HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » President Obama and the M...

Mon Aug 18, 2014, 06:44 PM

President Obama and the Michael Brown case

I have noticed that a number of people question why President Obama has not spoken more about the murder of Michael Brown. The reason the president has not done so is simple: he isn’t stupid.

Many of us here are old enough to remember a Monday afternoon in August of 1970 -- August 3rd, actually -- when then-President Richard Nixon spoke to reporters in Denver. Nixon, himself an attorney, used the on-going trial of Charlie Manson & family to try to scold the press. Taking the type of cheap shot that illustrated his hatred for the media, the president accused the media of using their “front pages” daily to present Manson as “a glamorous figure.”

“Here is a man who was guilty, directly or indirectly, of eight murders,” Nixon told reporters. On the record.

That, of course, made the next day’s headlines. And it raised the potential for a mistrial. Although the jury was sequestered, there was a risk that one or more jurors could be exposed to the presidents’ foolish remark.

Indeed, Manson would hold up a copy of the LA Times the following morning, The jury was then voir dired, to evaluate if the process was tainted. (One juror told the judge, “I didn’t vote for him, anyhow”!)

Members of the executive and/or legislative branches are not supposed to voice their opinion of a potential, or on-going, criminal trial. This is President Obama is not speaking about this case specifically.

Carry on.

71 replies, 5106 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 71 replies Author Time Post
Reply President Obama and the Michael Brown case (Original post)
H2O Man Aug 2014 OP
frazzled Aug 2014 #1
Cha Aug 2014 #3
Name removed Aug 2014 #67
sheshe2 Aug 2014 #6
H2O Man Aug 2014 #8
cwydro Aug 2014 #10
elias49 Aug 2014 #12
H2O Man Aug 2014 #15
1StrongBlackMan Aug 2014 #28
Rex Aug 2014 #51
Cha Aug 2014 #2
NYC_SKP Aug 2014 #4
Cha Aug 2014 #5
H2O Man Aug 2014 #16
sheshe2 Aug 2014 #7
H2O Man Aug 2014 #17
sheshe2 Aug 2014 #22
Cha Aug 2014 #32
mcar Aug 2014 #9
H2O Man Aug 2014 #18
VanGoghRocks Aug 2014 #11
H2O Man Aug 2014 #19
VanGoghRocks Aug 2014 #23
H2O Man Aug 2014 #30
VanGoghRocks Aug 2014 #31
H2O Man Aug 2014 #33
VanGoghRocks Aug 2014 #36
H2O Man Aug 2014 #38
bluesbassman Aug 2014 #47
VanGoghRocks Aug 2014 #49
bigtree Aug 2014 #58
VanGoghRocks Aug 2014 #59
bigtree Aug 2014 #61
H2O Man Aug 2014 #63
bigtree Aug 2014 #65
H2O Man Aug 2014 #62
VanGoghRocks Aug 2014 #68
aikoaiko Aug 2014 #13
H2O Man Aug 2014 #20
JI7 Aug 2014 #14
H2O Man Aug 2014 #21
zipplewrath Aug 2014 #24
riqster Aug 2014 #25
malaise Aug 2014 #26
bluestateguy Aug 2014 #27
tblue37 Aug 2014 #29
spanone Aug 2014 #34
erpowers Aug 2014 #35
BumRushDaShow Aug 2014 #37
H2O Man Aug 2014 #40
BumRushDaShow Aug 2014 #52
H2O Man Aug 2014 #60
BumRushDaShow Aug 2014 #71
Jackpine Radical Aug 2014 #57
BumRushDaShow Aug 2014 #70
H2O Man Aug 2014 #39
bigtree Aug 2014 #42
H2O Man Aug 2014 #44
bigtree Aug 2014 #48
woo me with science Aug 2014 #41
H2O Man Aug 2014 #45
bigtree Aug 2014 #43
H2O Man Aug 2014 #46
Rex Aug 2014 #50
TeeYiYi Aug 2014 #53
Rex Aug 2014 #54
TeeYiYi Aug 2014 #55
Rex Aug 2014 #56
former9thward Aug 2014 #64
Octafish Aug 2014 #66
Uncle Joe Aug 2014 #69

Response to H2O Man (Original post)

Mon Aug 18, 2014, 06:52 PM

1. He has spoken through his actions

in his capacity as President.

First, his Justice Department and its Civil Rights Division were sent to conduct an investigation, interviewing witnesses and collecting evidence. Later, he telephoned Governor Jay Nixon, who had done nothing for six days. That night, the operational direction had been shifted from local police forces to the state Highway Patrol. Finally, the Justice Department announced it would conduct its own autopsy investigation.

