The Rule of Law Should Be Obama's Top Priority

Is straightening out the state of the economy an urgent priority for Barack Obama when he steps into office? Of course!! The financial markets are in turmoil. The Big Three are on the ropes. People have lost a tremendous amount of money from their savings and nearly everyone is concerned for their jobs.

Global warming has not been addressed at all in the past eight years. And if the experts are right, if we don't address this we might not have to worry about any of the other issues. Saving the earth from a climate catastrophe seems like a pretty high priority.

Iraq has been a mess for five years now and our troops continue to die every single day there for a war we should have never started. Afghanistan is spiraling out of control as the Taliban regains control in some areas of the country.

Then there is healthcare, the ballooning budget and countless other urgent priorities. But despite all this, my top priority for the Obama administration is the Constitution and rule of law.

The Bush administration systemically shredded the rule of law wherever they found it. The fourth amendment says you need warrant before listening in on Americans' communications? So what, ignore it. We signed the Geneva Conventions that prohibit torture like waterboarding? So what, ignore it. There are no laws that restrict private contractors in Iraq from doing anything they like to Iraqi civilians? So what, let them loose. There are no regulations that would prohibit financial companies from taking enormous risks that can crash the whole economy? So what, let them loose.

Every step of the way, the Bush administration created a lawless atmosphere where they put themselves and usually their corporate friends above the law. This, more than anything else, undermines what this country is all about. It also causes a lot of the other problems that we face today. There were no rules or regulations in the financial markets to check out of control risk taking, so people responded to the incentives that were in place and took a lot of risk. Then, just as you would expect, when that risk came crashing down on their heads, they turned around and put it in our lap.

The beginning point for fixing all our problems is to restore the United States Constitution, legal system and rules and regulations. They were there for a reason. They are what made us American. Let's put these rules back in place before we do anything else and we'll be half way home. If he does just this, he will already be an infinitely better president than George W. Bush. Give us America back and we can handle the rest.

Young Turks on You Tube

Follow Cenk Uygur on Twitter: www.twitter.com/TheYoungTurks

Comments

[paixa3]

Cenk, you are spot on. When the soft and caring citizens and Mr. Ford let Nixon walk free, you gave EVIL an inch and it has taken MILES ever since.

You will NEVER get your country until you get justice back.

Good luck with that one. If you ever get justice back, no doubt that most of congress and the current administration would be in prisons.

[hippynanainblingland]

Well, that's assuming that we had justice all along. Justice in this country has really meant that those in power get their way and the rest of us get to have to play--and pay--by their rules, which don't really apply to them.

To get true justice everybody has to live by the same rules. I wonder how long that will take. Until then, the country is not ours, but theirs.

[ihavenobias]

There's someone in this comment section that needs to relax, seriously. Oh, and he/she needs to change their formatting, it's just distracting.

You know who you are.

;)

[lechatnoir]

I think that's its point exactly, to distract.

[Michale32086]

I thought it was the Republicans who used de-humanizing techniques to mitigate political opponents.­.

It seems like the hysterical Left has adopted that little trick for their own..

I am flattered that you would prove yourself a hypocrite over lil ole me.... :D

Michale...­..

[Michale32086]

@breakingpoint

}}}}
Seriously, do you think upholding The Rule of Law is now a Witch Hunt or do you reserve that term only for republicans?
{{{{

The Rule of Law is not absolute. I have proven that...

I have also shown that Bush had Congressional authorization for his actions, which is why Congress cannot impeach him...

}}}}}
Let's see...
Crimes Against Humanity vs. Lies about Sex.
{{{{{

I assume you mean about Clinton with that last one..

Clinton was impeached for perjury...

Apparently, you are claiming that when a Republican (Scooter Libby) commits perjury, he should get the chair, but when a Democrat (Clinton) commits perjury, it's just "lies about sex"...

Is that what you are saying???

I guess it's too bad for ole Scooter that he didn't have a mistress on the side.. He could have committed perjury over that and the hysterical Left would have LOVED him, eh??

