Why hasn't President Obama sent in Federal Troops to protect the protestors?

[ThomWV]

The question is simple. Why hasn't the President stopped citizens from being brutalized on the streets as they exercise their Constitutional rights of speech and free assembly?

[L. Coyote]

1. unrec

[ThomWV]

2. good, now answer the question.

[L. Coyote]

9. ignore stupid question

[ThomWV]

15. Then explain this quote from your vaunted President:

"So I want to be very clear in calling upon the Egyptian authorities to refrain from any violence against peaceful protestors. The people of Egypt have rights that are universal. That includes the right to peaceful assembly and association, the right to free speech, and the ability to determine their own destiny. These are human rights. And the United States will stand up for them everywhere."

President Barack Obama - Jan 28, 2011

[L. Coyote]

26. self-explanatory quote

[Tesha]

29. That self-explanatory quote applies everywhere in the world but here, huh? (NT)

[piratefish08]

36. sure is - human rights, universal, freedom to assemble, free speech, US will defend

you're right - self explanatory.......

[piratefish08]

35. typical response on DU to much asked but still not answered question.

[shraby]

3. Kennedy sent in troops during the civil rights protests because

the people were being beaten and fire hosed by local/state police. Isn't public safety a priority?

[ThomWV]

5. That is precisely what I had in my mind's eye. So, where are they? Where is the President?

[Peregrine]

12. He was enforcing federal law and court rulings

Which the state was ignoring and fighting using force. What federal laws are being--oh never mind someone will come up with something that is a stretch.

[former9thward]

20. What federal law and what court rulings?

Please don't say the Civil Rights law because that had not been passed.

[NYC Liberal]

23. When Kennedy federalized the Alabama National Guard,

he was enforcing federal court orders to for George Wallace and the University of Alabama to allow Vivian Malone and James Hood to enroll.

[former9thward]

28. There is a fine line there between enforcing orders and keeping ordert.

In 1957 Eisenhower sent federal troops to Little Rock to maintain order because the police would not do it. He specifically stated he was not using the troops to enforce desegregation. So troops have been used in the past when local police are out of control.

[NYC Liberal]

34. First, he was enforcing a court order - that of the US Supreme Court.

Also, he did so at the request of the mayor of Little Rock.

[Marnie]

31. He only sent troops into the South.

He did nothing to aid blacks anywhere else in the country.
That was left for Johnson to do.

[xchrom]

4. Recommend

[haikugal]

6. Because he's one of the 1%...he never had a pair of comfy shoes...

[liberal N proud]

7. Unrec

[NNN0LHI]

8. The Egyptians thought the military was their friend for a while

How did that turn out?

Don

[Fumesucker]

14. Are you saying that Obama does not control the military?

:shrug:

[Fumesucker]

10. What would be bipartisan about that?

Republicans might say mean things about the President if he were to do such a thing.

:shrug:

[NYC_SKP]

11. It doesn't work that way.

We aren't yet at the level of need for them that we were in the sixties, not quite yet.

At this level of horrible behavior, it is left (by design) to more local governments and agencies and courts to regulate, self regulate, handle matters.

We don't want a federal government that too easily steps into things with force, really we don't.

Because the next time, it might be the army moving in to take out the protesters.

History tells us that.

:patriot:

[Bluenorthwest]

18. History also tells us that a clearly spoken leadership

is the best way to keep things from getting to the point where the feds have to step in. Silence out of leadership just makes the tension higher and the risk greater. We have national leadership for a reason.

[NYC_SKP]

19. I personally prefer seeing the local heros show themselves first, and the cowards revealed.

As is happening now.

Had Obama stepped in sooner, maybe we would never have learned how shitty were the Oakland Mayor, UC Davis leaders, et al, are.

This is happening in just the right way.

JMHO.

[Magoo48]

38. Agreed, leadership would be a damn good place to start...

[xiamiam]

22. does someone need to die before we are at that level?

because from what i've been witnessing, they have come very close..one person has lost use of his right arm, another was hospitalized for over a week, another is coughing up blood from pepper spray..and countless injuries which are totally unnecessary during a peaceful protest

[NYC_SKP]

32. They need to see a blatant, sweeping, widespread, institutional level of disregard.

And, wisely, they need time before that can be observed and validly responded to by federal force.

Unless you want to change to having a full-time federal police force, it would be more wise to let local authorities take care of matters, or not.

When there's enough "or not" and it's in violation of civil rights, then the feds get involved.

That's how our government is designed to work and it makes sense.

Better to be handled locally, firings, lawsuits, people will straighten up and if they don't, then that's when the feds move in.

:patriot:

[Donnachaidh]

13. He's in Australia

he's too busy on his NAFTA circuit. :eyes:

[ThomWV]

16. Are their phones out?

[Donnachaidh]

17. one would think so -- the silence is deafening, ain't it?

:shrug:

[GoCubsGo]

42. No, he isn't.

He has been home for days.

:eyes:

[mmonk]

21. My attempt of a similar nature invoking FDR (Flint protests) was

locked because of the way I said it. Good question. Not sure there will be a good answer.

[eilen]

24. Probably busy directing his legal dept. to ensure that

the police actions are covered under Homeland Security laws and are thus legal (much like our government made sure the shenanigans of the finance industry were technically legal so thus avoided the need to prosecute them).

Obama is much more a Margaret Thatcher than a JFK.

[Ichingcarpenter]

25. He's No Kennedy that stood up to George Wallace.

When standing up could get you killed.

[MadHound]

27. And bite the hand that feeds him,

This is government of, for and by the one percent. No president in such a system is going to go against the wishes of his/her corporate masters.

[Marnie]

30. Remember this is a man who had no problem telling the

world that Lincoln's keeping slavery in the North at the same he was destroying the South because they wanted equal treatment, was a politically wise thing to do. (In the context of the now century plus devide that still exists on multiple levels between the South and the rest of the country,that attitude that Lincoln's stunning hypocrisy and evil was was a wise political decision, is pretty damning.)

There is a total lack of morality,in Obama's position, and he seems very comfortable with the the inherent evil in his view of Lincoln's decision to perpetuate slavery where it would keep himself in his own comfort zone.

[Xicano]

33. Because Obama is serving the 1%

.....

[piratefish08]

37. i'm sure we'll see some bravery in speechifying this week.

actions though? meh.

[geek tragedy]

39. Because that would be unconstitutional absent a court order.

Stupid question.

[GoCubsGo]

44. Not to mention...

...that it becomes an Obama movement and not a people's movement the moment he inserts himself into it in any way.

[justiceischeap]

40. 'Cause he was too busy telling DHS to break them up? nt

[Cid_B]

41. Why would he?

[Earth_First]

43. Am I the only one who this scares the shit out of?

Military peacekeepers in the streets?