You are completely correct that it would be dangerous for a president or any other official to say anything that might jeopardize the impartiality of an investigation or trial. He can comment (and he DID) on the situation on the ground--the right of citizens to protest peacefully, the wrongness of arresting reporters. But as a lawyer, he knows that it is completely inappropriate to comment on the presumed guilt or innocence of anyone.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to frazzled (Reply #1)

Mon Aug 18, 2014, 06:56 PM

3. And, thank you, frazzled..

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cha (Reply #3)


Response to frazzled (Reply #1)

Mon Aug 18, 2014, 07:19 PM

6. +1

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to frazzled (Reply #1)

Mon Aug 18, 2014, 07:20 PM

8. Definitely.

President Obama has and understanding of, and appreciation of, process. And what you correctly note here -- regarding the US Department of Justice -- is a solid example of that.

It's funny: Nixon, for all of his corruption, was the last elected president in a long time who mastered process. (Ford doesn't count, really, although his pardoning of Nixon -- as unjust as it seems -- was proper, because Nixon was making clear that if charged criminally, he would derail a trial by way of "national security" issues.) From Carter to Bush/Cheney, process was put on a back-burner, and the new form of presidency solidified.

President Obama deserves high grades for process. Despite the republicans in Congress, he encourages those of us who prefer process to personality. Process defines policy, when approached correctly. And it is something that our nation needs now.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to H2O Man (Reply #8)

Mon Aug 18, 2014, 07:24 PM

10. So if Obama is for process,

why is DU ready to skip that process and hang the cop from the yardarm?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cwydro (Reply #10)

Mon Aug 18, 2014, 07:31 PM

12. We're not all the president! n/t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cwydro (Reply #10)

Mon Aug 18, 2014, 07:38 PM

15. silly.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cwydro (Reply #10)

Mon Aug 18, 2014, 09:50 PM

28. Because there is no price to be paid for DUers. eom

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cwydro (Reply #10)

Tue Aug 19, 2014, 01:29 PM

51. Right Obama is DU now...next silly question plz.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to H2O Man (Original post)

Mon Aug 18, 2014, 06:55 PM

2. Thank you for pointing that out, H2O.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cha (Reply #2)

Mon Aug 18, 2014, 07:09 PM

4. Ditto that.

 

Many who criticize the president without forethought are just having another day at it.

Sometimes the quietest person in the room is the smartest one.

Other times that's a way to know that they're the leader.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NYC_SKP (Reply #4)

Mon Aug 18, 2014, 07:13 PM

5. "Sometimes the quietest person in the room is the smartest one." well said..

"Many who criticize the president without forethought are just having another day at it."

Same with AG Holder..


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NYC_SKP (Reply #4)

Mon Aug 18, 2014, 07:48 PM

16. True, that.

There are things that I disagree with President Obama on. And there are lots of things that I agree with him on. This is one where, not only are most of those "disagreeing" spouting shit, but people should really appreciate his focus on process.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to H2O Man (Original post)

Mon Aug 18, 2014, 07:20 PM

7. Thank you H2O Man.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sheshe2 (Reply #7)

Mon Aug 18, 2014, 07:50 PM

17. It's an area

where this President is not only taking that "high road," but he is demonstrating proper procedure. In my humble opinion, far too few people understand the connection between process and policy. And I'm not simply talking about the right to a fair trial ....but rather, the relationship between the three branches of the federal government.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to H2O Man (Reply #17)

Mon Aug 18, 2014, 08:01 PM

22. Oh yes H2O Man.

Your assessment is spot on as always. I did indeed know what you meant in that first sentence.

Speaking of which, why are we only hearing crickets here? Hmmm.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to H2O Man (Reply #17)

Tue Aug 19, 2014, 12:02 AM

32. Thank you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to H2O Man (Original post)

Mon Aug 18, 2014, 07:23 PM

9. Thank you H2O Man

You are quite correct.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mcar (Reply #9)

Mon Aug 18, 2014, 07:51 PM

18. Thank you!

It's almost funny to think that Nixon was jealous of the press that Manson was getting!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to H2O Man (Original post)

Mon Aug 18, 2014, 07:27 PM

11. How about when photojournalists (like the photographer for Getty Images just now) are

 

being arrested for exercising the First Amendment right to freedom of the press?

Isn't the President supposed to preserve and protect the Constitution, meaning that self-same First Amendment????

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025407421

JFK and his brother RFK would have been kicking ass and taking names by now and we both know it. Why? Because they did it. It's history.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to VanGoghRocks (Reply #11)

Mon Aug 18, 2014, 07:56 PM

19. The journalists are

doing a solid job as far as exposing that abuse. I found Don Lemon's performance this evening on CNN to be really impressive.

It is an important issue, and there is an urgent need for a response to put the out-of-control cops in check. I'm confident that CNN et al will look for an immediate remedy from the courts -- which is by definition the branch of the federal government tasked with resolving this.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to H2O Man (Reply #19)

Mon Aug 18, 2014, 08:06 PM

23. So the President doesn't have a role when journalists are being arrested for

 

doing their constitutionally-protected jobs?

