Turley in WAPO: 10 reasons the U.S. is no longer the land of the free

[Luminous Animal]

While each new national security power Washington has embraced was controversial when enacted, they are often discussed in isolation. But they don’t operate in isolation. They form a mosaic of powers under which our country could be considered, at least in part, authoritarian. Americans often proclaim our nation as a symbol of freedom to the world while dismissing nations such as Cuba and China as categorically unfree. Yet, objectively, we may be only half right. Those countries do lack basic individual rights such as due process, placing them outside any reasonable definition of “free,” but the United States now has much more in common with such regimes than anyone may like to admit.

These countries also have constitutions that purport to guarantee freedoms and rights. But their governments have broad discretion in denying those rights and few real avenues for challenges by citizens — precisely the problem with the new laws in this country.

The list of powers acquired by the U.S. government since 9/11 puts us in rather troubling company.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/is-the-united-states-still-the-land-of-the-free/2012/01/04/gIQAvcD1wP_story.html

Also, link to article on Turley's website (in case you hit a paywall at WAPO)

http://jonathanturley.org/2012/01/15/10-reasons-the-u-s-is-no-longer-the-land-of-the-free/

[msanthrope]

1. I hit a paywall, and therefore, cannot read this article. Do you have another source? nt

[Luminous Animal]

3. Link to article on Turley's website...

http://jonathanturley.org/2012/01/15/10-reasons-the-u-s-is-no-longer-the-land-of-the-free/

[msanthrope]

6. Thank you. I find this a very poorly-written article for a law professor.

The utter lack of specifics is what makes articles like this nearly useless for serious discussion.

Sure, Turley must feel good when commenters tell him that this is a 'great' article. And I think he raises great issues, but ultimately, this is a lazy exercise in rhetoric.

A good article on these issues would mention the specific laws that cover each issue.

A GREAT article would discuss the mechanisms of each law, and how there were wrongly applied.

An OUTSTANDING article would tell us what to do about each issue.

Because he fails to discuss the specifics, Turley then relieves himself from the responsibility of offering a solution. For example, on his first issue, 'Assassination of US Citizens' he speaks about how terrible it is, but he doesn't bother to analyze WHY this is perfectly permissible under the US Constitution. He doesn't discuss the AUMF. He doesn't discuss the War Powers Act. He doesn't talk about the specifics of al-Awlaqi's situation. Instead of telling us HOW to stop this, he hand-wrings.

Which is great--except for one thing....it excuses the inaction of certain Congressional Heros Running for Office who claim to be anti-war.

He doesn't hold anyone accountable for failing to bring a resolution in Congress to end the AUMF. He doesn't hold Congress accountable for passing veto-proof legislation. Congressional action, Mr. Turley well knows, is from where all the power for his top 10 list derives.

Sure, let's blame the 'government' but fail to hold accountable our most directly-elected representatives--the Congress.

Poorly written article by a law professor who should know better...but perhaps doesn't, per Justice Reggie Walton.

[ProSense]

8. Don't

forget this bit of distortion:

The indefinite-detention provision in the defense authorization bill seemed to many civil libertarians like a betrayal by Obama. While the president had promised to veto the law over that provision, Levin, a sponsor of the bill, disclosed on the Senate floor that it was in fact the White House that approved the removal of any exception for citizens from indefinite detention.

Why is Turley still pushing this lie?

[Bozita]

4. That's MUST READ stuff! ... Recommended

[msongs]

5. bush 2 plus obama = the long slide nt

[NorthCarolina]

7. K&R