in doing so, goes so far as to call into question that it takes a person who, and I quote, states:
It isn’t going to be to the liking of a severe civil liberties test.
A “severe liberties” test?
THAT is what this commenter thinks? That our Constitution, and those who wish for it to be enforced, are calling for? A “severe liberties” test?
(crossposted at Daily Kos)
That poster was IndySteve. Here is his comment:
This diary is crap…Obama inherited an absolute (0+ / 0-)
mess of a problem. Detainees without evidence. Evidence obtained without due process of any kind and through torture. He’s got to make the best of a really bad situation, close Gitmo, establish a new system that is consistent with our values and international law, figure the hell out who is not a threat and who might be, etc. etc.
Give him some credit at least for attempting to sort out Bush’s nightmare. It isn’t going to be to the liking of a severe civil liberties test. But it is a start to correcting the wrongs of the past.
by IndySteve on Fri Nov 20, 2009 at 10:10:04 AM EST
That comment was made to this diary of mine.
The facts speak for themselves. President Obama and his Department of Justice under Eric Holder are picking and choosing where they hold trials based on where they can get a conviction, and, if they can’t get a conviction, they will simply hold those individuals indefinitely without trial.
But, who knew that an Obama apologist would term a call for our laws, our very Constitution, to be enforced a “severe liberties” test.
Let me tell you, and IndySteve, what a “severe liberties” test consisted of — it was called the AMERICAN REVOLUTION.
Our NATION has survived for over 200 years based on a “severe liberties” test. That there are inalienable rights. That the government is there to serve the people. That nobody is above the law. That the will of the people is what drives our nation, not the will of a despot ruler that makes up rules as they go.
It is now President Obama that is putting forth the claim that he, under his authority alone, can detain, indefinitely, anyone he chooses. There is no law that gives him that right. Our very Constitution was designed to make that illegal. Yet, President Obama is doing just that, invoking that right, out of thin air, just as George W. Bush did before him.
And, for speaking out, IndySteve believes that it means we are invoking a “severe liberties” test?
Indulge me, a veteran who has walked in the minefields of Iraq, just how IndySteve has any standing to claim our Constitution, or standing up for that Constitution, is a test of “severe liberties”?
Tell me where I, as a former military member that was willing to give my life for my nation in defense of our Constitution, means that I am some extremist looking to have an extremist view given to the laws already set forth in our country for over 200 years.
This is where Obama apologist’s go too far.
Because I HAVE served my country. I swore an oath to defend our Constitution, not the President. I sacrificed in defense of my country, not to a President’s whim of what his power gives him the right to claim. I have sat in a foxhole in a foreign country, Iraq, and been to that country twice during wartime.
So, you’ll forgive me when someone on the internet, an Obama apologist, decides to claim that stating facts, that President Obama is gaming the judicial system and claiming rights never given to him under our Constitution, is somehow a “severe test” of our “liberties”, pisses me off.
Our founding fathers put a “severe liberties” test before the people — be ruled by despot or rebel — and they won the right for our nation to be BECAUSE they invoked a “severe liberties” test.
You wish to debate that? Do so. But try to invoke some delirious argument about “severe liberties” test? Not while I’m still alive.
I have watched as thousands of our forces died in Iraq. More in Afghanistan. Men and women called to duty to their country to defend that “severe liberties” test that our own forefathers initiated centuries ago.
Do you believe that they all fought fairly, in a uniform? They were terrorists. Many had no uniform. Most used guerrilla tactics, or, did you forget about Francis Marion, the Swamp Fox?
If you have an argument present it. But don’t you dare, in the name of being an Obama apologist, dare to call those see the facts of the actions of his administration as invoking some “severe liberties” test.
Our nation was BUILT on that.