Like I say, were JFK or Eisenhower at the helm right now, there's be some serious ass-kicking and name-taking going on. We both know it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to VanGoghRocks (Reply #23)

Mon Aug 18, 2014, 10:50 PM

30. What specifically would

you expect a president to do? "Serious ass-kicking and name-taking" sounds powerful, and all, but of course has no real meaning. Perhaps you could list one or two of the things that Ike and/or JFK did that is specific? I'd note that, in Kennedy's time, there were journalists who faced almost the exact things that are going on today. Being rather familiar with his presidency, I'm looking forward to your response.

Peace,
H2O Man

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to H2O Man (Reply #30)

Mon Aug 18, 2014, 11:55 PM

31. Well, I'd expect a president to direct the DoJ to ensure that no journalist is

 

arrested there by these Yahoo Mayberry Machiavellis when the journalist is doing his or her job. If that means federalizing the MO National Guard or sending in the 82nd Airborne, so be it.

Eisenhower: 9/24/57 orders 101st Airborne to Little Rock and federalizes Arkansas National Guard to secure the enrollment of the 'Little Rock Nine,' pursuant to the Supreme Court's 1954 Brown v. Topeka Board of Education decision. = Kicking Ass!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Rock_Nine

JFK: 5/21/61 threatens Alabama Governor John Patterson to occupy Alabama with federal troops if Patterson will not safeguard the Freedom Riders, pursuant to the Supreme Court's 1960 Boynton v. Virginia decision (and earlier decisions). = Taking Names!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_Rides

Does Obama need a Supreme Court decision upholding the constitutionality of the First Amendment to protect journalists down there? Come on, now. Since 1861, the only language the South has understood is the boot and heel of the Federal Government landing on them like a ton of bricks every so often. This, imo, is one of those times.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to VanGoghRocks (Reply #31)

Tue Aug 19, 2014, 08:45 AM

33. "When passions drive,

let reason hold the reins." -- Ben Franklin

It's curious, indeed, when we see DUers using phrases such as "the boot and heel of the Federal Government," or describing those advocating an arrest in this case as a "lynch mob." But be that as it may.

Presidents do not determine Constitutional Law. They do, however, task the DoJ with insuring it is carried out; and the president does have resources -- including the National Guard -- that can be used.

Amendment 1 certainly provides for a free press. Likewise, it provides for citizens' right to gather in public. What that translates to at any given era is simply this: what the federal courts, primarily the USSC, says it means. In general, the federal courts are where state court decisions are appealed, on constitutional grounds, as far as discussions of "constitutional rights" go.

The relationship between USSC decisions and pressing social issues is fascinating. And frequently frustrating. I suspect that President Obama taught just that in his class rooms when he taught constitutional law.

Brown v Topeka BOE is perhaps the best remember decision from Ike's era. Yet, equally important would be the (in)famous "Steel Seizure" case of 1952. Hence, a good constitutional law course will always include the reading of "The Anatomy of a Constitutional Law Case" (Westin; Macmillan Press; 1958).

Or, let's fast-forward to the JFK era. Indeed, there's a famous case that has to do with citizens' rights to assembly in public to voice their opinions. It would be decided by the USSC in 1967, as "Walker v Birmingham." Interestingly, Rev. King lost that case.

Indeed, of the Amendment 1 rights which have been defined in that context of Constitutional Law, the right of assemble in public is most restricted. It is in no sense absolute; the USSC has ruled consistently that it does not provide license to gather in public freely. Now, one may agree or disagree with those decisions -- King obviously disagreed in the cited case, and hence had defied a state court decision. He acted upon his conscience. And lost the case.

Today, there are certainly instances where individual reporters are being subjected to the same mistreatment that average citizens in the community in question are facing. Yet there does not appear to be any evidence that journalists are being targeted for different, harsher treatment. In fact, much of the outrage is because of exactly that.

The two journalists in the McDonald's is a good example. Clearly, they were being mistreated. But that was entirely distinct from any "rights" as journalists. In fact, they did report on these incidents -- including calling in cable news shows while in custody.

Thus, we need to consider the vast differences between the rights of journalists as defined by Constitutional Law, versus the more common approaches that government (at all levels) tends to take when dealing with the press. Consider, for example, that in Vietnam, reporters were provided fairly direct access to events (while being lied to by the military and government). Yet Reagan would deny journalists that level of access to the conflicts he involved the US in (but still provided the misinformation and disinformation). While one can and should disagree with Reagan on this, he did not violate Constitutional Law.

Reporters' have the power of FOIL. But every citizen has that same right. Sadly, however, citizens lack the ability to report when the government fails to follow FOIL, that a wealthy media source enjoys. But the important thing is that reporters do not have superior "rights."