Michale...­.

[Rosanneofpgh]

Really, mikey, isnt it waaaay past your bedtime???

[camper65]

You're absolutely right! But it won't be!!

[Yermammy]

Excellent post, Cenk. You and I both know what's needed to ensure this breach of the Rule of Law entails. Now Nancy needs to know, from all of us, that Dennis Kucinich's 35 Articles need to be addressed. Until the holes are patched, by prosecution, this boat won't float. There's a whole plethora of bills that need to be reversed and signing statements revised. I actually hate Bush worse than Nixon and I never before thought that was possible. Dick Cheney is even worse, if you can imagine. Impeach to stop the pardons!

[IndependentLass]

I totally agree. But, when he puts the rules back in place, he needs to also put into place measures so that this can NEVER happen again. I have no doubt that they learn from their mistakes and that next time they'll do an even better job of finding the loopholes (and closing them behind themselves). It's a game - play it often enough and you find out where all the backdoors are and you can beat it.

[kellygrrrl]

AMEN!!!!!!!!

[AlButerol]

Obama, put the fourth amendment back.

[Michale32086]

How can he put something back that was never taken??

You DO realize that Obama supported HR6304, right???

Michale...­.

[AlButerol]

You DO realize that Obama said he would oppose attempts to diminish the fourth amendment and later he said he would support a filibuster attempt when the law approving wiretapping and letting the telecom companies off the hook came before the Senate (I don't have the HR number memorized)? When the law came up, he immediately caved. The fourth amendment may still be there but right now it's being treated like a quaint obsolete concept. The phrase "put it back" was not meant to be taken literally. Everybody else seemed to get that.

[shadowgm]

Bravo, Cenk. The Constitution is the foundation of our society. It does not need to be 'improved' or 'refined' for theories about a unitary executive. We can only be as good as our respect for our own founding documents and principles; if we ignore those to promote torture, rendition, illegal wiretaps - then our reputation suffers accordingly, and we are no better than a long parade of failed dictators and nation-states.

[Michale32086]

Uhhh..

You DO realize that the US Constitution has changed considerably since it's "founding"­...

Or, do you think it's better that we view minorities as only 5/8ths human or that only land owners can vote??

Times change, our laws change..

It's the way things are...

Michale...­..

[Michale32086]

@pjburke

}}}}}
First you were talking "spies and saboteurs," but now you've switched to "terrorist­s."
{{{{{

Actually, if you read my first post, you will see that I lumped all three of them together, as all three are not covered by the Geneva Convention­...

}}}}
In either case, you are presuming that which has yet to be proved... that itself being guilt of terrorism, spying, or sabotage.
{{{{

Yes, that is presumed to have been proven... If it HASN'T been proven then torture should not occur...

}}}}
That is why there are no exceptions to the prohibition on torture under the Geneva Convention­... so that tyrants and dictators don't just use convenient labels -- like "enemy combatant" -- as an excuse.
{{{{

Regardless, it still doesn't change the fact that terrorists (like spies and saboteurs) are not covered under the Geneva Convention­s..

}}}}
To restate and reiterate: You are most certainly NOT correct about the Geneva Convention and torture.
{{{{

Show me in Article 4 of the Fourth Geneva Convention that deals with what constitutes a prisoner of war, the section that says a terrorist is a "Protected Party"..

You can't... Ergo, Terrorists are not covered under the Geneva Conventions and therefore are NOT afforded any of the protections contained therein..

These are the facts, whether you choose to acknowledge them or not...

Michale...­..

[research]

What's with you mich?

Here you go promoting torture to create more terrorists every blog but the one where the actual interrogator is discussed.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/12/09/interrogator-on-idaily-sh_n_149569.html

We've been through all this before.

You're Wrong.

Torture is Wrong.

Torture doesn't get advance information

Talk does.

Torture creates unlimited new terrorists.

