CONNECT
This Can't Be Happening / Op-Ed
Published: Saturday 15 September 2012
“Here in Pennsylvania, Terry Williams, a man who has been living on death row for three decades after being convicted murdering two men when he was only 17 and 18, is slated to be executed October 3.”
Failing the Test: Obama and Pennsylvania Gov. Corbett Must Go
Just because someone has the ability to do something, does not mean he or she should do it.
We have two examples of such a situation before us at the moment: President Barack Obama and Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Corbett.
Here in Pennsylvania, Terry Williams, a man who has been living on death row for three decades after being convicted murdering two men when he was only 17 and 18, is slated to be executed October 3. He has exhausted his appeals and his family, his attorney, and even the wife of one of the men he killed, are asking the state's governor and former attorney general, Republican Tom Corbett, to grant him clemency. Why? Williams was repeatedly raped by his two victims, beginning when he was only a 13-year-old boy. It’s ironic that the same Gov. Corbett who turned a blind eye to Penn State serial boy rapist and football coach Jerry Sandusky is now, at least so far, allowing this obscene execution to go forward. Corbett signed the death warrant for Williams’ execution early this month.
Then we have President Obama. Last fall he signed into law the Constitution-shredding National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), which includes a provision allowing the military, inside the United States, to arrest and detain indefinitely without trial American citizens. He initially assured the public that he would not use that tyrannical power as president. Not wanting to trust that all presidents would say the same thing, a group of journalists and other plaintiffs then filed suit in federal court, claiming the law was unconstitutional (the sixth amendment to the Constitution, part of the Bill of Rights, guarantees to all people -- not just citizens -- the right to a “speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury”). Two days ago, Federal District Judge Katherine Forrest (an Obama appointee to the bench) issued a permanent injunction in New York declaring that the provisions of the NDAA which allow for the kidnapping and indefinite detention without charge of American citizens were permanently enjoined because they were unconstitutional. That could have been the end of it, but late yesterday, after newspaper deadlines had passed and after the evening news programs had run, the White House appealed that ruling. The president who says he would never use this horrific law is fighting in court to overturn the decision declaring it unconstitutional!
There are lines that should never be crossed, and here are two of them. A boy who kills two men who had repeatedly raped him as a child and whose jury was not even told about that abuse, should not be executed, or probably even jailed -- certainly not for 30 years -- in a civilized society. And a president, sworn to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States, should not support, much less actively battle in court to defend, a law that undermines, fundamentally, that founding document.
Top Stories
By Kiley Kroh
17 comments on "Failing the Test: Obama and Pennsylvania Gov. Corbett Must Go"
September 16, 2012 9:30am
I live in Pennsylvania & Corbett is the worst thing to happen to this state in years. He's a bully who won't listen to reason, hence his policies on fracking, educational spending & vochers, etc. Sadly, I'm not surprised by his hard line response to this young man's situation.
As for Obama, I'm very disappointed. I've always expected - and usually gotten - better from him.
September 15, 2012 4:13pm
This is a cheap trick to bundle an Obama slam with a murderer who was raped. How are the two related? Probably the same way the Bush Administration bundled 9-11 and Iraq. Has anybody considered there was some aspect of NDAA Obama wanted, and KNEW the arrest and detain part would be ruled unconstitutional? There is always more to the story than we hear.
September 15, 2012 5:25pm
What links the two stories is that both point to abuses of power that are morally reprehensible. Were I to accept the premise that President Obama KNEW the arrest and detain portion of NDAA would be ruled unconstitutional, leaving intact those portions of the bill that he liked, why would he appeal Judge Forrest's decision as to the unconstitutionality of the kidnapping/indefinite detention portion?
September 15, 2012 4:03pm
The problem with being the president is simple. You can vaporize the entire planet on a whim, but you can't get back at that professor for given you a bad grade on your thesis, at least not until the NDAA. You want to feared, not loathed.
Justice in America is simple too. We just cut the baby in half then hand out the pieces. Everyone looses. Unless you got money of course.
September 15, 2012 2:46pm
Obama must go, right after he serves his second term. As in any case of two eveils, we must accept the lesser and hope that in 2016 there really is a knight in shining armor (or work clothes.)
September 15, 2012 2:27pm
Lindorff's article is headlined that "Obama must go." My question is, if Obama goes, who do we have to replace him? Romney?
Personally, I like Bernie Sanders a lot, but he's not running for president, just for re-election in the small state of Vermont.
I think it's irresponsible to say that Obama must go, because there are only two real choices in this crucial election, and there is no way that I could vote for a man with Romney's background and agenda. If what Lindorff says is true, then I am also disappointed with Obama, but I would like to hear his side of it, for one thing, and even my ideal candidate, Sanders, while offering criticism of the Democrats, finally advises us all to vote for Obama, at least to keep the extreme right wing from taking over the reins of government.
Does the author of this article think that Romney would be a protector of constitutional rights? I surely don't.
September 15, 2012 12:47pm
Frege proved that truth is a simple mathematical theorem, not much to it but a little effort. Thus, trial by jury. Nature, however, with the Constitution in mind, never created the individual, but the gene pool. Within that context, there are those among us who are, in some backing-in analogy, our salvation, but that would take an educated populace in touch with time an history, much less the truth. Romney has been 'installed' and B Obama is an installation as well. I like Wayne Madsen to tell us something of the truth, and he is not a birther, but the world I live in will call me a birther, nevertheless. OUCH. Why does suffering always lead to punishment? Did Gregory Bateson have it right that, collectively, we were too traumatized, collectively, to give a hoot about?
September 15, 2012 11:49am
There is always more to a story than what is being said. Research the Williams case/story as what is being portrayed here is not quite correct. Of course, you can always blame the first defenders for not going after justifiable or self defence, but there really appears to be intent and premeditation. Back then you just could not typically get a "not guilty" on the grounds of being raped/abused as people were fighting to prove "Battered Woman" (really person) was a real, legitimate defence and it wasn't "legitimate" rape if you knew your attacker. Life with a chance for parole would be fair. Two wrongs don't make right.
As for Congress and Obama shredding the US Constitution and our rights and liberties...well that boat sailed with the signing of the (un)Patriot Act and only a few people cared to stay on shore (choosing liberty over the illusion of security). Now everyone is crying in their soup over our lost rights and that more keep getting taken away. Yet these same people keep voting for the same treasonous snakes election after election. Don't be fooled, Romney/Ryan have even less respect for human rights and liberties than King George (England) had.
September 15, 2012 10:53am
The Pres saying he will not use the law "allowing" him to arrest US citizens without warrant, and then fighting the legal overturning of that law reminds me of the saying, "Your actions speak so loudly I can't hear your words."
We will never win the "war" on terror by becoming terrorists.
September 16, 2012 12:32am
9/11 and the war on terrorism were a ruse to allow the neo-cons free reign. Apparently Obama is no student of history. Or, he is ideologically, secretly, "one of them".
September 15, 2012 11:55am
Laws that allow something to be done or to happen are written with the knowledge that they will be used now and/or in the future. We have become the enemy.
September 15, 2012 10:28am
If you read the grievances of the Founding Fathers against George III, you would think it was written by the US citizens against corporate scions in the US. It seems that corporations replaced George III and the government is serving the interest of that class vs. 99% of us. We need a third party which represents the interest of the 99% to bring back our constitutional governments. It will not happen but OWS has awakened a lot of people about the illegitimacy of an unsustainable, power abusing system which has hijacked our democracy in which government is supposed to be of, by and for the people. How many feel represented in the current system?
September 16, 2012 12:28am
You are exactly correct.
September 15, 2012 10:55am
Well said.
September 15, 2012 10:25am
It boggles the mind that Obama -- an ardent Constitutional scholar -- believes NDAA supersedes the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878, along with additional legislation expressly prohibiting any branch of the US military from engaging in arresting, detaining or other hostilities against American citizens.
The only Constitutionally permissible exceptions to Posse Comitatus arise from a duly authorized act of Congress permitting the military to participate in a very limited, very specific, one-time domestic action. Lacking a Constitutional Convention convened to ratify a Constitutional Amendment, in no way can NDAA provide ongoing, blanket authorization for the military to engage in actions against American citizens.
Obama's support for the NDAA shows him to be nothing more or less than a duplicitous, power-hungry dictator unfit to serve as the leader of a back-water Banana Republic, much less as POTUS.
September 15, 2012 11:30am
It seems that once you join the most exclusive club in the world, ie. be or have been the President of the US, your value system changes.
You no longer act in a manner whereby all men are equal in the eyes of the law, all men are entitled to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness, America the land of the free and the home of the brave, etc. etc..
At our most generous we think well maybe he is trying to protect us, but slowly or sometimes more rapidly we can no longer sustain that view point and we face the fact that Presidents become more inportant and above the rule of law in their own mind. They, as they watch their own list of crimes and transgressions grow stop considering their predecessor's crimes something to prosecute, but more something that he "had to do".
Soon it all falls into the category of, "Well if I prosecute him for all the "extralegal" things he did, my successor will prosecute me".
The result of course is Presidents are then above the law and rarely held legally accountable for their actions.
In otherwords we live in a democracy that is based on, "Do as I say, not do as I do." Unfortunately this guiding principle carries down slowly declining in magnitude with the positional power of the politician until one gets down to the level of the local where the policeman is driving using his cell phone, and will arrest you for doing the same thing.
How did we arrive at this point? Well looking at a position of power as an opportunity to financial gain is a big cause. We lost the truth that being elected or hired to "serve" the public is a priviledge and a postion of trust. We lost the truth to the "public servant" term. Somewhere along the line we accepted the "everyone takes money" and the "that's the way the game is played" rationalizations and the position became I'm the boss.
Pogo said it right about 60 years ago in his comic strip when he said, "We have met the enemy and he is us."
September 15, 2012 9:38am
Justice was done pursuant to the Law of Karma in the deaths of the 2 male rapists of Terry Williams by Williams when Williams was a teenager.
Prosecutors and "judges" rarely if ever search for the TRUTH as required by the 1963 US Supreme Court precedent of Brady vs Maryland -- they seek cnvictions because voters are impressed by that and the political grandstanding of the CRIMINAL JUST US system politicians trying to advance their political careers at the expense of the TRUTH and the Constitutional Rule of Law