Since there is no court injunction, much less USSC decision, involving the current situation, the fact is that President Obama is limited in his options. Obviously, he has tasked the Attorney General with becoming actively involved in the current events. That is exactly what he should be doing. And while the public should be offended by events such as Don Lemon being pushed around by individual cops, it would be a stretch to claim it violated any Constitutional Law. And it would be a glaring error for President Obama to engage in a knee-jerk reaction.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to H2O Man (Reply #33)

Tue Aug 19, 2014, 10:08 AM

36. Do you support the arrest and incarceration of journalists plying their trade? Yay

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to VanGoghRocks (Reply #36)

Tue Aug 19, 2014, 12:38 PM

38. Do you advocate

the legalization of Lonnie Anderson's hair?

On the other hand, if you want to have a serious conversation, feel free to let me know.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to H2O Man (Reply #38)

Tue Aug 19, 2014, 01:18 PM

47. !!!



BTW, it took me some years to get over Lonnie when they cancelled WKRP.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to H2O Man (Reply #38)

Tue Aug 19, 2014, 01:24 PM

49. By my count, last night, 4 journalists were arrested and held (photographer

 

Scott Olson, reporter for The Intercept, reporter for German magazine Die Zeit and one other whom I cannot recall off hand).

There may have been more; this count of 4 is merely from reading and compiling various reports here and elsewhere.

Not that it really matters, but there is (ahem) a signed stipulation that police will not arrest members of the press.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025411214

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to VanGoghRocks (Reply #49)

Tue Aug 19, 2014, 03:18 PM

58. Oy, as they say in Congress: Point of Personal Privilege

. . . I think you've rushed past the op's point about the uncertainty and difficulty in not only defending those assembly rights of press and protestors alike, and also his point that the press isn't afforded (nor should they be) any more or less rights than anyone else in that regard.

As several posters have mentioned on that thread, the order is full of legal holes. That's not to say that it's a certainty that it can't be defended, but it's a historically difficult issue.

I do recall from recent histories uncovered regarding JFK, LBJ, and others regarding their attitude toward the press, that relationship was so cozy and reciprocal that, at times, you could swear the newspapers and editors were on the president's payroll.

Just, foi, of course, not to reflect at all on your own reasonable intention and expectation that the courts respect their rights to assemble.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bigtree (Reply #58)

Tue Aug 19, 2014, 04:02 PM

59. I've sort of lost sight by now of what this whole kerfluffle was about. Seems to me it was about

 

whether President Obama has done everything he could, not enough or too much. OP seemed to be saying Obama had done everything he could while I was using JFK and Ike to point out that might not necessarily be so. I personally saw law enforcement staff last night, their identities obscured violating citizens' right to assemble and journalists' right to freedom of the press (the VICE live stream reporter who had his press tag ripped off his chest) violated last night. Live on my laptop. So, you ask me, President Obama has not done enough. I suppose reasonable minds can disagree.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to VanGoghRocks (Reply #59)

Tue Aug 19, 2014, 04:09 PM

61. I think there's a sometimes a gulf between what he can and should say and the effect of that

. . . on many issues - contrasted with what he can actually do and accomplish.

I don't think that means he shouldn't speak out or try as hard as he's able on a variety of issues and concerns. I do think that his words are important, for many reasons on many different subjects and occasions. I think some folks will be quick to tell you, though, their opinion of the efficacy of him making those statements or actions. That's often more a matter of opinion or agreement (or disagreement), and those dynamics, eventualities, and possibilities form many of our debates here.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bigtree (Reply #58)

Tue Aug 19, 2014, 05:57 PM

63. I'd suggest looking

at JFK's (failed) attempts at prior restraint at the beginning of the Cuban Missile Crisis, before investing in the rosy histories. Did these journalists enjoy JFK during press conferences? Did he have great skills in building personal friendships with individual reporters? Certainly. But it is fiction -- and that's giving it the benefit of the doubt -- to pretend that JFK and RFK had a history of rescuing reporters who faced confrontations while reporting on the Civil Rights struggle, etc. In fact, there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever, to indicate President Kennedy (or Ike or LBJ) would be doing anything differently than President Obama is now.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to H2O Man (Reply #63)

Tue Aug 19, 2014, 06:10 PM

65. I wouldn't disagree with any of that

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to VanGoghRocks (Reply #49)

Tue Aug 19, 2014, 05:49 PM

62. Perhaps a good start

would be if you read the signed stipulation. Then, attempt a mental exercise: slowly think about what the journalists were arrested for.