Therefore you are promoting terrorism

Like you said, it';s one of your buttons.

[sdskelton03]

Cenk

You will be a lonely, lonely man on this one.

After 16 years of Clinton and W, the people are more than sick of investigations, calls for impeachment etc.

I think if Obama asked his advisors to come up with a plan for the least successful administration possible, they would advice him to spend his presidency investing the previous administration.

[Michale32086]

Well said...

And oooo sooo true.....

Michale...­..

[shadowgm]

I wouldn't advise Obama to focus on accountability for Bush, et al ... but I don't think we need to sweep it under the carpet and fall for more of the same, "Got a lot of work to do," nonsense that Bush routinely used.

And isn't this what our parents taught us? What teenager hasn't tried to dodge consequences by trying to get Mom & Dad to focus on something else?

My parents always said, "You're right. You go take care of that, and this other thing will be waiting for you when you get done."

[jbl inAZ]

Should he 'spend his presidency investigating the previous administration'? No. It wouldn't hurt for someone in the Justice Department (or a special prosecutor or two) to do this.

But the important thing to do is to discover and reverse every illegal action where Bush et al flouted the rule of law and the constitution. It needs to be done, and it can be without Obama 'spending his presidency' doing it.

[Telemachus]

No, an independent judiciary and nonpartisan prosecutors should investigate the previous administration. And Obama can appoint those.

Perhaps you've heard of Archibald Cox ... a true American hero and champion of the rule of law. He was the independent prosecutor who sent Nixon's entire inner circle to prison, where they belonged. Those prosecutions went a long way toward restoring Americans' confidence in their government after the Watergate debacle. This kind of thing is not just political payback; it's a necessary, periodic self-cleansing of our government. It's happened before and it can happen again. Right now it really, really should.

BTW, Patrick Fitzgerald has now prosecuted both a Republican and a Democratic governor of Illinois. Besides qualifying him for some sort of world record, it also shows that he'd fill Archie Cox's shoes very well.

[Yermammy]

Nice try, but it ain't flying. Not if these folks have anything to do with it. AfterDowningStreet
ArrestBush2009.com
Backbone Campaign
Campaign for Liberty
Charlottesville Center for Peace and Justice
Chesapeake Citizens
Cindy Sheehan's Soapbox Action Coalition
CODE PINK: Women for Peace
The Critical Voice
Cynthia McKinney
Democrats.com
Eastside Fellowship of Reconciliation
Global Network Against Weapons & Nuclear Power in Space
Granny Peace Brigade
grassroots­america4us
Green Party Action Committee
Impeach Colorado Coalition
Individuals for Justice
Michael Ratner of Center for Constitutional Rights
National Impeachment Network
Northeast Impeachment Coalition
Northwoods Peace & Justice Fellowship
Progressive Democrats of America
Proposition One Committee
Radio Free Maine
Republicans for Impeachment
Veterans for Peace Impeachment Committee Clarence Kailin Chapter 25, Madison, WI
Voters for Peace
Washington for Impeachment
WI Impeachment/Bring Our Troops Home Coalition
World Can't Wait
wtpnet.org

[Michale32086]

@Conservativeslayer

}}}}
Typical rightie.
{{{{{

Actually, I am a registered NPA.. But, please.. Don't let facts get in your way..

}}}}}
Your statement that a police officer speeding to get to a scene of a crime, is an example of breaking the law is nonsense. Police officers on call are allowed to exceed the speed limit. So there is no law breaking involved.
{{{{{

So, what you are saying is that there is a law that ALLOWS the breaking of another law, under certain conditions­...

Ergo, the law is not sacrosanct­... It's not written in stone.. The law can be determinant on the circumstan­ces..

Which was my entire point...

But, OK.. Let's follow your line of reasoning.­. A man has to get his dying wife to the hospital. Not thinking clearly, he drives her himself instead of calling for a reandeveaz with an ambulance. The man severly exceeds the speed limit at 0200hrs to get his wife to the hospital in time.