This is no sense suggests that the treatment of these journalists was right, correct, or fair. But the circumstances have zero to do with the agreement. It's those distinctions between what the cops were harassing them for -- which has zero to do with journalism -- that a person needs to have a grasp of, in order to appreciate what, if any, response the DoJ might take.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to H2O Man (Original post)

Mon Aug 18, 2014, 07:32 PM

13. Yes, he is acting presidential.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to aikoaiko (Reply #13)

Mon Aug 18, 2014, 07:57 PM

20. Indeed, he is.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to H2O Man (Original post)

Mon Aug 18, 2014, 07:32 PM

14. i agree but i think there is more also, he got a lot of negative attacks for just talking

about how blacks and other minorities get treated by cops . even just mentioning black and brown men being stopped by cops was something people could not take.

some white people who may have voted for him probably think him being a president is proof of no racism. we have a few like this on this site .

it's not just openly racist wingnuts who are uncomfortable or deny issues concerning race in this country.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JI7 (Reply #14)

Mon Aug 18, 2014, 07:58 PM

21. Absolutely right.

I agree 100%. And it's not just Fox News that attacks him for these things.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to H2O Man (Original post)

Mon Aug 18, 2014, 08:37 PM

24. Right now he's done all he really can

I really can't find fault with much of what he's done in the present. Because of his position, he has to avoid the real problem of appearing to influence investigations or grand juries.

However, longer term, this isn't the first time he's faced these larger issues and he has continually avoided addressing them on any real level. During the whole OWS days, there was wide spread abuse by local police agencies and basically he never addressed the problem on any real or continuing level. He has never done anything to change the militarization of our police forces. The hardware transfers of military hardware continue as much as ever. The DOJ has had no on going investigations into the use of the hardware, or of police abuse in general associated with public protest.

And I don't expect this to change. He'll have Justice conduct an investigation, but there will be no particular wide range of change to the relationship between the federal law enforcement and the local police departments. Hardware transfers will continue. Military training of police forces will continue. DHS will continue to incorporate local police departments into the larger fight against terrorism. The FBI will continue to incorporate local police into the "war on drugs". In short there will be no real change. And it will happen again. And the outrage will be raised again. And he'll make some nice speeches and use them as "teachable moments", and the DOJ will investigate, and then it will be back to the normal.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to H2O Man (Original post)

Mon Aug 18, 2014, 09:40 PM

25. He's a good lawyer, acting like he knows from the law.

Sad that it is such a novelty.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to H2O Man (Original post)

Mon Aug 18, 2014, 09:43 PM

26. Shhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!

Well said. They know - some in the media want him to get involved and he can do nothing right for others.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to H2O Man (Original post)

Mon Aug 18, 2014, 09:45 PM

27. He already made that mistake once

with the "Cambridge police acted stupidly" fracas in 2009.

Presidential rookie mistake.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to H2O Man (Original post)

Mon Aug 18, 2014, 10:02 PM

29. KnR! nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to H2O Man (Original post)

Tue Aug 19, 2014, 09:08 AM

34. k&r...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to H2O Man (Original post)

Tue Aug 19, 2014, 09:47 AM

35. I Disagree

People are not asking President Obama to come out and say Darren Wilson is guilty and should be put in jail, or to condemn the media for portraying him in a positive light. People want him to talk about why black people are angry about this case. Some wanted him to act like Robert F. Kennedy after assassination of Martin Luther King Jr. I think a number of people believe things would have turned out better in Ferguson if President Obama had spoken to the people of Ferguson after the shooting.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to erpowers (Reply #35)

Tue Aug 19, 2014, 10:39 AM

37. "Some wanted him to act like Robert F. Kennedy after assassination of Martin Luther King Jr."

Robert Kennedy was never the President - he was the Attorney General just like Eric Holder is now. And I expect that Holder, who is also black (and heavily disparaged here on DU) and is married to Vivian Malone's sister, is going to do some of this. And guess what? Sadly, thousands of black men and women and even children, are brutalized by the police daily. Should he be expected to speak out as each case comes forward?

Since this country is so virulently racialized, the risk is alienating the rest of the nation if he goes beyond the personal anecdotes that he has mentioned over and over during the past 6 years - not counting his pre-election speech "A More Perfect Union".... As has been said - he is not "the President of the black people of the U.S.", he is "President of all of the people of the U.S."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BumRushDaShow (Reply #37)

Tue Aug 19, 2014, 12:43 PM

40. NYS Senator

at the time, seeking the democratic nomination for the presidency.

More, RFK's powerful speech did not focus on the issues specific to the murder -- other than noting that the (un)identified suspect was white.

You raise several extremely important points in your response. I think that your post is representative of the best of DU. I really appreciate it!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to H2O Man (Reply #40)

Tue Aug 19, 2014, 01:30 PM

52. "at the time, seeking the democratic nomination for the presidency."

That I know but I left the rest unsaid regarding what happened afterwards with him that added to the painful year of 1968.

I think that too many want to equate him with his predecessors when, based on the way he has been disrespected in an unprecedented manner, he is a living, breathing example of what is going on in Ferguson and elsewhere in the U.S., and what is inherently wrong with this society. But he also represents what the nation is capable of doing, despite that adversity.

You have 2 famous authors who wrote about such dichotomy - Frantz Fanon "Black Skin, White Masks" and W.E.B. Dubois "The Souls of Black Folk", with a famous observation from that book -

It is a peculiar sensation, this double-consciousness, this sense of always looking at one’s self through the eyes of others, of measuring one’s soul by the tape of a world that looks on in amused contempt and pity. One ever feels his two-ness,—an American, a Negro; two souls, two thoughts, two unreconciled strivings; two warring ideals in one dark body, whose dogged strength alone keeps it from being torn asunder.

The history of the American Negro is the history of this strife — this longing to attain self-conscious manhood, to merge his double self into a better and truer self. In this merging he wishes neither of the older selves to be lost. He does not wish to Africanize America, for America has too much to teach the world and Africa. He wouldn't bleach his Negro blood in a flood of white Americanism, for he knows that Negro blood has a message for the world. He simply wishes to make it possible for a man to be both a Negro and an American without being cursed and spit upon by his fellows, without having the doors of opportunity closed roughly in his face.”


I think the President is trying to navigate what was described by Dubois over 100 years ago. And the concept is difficult to elucidate in a speech without alot of eyerolling from the majority population.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BumRushDaShow (Reply #52)

Tue Aug 19, 2014, 04:02 PM

60. Two outstanding authors,

and two great books.

I think that a couple of James Baldwin's books hold up extremely well, too .... "Nobody Knows My Name," and especially "The Fire Next Time."

Were President Obama to speak the truth, there would be a huge amount of that eye-rolling you mention. And there would be open hostility, etc. I honestly think that is necessary. A lot of people are offended by the Truth, yet it must be spoken.

Again: it does me good to see posts on DU about Fanon and Dubois. We need more of that on this forum, rather than so much of the meaningless nonsense posted here recently. I really appreciate your contributions.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to H2O Man (Reply #60)

Tue Aug 19, 2014, 09:27 PM

71. I grew up with those books in the house

along with Baldwin, Lerone Bennett, and even Eldridge Cleaver's "Soul on Ice".

You look back and compare to today and can find that a lot has changed but a lot has also stayed the same.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BumRushDaShow (Reply #37)

Tue Aug 19, 2014, 02:49 PM

57. The issue is not about him speaking out on every case--he can't do that, obviously;

however, the whole issue of continuing, even intensifying, institutional racism in America, of which the Brown, Garner, and countless other instances are examples, needs to be addressed.

Obama can do that if he's of a mind to.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jackpine Radical (Reply #57)

Tue Aug 19, 2014, 09:03 PM

70. He can "address it"

but then it will take the majority population's efforts to dislodge it. The fact that he was elected not once, but twice, seems to suggest that there are more out there who "get it" with respect to "institutional racism" and were willing to put that aside to vote for him - i.e., he doesn't appear to have been elected as a "token" along the lines that a Herman Cain was presented to the electorate. But no single "address" is going to suddenly change the minds of those who were not already receptive to him 6 years ago, or upend the peculiar and entrenched institution. However I think he really put it out there before he was elected -

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to erpowers (Reply #35)

Tue Aug 19, 2014, 12:40 PM

39. In fact,

you do not disagree. My OP is specific. What you are talking about is distinct from the OP.

President Obama has uncanny skills in communicating. The nation would benefit from his making a prime time address to the nation on the issues that you raise.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to H2O Man (Reply #39)

Tue Aug 19, 2014, 12:46 PM

42. recommended

I do think there's still room, though, for him to address a wide variety of issues related to the protests.

I'm in agreement that he could do much good in making an address regarding the issues surrounding the racial divides in that town and in others. I'd specifically like him to address the issue of the relationships between law enforcement and the black communities in a manner which speaks to the public officials' and officers' responsibilities and actions more than he has, so far.


(just a note: I'm not a big fan of generalizing about DUers 'spouting shit' in disagreements with the President (as you said in a post above). I'd prefer those instances be addressed directly in those offending posts. Just my own view, of course.)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bigtree (Reply #42)

Tue Aug 19, 2014, 01:08 PM

44. Right.

I am confident in President Obama's sense of timing.

Per your last point: there are numerous forum participants that I have zero interest in ever engaging in even the briefest of conversations. For life is short, and at this point, I only anticipate living another 50 year (+/- 2 weeks). I am not going to waste even 20 seconds to engage in a "debate" with those who, I am convinced, are not here at DU for the correct reasons. (grin)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to H2O Man (Reply #44)

Tue Aug 19, 2014, 01:22 PM

48. I've developed zero tolerance for those who post just to pick on my nerves and insult me

. . . and they know well who they are.

Can't see most of them on my threads and on the forum post list anymore, though . . . don't know if they even still exist - don't care in the least.