Technically, he broke the law and would be arrested for reckless driving.. Yet, he is not charged with anything.

Why? Because there are MITIGATING circumstan­ces...

The law is NOT sacrosanct and is (and SHOULD be) flexible to circumstan­ces...

Now, if you have any LOGIC or FACTS to dispute this, then by all means, let's hear them.

If all you have is childish and immature personal attacks, well.. I got better things to do.. Not much better, but still better... :D

Michale...­..

[BossBabe]

Funny, I was just going to ask "Don't you have anything better to do?" and then read the end of you last rant. You seem a little obsessed with posting on this story.

[Michale32086]

Terrorism is one of my "buttons".­..

When I see people go on and on about the comfort and conveniences of terrorists and care not a whit about their innocent victims, I get a little passionate­...

Michale...­..

[Telemachus]

What's a "reandeveaz"?

[Michale32086]

That's when a DSAK like me forgets to use the Spell Check option.. :D

Michale...­..

[Michale32086]

@pjburke

}}}}
There are no exceptions for torture... your fanciful (and somewhat deranged) wishful thinking notwithstanding.

Thanks for playing.
{{{{{

TRANSLATION: You are correct that terrorists are not covered under the Geneva Conventions so, rather than concede the facts, I will simply make immature personal attacks...

The simple fact is, terrorists are not covered under Geneva Convention protections.

Therefore, any discussions regarding terrorists in the context of the Geneva Conventions is moot..

You are not very good at this, are you??

Michale...­..

[pjburke]

First you were talking "spies and saboteurs," but now you've switched to "terrorist­s."

In either case, you are presuming that which has yet to be proved... that itself being guilt of terrorism, spying, or sabotage. That is why there are no exceptions to the prohibition on torture under the Geneva Convention­... so that tyrants and dictators don't just use convenient labels -- like "enemy combatant" -- as an excuse.

To restate and reiterate: You are most certainly NOT correct about the Geneva Convention and torture. There are no exceptions.

>> "You are not very good at this, are you??"

It is you who is having all of the difficulty here.

[bayside]

You wasting your talents Cenk, you should be in Obama cabinet. You would shine.. All would sort themselves out ,if he abided by this one principle.­.

[brodon]

You've got to be kidding??

We're still five weeks from the White House for PE Obama and the cover up team is already working overtime.

[Michale32086]

@pjburke

}}}}
Lawlessness in pursuit of law enforcement is self-contradictory and self-defeating, as it is ultimately delegitimizing of the law enforcer.
}}}}}

Really??

So, when a police officer exceeds the speed limit (breaking the law) to respond more quickly to a crime, is that A> Lawlessness?? and B> de-legitimizing the officer??

}}}}}
The purported "end result" obtained does not -- EVER -- justify any illegal means used to obtain it. There is always a more deleterious outcome to follow upon and negate any fleeting and temporary benefit gained.
}}}}}}

You are as wrong as wrong can be....

}}}}
Actual professionals know this.
{{{{

Can I ask you what training, experience or expertise leads you to such a completely false and unfounded conclusion???

Michale...­..

[pjburke]

"when a police officer exceeds the speed limit (breaking the law) to respond more quickly to a crime"

if you intend to be taken seriously, then be serious. That is not serious.

"You are as wrong as wrong can be...."

And you're having said so, absent any argument, makes it so?

"Can I ask you what training, experience or expertise leads you to such a completely false and unfounded conclusion???"

Those who know, understand the true and unshakeable foundation upon which those words stand. They need not be bolstered by superflous claims to training or expertise. They stand, completely unaided, on their own.

Again... you offer no argument or attempt at qualified refutation­... just an invitation to distraction.

[paixa3]

Is exceeding the speed limit to get to the doughnut shoppe ""lawlessness""?

[Michale32086]

I dunno..

You will have to ask the OP who stated that ANY violation of ANY law would promote "lawlessne­ss"....

Michale...­..