After another 50 yrs., I fully anticipate your indomitable persona will be so indelibly imprinted on this planet as to render you indissoluble.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to erpowers (Reply #35)

Tue Aug 19, 2014, 12:46 PM

41. Thank you. I am getting very tired of the outrageous implication

that it should be considered somehow controversial or dangerous to a court case for a President to speak clearly and forcefully about the Constitutionally protected right to protest and the expectation that protesters be treated with respect rather than as enemies in a militarized war zone.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to woo me with science (Reply #41)

Tue Aug 19, 2014, 01:09 PM

45. Well said!

And much appreciated.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to erpowers (Reply #35)

Tue Aug 19, 2014, 12:59 PM

43. good point

. . . noting, as the op did, that he doesn't appear to disagree with that sentiment.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bigtree (Reply #43)

Tue Aug 19, 2014, 01:11 PM

46. Right.

Not only do I not appear to disagree with it, but I openly and consistently agree with it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to H2O Man (Original post)

Tue Aug 19, 2014, 01:28 PM

50. He sent Holder and the FBI to investigate the FPD. That is all I ask.

 

Actions always speak louder than words.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Rex (Reply #50)

Tue Aug 19, 2014, 01:37 PM

53. Hopefully, the investigations won't stop in Ferguson...

...because clearly, there is something insidious and evil going on inside America's black communities, regarding the militarization of (mostly white) police and the 'for profit' prison system...demoralizing and destroying the hopes and dreams of my black brothers and sisters.

TYY

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TeeYiYi (Reply #53)

Tue Aug 19, 2014, 01:41 PM

54. I agree and I think this was a wake up call to the PTB.

 

Plus they can still give military hardware to all state and federal agencies...but locally it needs to be stopped. I believe what we see with the FPD, is a department corrupt from the ground up.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Rex (Reply #54)

Tue Aug 19, 2014, 01:48 PM

55. The last time I saw...

...this kind of mistreatment toward humanity, I was watching coverage of Katrina.

There is definitely something wrong with the police situation in that part of the country. I saw it then and I'm seeing it now...

There's an evil back there that needs to be rooted out.

TYY

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TeeYiYi (Reply #55)

Tue Aug 19, 2014, 01:55 PM

56. Well nobody can lie anymore about black people being treated equally under the law.

 

At MOST black people in the south are lucky to get treated like second class citizens. Otherwise, why didn't the white Clive Bundy and his white cohorts get treated like the people of Ferguson? Answer...he is a white man and all his followers are white.

Racism on display...I also noticed how Bundy was made out to be a hero fighting the evil government...while the people in Ferguson are being treated like enemy-combatants.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to H2O Man (Original post)

Tue Aug 19, 2014, 06:01 PM

64. Obama has spoken out before.

When Professor Gates was arrested at Harvard Obama criticized the arrest. That led to the 'beer summit'. Nixon's comments did not affect the Manson trial and there is no rule saying the Executive or legislative branches can't comment on criminal cases.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to H2O Man (Original post)

Tue Aug 19, 2014, 07:20 PM

66. Nixon would know. As veep, he ordered CIA to hire MAFIA to kill Castro.

A decade later, in his job as president, Nixon approved hiring a Secret Service man who said he'd 'kill on command' to guard Ted Kennedy. You can hear Nixon and Haldeman discuss it, about 40 minutes into the HBO documentary "Nixon by Nixon."



Ted Kennedy survived Richard Nixon's Plots

By Don Fulsom

In September 1972, Nixon’s continued political fear, personal loathing, and jealously of Kennedy led him to plant a spy in Kennedy’s Secret Service detail.

The mole Nixon selected for the Kennedy camp was already being groomed. He was a former agent from his Nixon’s vice presidential detail, Robert Newbrand—a man so loyal he once pledged he would do anything—even kill—for Nixon.

The President was most interested in learning about the Sen. Kennedy’s sex life. He wanted, more than anything, stated Haldeman in The Ends of Power, to “catch (Kennedy) in the sack with one of his babes.”

In a recently transcribed tape of a September 8, 1972 talk among the President and aides Bob Haldeman and Alexander Butterfield, Nixon asks whether Secret Service chief James Rowley would appoint Newbrand to head Kennedy’s detail:

Haldeman: He's to assign Newbrand.

President Nixon: Does he understand that he's to do that?

Butterfield: He's effectively already done it. And we have a full force assigned, 40 men.

Haldeman: I told them to put a big detail on him (unclear).

President Nixon: A big detail is correct. One that can cover him around the clock, every place he goes. (Laughter obscures mixed voices.)

President Nixon: Right. No, that's really true. He has got to have the same coverage that we give the others, because we're concerned about security and we will not assume the responsibility unless we're with him all the time.

Haldeman: And Amanda Burden (one of Kennedy’s alleged girlfriends) can't be trusted. (Unclear.) You never know what she might do. (Unclear.)

Haldeman then assures the President that Newbrand “will do anything that I tell him to … He really will. And he has come to me twice and absolutely, sincerely said, "With what you've done for me and what the President's done for me, I just want you to know, if you want someone killed, if you want anything else done, any way, any direction …"

President Nixon: The thing that I (unclear) is this: We just might get lucky and catch this son-of-a-bitch and ruin him for '76.

Haldeman: That's right.

President Nixon: He doesn't know what he's really getting into. We're going to cover him, and we are not going to take "no" for an answer. He can't say "no." The Kennedys are arrogant as hell with these Secret Service. He says, "Fine," and (Newbrand) should pick the detail, too.


Toward the end of this conversation, Nixon exclaims that Newbrand’s spying “(is) going to be fun,” and Haldeman responds: “Newbrand will just love it.”

Nixon also had a surveillance tip for Haldeman for his spy-to-be: “I want you to tell Newbrand if you will that (unclear) because he's a Catholic, sort of play it, he was for Jack Kennedy all the time. Play up to Kennedy, that "I'm a great admirer of Jack Kennedy." He's a member of the Holy Name Society. He wears a St. Christopher (unclear).” Haldeman laughs heartily at the President’s curious advice.

Despite the enthusiasm of Nixon and Haldeman, Newbrand apparently never produced anything of great value. When this particular round of Nixon’s spying on Kennedy was uncovered in 1997, The Washington Post quoted Butterfield as saying periodic reports on Kennedy's activities were delivered to Haldeman, but that Butterfield did not think any potentially damaging information was ever dug up.

SOURCE:

http://surftofind.com/tedkennedy



While I had read the part of the transcript available years ago, and wrote about what I knew on DU, almost no one I know now still has heard anything about it.

That will change, thanks to you, H20 Man. I learned about the specific, sordid and murderous details thanks to your recommendation for HBO's "Nixon by Nixon."

How was JFK different? Ask Secret Service agent Abraham Bolden, who reported overt racism by his fellow agents and outright hostility toward the "n------loving president," quoting fellow Secret Service agents on the JFK detail.



Abraham Bolden speaks at JFK Lancer.



The story of a man who told the truth:



After 45 Years, a Civil Rights Hero Waits for Justice

Thom Hartmann
June 12, 2009 11:52 AM

A great miscarriage of justice has kept most Americas from learning about a Civil Rights pioneer who worked with President John F. Kennedy. But there is finally a way for citizens to not only right that wrong, but bring closure to the most tragic chapter of American presidential history.

After an outstanding career in law enforcement, Abraham Bolden was appointed by JFK to be the first African American presidential Secret Service agent, where he served with distinction. He was part of the Secret Service effort that prevented JFK's assassination in Chicago, three weeks before Dallas. But Bolden was framed by the Mafia and arrested on the very day he went to Washington to tell the Warren Commission staff about the Chicago attempt against JFK.

Bolden was sentenced to six years in prison, despite glaring problems with his prosecution. His arrest resulted from accusations by two criminals Bolden had sent to prison. In Bolden's first trial, an apparently biased judge told the jury that Bolden was guilty, even before they began their deliberations. Though granted a new trial because of that, the same problematic judge was assigned to oversee Bolden's second trial, which resulted in his conviction. Later, the main witness against Bolden admitted committing perjury against him. A key member of the prosecution even took the fifth when asked about the perjury. Yet Bolden's appeals were denied, and he had to serve hard time in prison, and today is considered a convicted felon.

After the release of four million pages of JFK assassination files in the 1990s, it became clear that Bolden -- and the official secrecy surrounding the Chicago attempt against JFK -- were due to National Security concerns about Cuba, that were unknown to Bolden, the press, Congress, and the public not just in 1963, but for the next four decades.

SNIP...

Abraham Bolden paid a heavy price for trying to tell the truth about events involving the man he was sworn to protect -- JFK -- that became mired in National Security concerns. Bolden still lives in Chicago, and has never given up trying to clear his name.

Will Abraham Bolden live to finally see the justice so long denied to him?

CONTINUED...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/thom-hartmann/after-45-years-a-civil-ri_b_213834.html



After the assassination, Bolden traveled to Washington on his own dime and tried to report what he saw to the Warren Commission. For his trouble -- and despite an exemplary record as a Brinks detective, Illinois State Trooper, and Secret Service agent -- Bolden was framed by the government using a paid informant's admitted perjury and spent a long time in prison. The government also drugged him and put him into psychiatric hospitals.

Bolden's only "crime" was telling the truth. The truth is something more people should try. Thank you for telling it about Nixon and President Obama, H20 Man.

PS: Thanks for the kind words about me. While I'm too humble to go there, they mean the World to me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to H2O Man (Original post)

Tue Aug 19, 2014, 08:09 PM

69. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread, H2O Man.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread