How to become a fascist state: Producing the body Amerika style
Amerika more and more resembles a fascist state in my mind. I wonder if this was what Germany was like in the 30s – Bush has put intense pressure on his nervous Republican’s and by agreeing with some bullshit nicety condition changes in Prisoners rights, he’s managed to pass into legislation the effective destruction of Habeas Corpus as prisoners now no longer have the right to challenge their detention and treatment in a federal court. To overturn a legal principle that in part philosophically bound the concept of America legally and morally, for ‘security’ reasons is a jaw dropping event that will barely get reported.
It reminds me of another event in 1933.
"On February 27, Hitler was enjoying supper at the Goebbels home when the telephone rang with an emergency message: 'The Reichstag is on fire!' Hitler and Goebbels rushed to the fire, where they encountered Hermann Goering, who would later become Hitler’s air minister. Goering was shouting at the top of his lungs, 'This is the beginning of the Communist revolution! We must not wait a minute. We will show no mercy. Every Communist official must be shot, where he is found. Every Communist deputy must this very day be strung up.'
"The day after the fire, the Prussian government announced that it had found communist publications stating, 'Government buildings, museums, mansions and essential plants were to be burned down... . Women and children were to be sent in front of terrorist groups.... The burning of the Reichstag was to be the signal for a bloody insurrection and civil war.... It has been ascertained that today was to have seen throughout Germany terrorist acts against individual persons, against private property, and against the life and limb of the peaceful population, and also the beginning of general civil war.'
"The day after the fire, Hitler persuaded President Hindenburg to issue a decree entitled, 'For the Protection of the People and the State.' Justified as a 'defensive measure against Communist acts of violence endangering the state,' the decree suspended the constitutional guarantees pertaining to civil liberties: 'Restrictions on personal liberty, on the right of free expression of opinion, including freedom of the press; on the rights of assembly and association; and violations of the privacy of postal, telegraphic and telephonic communications; and warrants for house searches, orders for confiscations as well as restrictions on property, are also permissible beyond the legal limits otherwise prescribed.'
"Two weeks after the Reichstag fire, Hitler requested the Reichstag to temporarily delegate its powers to him so that he could adequately deal with the crisis. Denouncing opponents to his request, Hitler shouted, 'Germany will be free, but not through you!' When the vote was taken, the result was 441 for and 84 against, giving Hitler the two-thirds majority he needed to suspend the German constitution. On March 23, 1933, what has gone down in German history as the 'Enabling Act' made Hitler dictator of Germany, freed of all legislative and constitutional constraints.
"One of the most dramatic consequences was in the judicial arena. Under the Weimar Constitution judges were independent, subject only to the law, protected from arbitrary removal and bound at least in theory by Article 109 to safeguard equality before the law.' In fact, in the Reichstag terrorist case, while the court convicted van der Lubbe of the crime (who was executed), three other defendants, all communists, were acquitted, which infuriated Hitler and Goering. Within a month, the Nazis had transferred jurisdiction over treason cases from the Supreme Court to a new People’s Court. There was no appeal from its decisions or sentences. Occasionally, however, for propaganda purposes when relatively light sentences were to be given, the foreign correspondents were invited to attend.'
Now I don’t know about you, but there seem to some interesting ‘snap’ moments in all of that. I can see other similarities between 1930s Germany and America today as well, are gays to the Republicans what the Jews were to the Nazis, that same outright hatred towards the other that is somehow accepted as an expression of legitimate religious faith?
posted by Bomber @ 11:04 am
37 comments
37 Comments:
Oh, yawn. America's an easy target for you because of how far from a "fascist state" it is.
It'll be a "fascist state" when you can no longer get away with calling it a "fascist state." Not before.
But, you know, keep "pushing those boundaries" ... keep "getting us to think."
Is Bomber really a left winger, or is he a right winger putting up such stupid comparisons to make left wingers look kooky and hysterical?
I hate to let you down no name but His Boomerness really believes this shit.
Boomer is a shining example of the problems in our education system.
I wonder if he's ever been to the US?
AB
bomber - get a grip, this is just horseshit and makes you look like a buffoon.
you forgot to mention that both countries have er an a and an m in the name
...
Grin – my 5 favorite posters all in the same room – this is going to be fun isn’t it folks.
Before we get started though, just a quick point about all the ‘lefty shit’ stuff you all bleated, the site I was actually reading this comparison off was a libertarian site written by a libertarian writer – hardly Karl Marx guys.
So let’s discuss what I’ve posted rather than the usual ‘Bomber is a stupid left wing dick’ shall we?
First I want to make something clear – I’m not ‘Anti-American’ – I’m just not ‘pro-American’ and I’m always anti the use of absolute power by whoever happens to be top dog at the time. This happens to be America at the moment, and with absolute power comes absolute corruption, and that is my fear in America right now. When I say I’m not ‘pro-American’ I mean that I view their actions with a deep mix of cynicism when the ‘Freedom and Democracy’ bugle gets blown to justify their latest land/resource/oil grab.
My concern is that the Bush Administration have abused the position of fear created by their national calamity of 9/11 (and indeed there still remain some questions about 9/11 being an inside job to begin with) and that there are other historical examples of political groups using such panic to defend a massive roll back of civil liberties to be ‘safe’. The fact that Bush has managed to push through a Bill that effectively ends Habeas Corpus for those the Administration deem ‘terrorists’ is a massive legal event and I think it is akin to the type of restrictions the Nazis adopted legally using the excuse of the Reichstag to do it. There doesn’t have to be any great conspiracy at play here folks, just the age old story of absolute power corrupting absolutely – and looking at the past and how those mistakes were made is an essential part of understanding where we are going.
That your only responses to this blog are petty attacks on me is the only yawn here. Oh and Justin please, dude you come off sounding like a condescending prick, it’s a bit ugly bro, try and play the ball a little rather than the man.
One can only assume that the posters above are not familiar with the concept of Habeus Corpus.
It is nothing less than the very foundation of our freedom and dates back to the Magna Carta.
It is sacrosanct.
In the history of states that have fallen into totalitarianism it is not the first of the freedoms that is overturned, it is usually the last.
For those of you who perhaps do not understand it's importance, it simply means that without it, you can disappear. Gone.
I had a visit from an old friend today. He is an ultra-conservative, scholarly man with several degrees and was once a Journalist with the Cape Times, the best read man I know. He and I have had many debates. He has taken a pro-Israel stance and could be considered an apologist for the old regime in South Africa. (Not for Apartheid, just a sympathy for the old Afrikaaners whom he felt were in a cleft stick)
Imagine my surprise when he he compared the Neo-con/Bush regime to Orwell. I thought he must have been speaking somewhat figuratively so I asked him what he meant. He quoted Orwell, something about "the purpose of power is power, the purpose of torture is torture" then he said: "It's happening now". I said, "You really believe it?"
He said "Utterly," then repeated, "It's happening."
Now I know this proves nothing but, given this man's erudition, age (76) and natural conservatism, I don't think Bomber's post is in any way over the top.
It bears remembering that it is not America we are talking about, it is the regime that has trashed the U.N. and lied to the American people to justify a pre-emptive invasion of a weakened sovereign state. It has enacted legislation to exempt itself from the Geneva Convention.
What Bomber has said is mild compared to what sane commentators in the U.S. such as William Pitt, Keith Olberman and Krugman have already said.
Personally I think the U.S. will pull back from the brink. If it doesn't, we're all in for a rough ride. The mid-terms next month are crucial. In my view, the impeachment of Bush has become imperative if America is to rehabilitate itself in the eyes of the World.
AB
It is increasingly my belief that we have had a severe downgrade in the teaching of Humanities - History, Literature, Civics.
What is your take on that? Did I read somewhere that you are a Teacher?
You know Bomber, I feel extra sorry for that van der lubbe scapegoat fellow.
Sorry brewer I'm afraid I'm just a common working man.I don't have enough patience to deal with 30 youngsters.I think that was deano. I know us righties all look/sound the same to you guys but hey make an effort would ya?
So Boomer - Have you ever been to the US?
I know you think its the land of Satan but really they're just like us except fatter and with bigger guns.
AB
My apologies AB. I think it was Deano. As for right and left, I don't know it makes any sense anymore. I have voted both and everything in between in my time. Even campaigned for Bob Jones once when I thought Muldoon was taking us too far to the left.
Personally, I love the U.S. Have lived and worked there but I wouldn't recommend their money driven culture or electoral system to anyone.
Countervailing the domestic threat.
Sometimes it is necessary to curtail domestic freedoms in order to thwart those who would take liberties with liberty.
One of the perceived weaknesses of Western democracies is their relatively weak border controls and their equally weak powers of internal surveillance and administration. The issue is simply one of realizing that this is a war on multiple fronts, including the internal, domestic front which constitutes the western rear guard and which is its softest point precisely because of the emphasis on individual rights.
Confronting the internal threat requires more of a militarized, covert approach, which will undoubtedly impact on civil liberties for both the few and the many. Yet with proper legal demarcation and the use of temporary exceptional rules of internal control, the infringements on the rights and movement of the general population can be minimized. The key to success is to specify targets with absolute certainty, act decisively and without equivocation, and only in the instance of absolute mistake, apologize and compensate.
Read differently: if you are hanging out with the wrong crowd and a Delta Force squad ruins your day, your survivors need to remember that you were only as good as the company you kept.
The inevitable lawsuits over mistakes can be dealt with by legal limits on liability for actions undertaken in combating the terrorist threat and a whole lot of “sorry.”
Unfortunately, this is not what the US government has been doing.
The US will have to accept the fact that it must make these changes if it is to prevent repeat attacks on the US mainland. It also must admit the possibility that it will have to respond in similar kind to atrocities, perhaps with some measure of decorum in order to maintain some
type of ethical supremacy in the eyes of its own people and world opinion.
Bomber - your theme is a perfectly reasonable criticism of the removal of habeus corpus. I happen to agree with you on the seriousness of the removal but for the purposes of this comment will provide the reasons for it.
The US needs to win the moral high ground and in the long term they need to regain that. I believe the logic (without agreeing with it) is that the threat of removal without trial for would be terrorists will give them pause to consider their actions. Flawed thinking, but there you go. It is interesting that John McCain supports it on the basis it should eliminate torture.
However it is a very long way from Hitler. I should just have invoked Godwins law. You also just fell foul of Mulhollands law. (refer dpf last post today)
The reason for this law is that the US supreme court struck down the legality of what the US was doing with Guantanamo.
Brewerstroupe I understand Habeus Corpus.
War has different rules. The US is still bound by the rule of law with regards to Americans in America. This law is simply recognising that on a battlefield different rules must apply. In my NZ Army training we were taught to put a bullet in anybody lying on the ground during an assault through a position. You might call that state sanctioned murder, I would call it a recognition of battlefield rules.
That is what America faces. It has been fighting with an arm tied behind its back with the ability of its opponents to ignore any rules of war or common decency while fighting, then to switch to pure innocent civilians with all the support of the liberal left when apprehended.
There is a tribunal under this new law. There is the opportunity to apply for justice, it is simply structured differently. There are lower rules of evidence. That is simply a recognition that rules of evidence one would expect in suburban america cannot be the same where people are apprehended during a gunfight in tribal areas in afghanistan.
So easy to sling the fascist label. Still horseshit bomber
Sagenz
This legislation allows the incarceration and torture of United States citizens on United States soil, without judicial review or the need to show any evidence that the disappeared citizens are, in fact, anything more dangerous than political opponents of the party currently in power.
Furthermore and, probably more important from Bush’s point of view, is this little clause:
... no court, justice, or judge shall have jurisdiction to hear or consider any other action against the United States or its agents relating to any aspect of the detention, transfer, treatment, trial, or conditions of confinement of an alien detained by the United States who--
`(A) is currently in United States custody; and
`(B) has been determined by the United States to have been properly detained as an enemy combatant or is awaiting such determination.
(b) Effective Date- The amendments made by subsection (a) shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act, and shall apply to all cases, without exception, pending on or after the date of the enactment of this Act which relate to any aspect of the detention, transfer, treatment, trial, or conditions of detention of an alien detained by the United States since September 11, 2001.
In English: Any war crime committed by the Bush administration since 9/11 cannot be prosecuted.
This defines Facism.
...
Hmmm – I’ve listened to some of the debate here and I have some comments.
Some have suggested that the enemy Amerika faces demands new powers which justifies the destruction of a founding legal principle. Bullshit! If the Amerikans had simply used their existing powers properly in the first place – they would have caught the 19 hijackers. How many times do they need to be told by foreign intelligence agencies that an attack was imminent? How many times did the Amerikans need to be told that active al-Qaeda agents were on their soil? How many times did the Amerikans be told the names and addresses of the 19 hijackers? How many times did the FBI have to ask for information on terrorists and face internal blocking of that information?
IF you don’t believe 9/11 was an inside job, then you can only conclude it was GROSS negligence. If Amerika simply used the powers they already have, they would have stopped this in it’s tracks. To say that civil liberties need to be rolled back to the point where Habeas Corpus is now ruled out for Bush’s never ending war is just the most irrational thing I’ve ever heard.
As for comparing Gays to Jews and that I am insane for comparing the two because Gays aren’t in prison yet – I compared America to 1930s Germany – the anti-Jewish laws started around 1933 and came into full effect by 1935. I compare the two because the demonization of Gays by the Republicans is similar to the demonization of Jews. It is aimed at restricting their rights through legal means, it is rationalized hate. It shows the same type of mentality – but it is a side dish to the wider meal of Amerika as a fascist state. Again I reiterate this is the fear you have of any country who has reached the level of power Amerika has. By passing the type of civil rights infringements Amerika has, they are teetering on that fine knife edge and my fear is that any new ‘attack’ on Amerika will be the final straw.
The post above entitled “Countervailing the domestic threat” appears to be a prescription for Bush’s torture legislation.
It was written by Paul G Buchanan. I wonder if SDM and Gnadmasher have any comments? Does it serve to bear out Ant-Flag’s assertion that Buchanan
“ will say anything depending on his audience.”?
His audience on this occasion being New Zealand's own Neo-con Dov Bing.
Brewer: Actually, the Bush administration is doing the opposite of what Buchanan recommended. In the piece--which incidentally, was published on-line four years ago, began life as a conference paper and not as a screed for any one person, and was discussed in several open forums in NZ, one of which I attended. Buchanan advocates the use of precise intelligence and limited emergency powers to deal with clearly defined and imminent threats. There are already plenty of laws on the books that allow for Buchanan's approach, so the Bush policy of changing the law to suit their purposes is contrary to what Buchanan advised.
Cherry picking quotes from a long essay and positing them under a different moniker is unethical, or at least dishonest.
Dr Anonymous
Some cherries.
"It also must admit the possibility that it will have to respond in similar kind to atrocities"
Please direct me to the "law on the books" that sanctions ATROCITIES
"if you are hanging out with the wrong crowd and a Delta Force squad ruins your day, your survivors need to remember that you were only as good as the company you kept."
Are you seriously advocating State sponsored murder on the basis of guilt by association? The killing of the Pizza delivery boy who happens to be on the doorstep when the Delta Force descends?
Please provide a link to the online version of this filth so the readers can make up their own minds whether or not I have distorted your words in any way.
Dishonest? Unethical? Ummm
"a whole lot of “sorry.”"
Dr Anonymous
Given that the U.S. has:
"large gaps in the most essential tool needed to defeat an irregular, unconventional opponent such as al-Qaeda: human intelligence" (Buchanan, Bomber interview)
And according to you:
"Buchanan advocates the use of precise intelligence and limited emergency powers to deal with clearly defined and imminent threats."
Should the people whose Government takes his advice be very afraid?
See, the problem with gaps in intelligence is that they are not evident until after the event. No-one can tell how "precise" it is.
Oh, that's right. That's when the "whole lot of “sorry.”" clause kicks in. I get it.
Anonymous:
"discussed in several open forums in NZ"
Let me guess. National Front AGM?
Hi Honey. I'm home.
Sure is quiet.
There's a note stuck to me stupid.
Oh, I see it. Thanks cool dude.
"Gone to the Doctor"
What could she mean?
Now where the hell is Scott.
Oh that's right, he got detention.
Damn it's quiet. What's on the porn channel?
Click
Here's something from wideopenbeavers.com
"What I Fear is being in the presence of evil and doing nothing. I fear that more than death"
I kinda liked it.
Damn. Overslept. No early morning call. Time for another hard day under the bridge. Lots of Billy Goats trit-trotting I gotta scare.
Scotty. Come on. I'll drop you off.
Scotty! Where are you boy?
SCOTTY!!
Bomber. Have you seen Scott? I'm getting worried. He went to get some extra tuition last night and didn't come home. Didn't you say you know someone up at Ivory Towers. Can you give him a call and find out what he makes of all this?
Come on Sdm. You can put your dark glasses on, change your name. I want to see someone answer this one.
Full marks brewerstroop
...
Hmmm - Here is what I have always found with Paul when I have been on radio interviews with him - he has an amazing ability of putting together the reasoning from 'their perspective' but when you ask him if that is what he believes, he will say no, and put together his counter to that point - but he is so good at stating the reasoning behind 'their' perspective it can come across as if he is supporting the position - that is what I have noticed so that is what I would suspect we are seeing with these arguements
"he has an amazing ability of putting together the reasoning from 'their perspective'"
Technique straight out of Disinformation 101. I have noticed it too but I recognise it for what it is.
This:
"Unfortunately, this is not what the US government has been doing.
The US will have to accept the fact that it must make these changes if it is to prevent repeat attacks on the US mainland. It also must admit the possibility that it will have to respond in similar kind to atrocities, perhaps with some measure of decorum in order to maintain some
type of ethical supremacy in the eyes of its own people and world opinion."
... is where his guard slips. This is a recommendation and it is unconscionable.
Ask yourself. Why has he not fronted to defend himself here under his own name. Why has Scott disappeared?
Come on Bomber.
Bomber.
You know the truth of the Lebanon thing.
You know what what Buchanan said about it on Scoop, FM Radio and just about anywhere he could find an audience.
You know it was untrue and supportive of Israel.
From that only two conclusions can be drawn.
He's an idiot or a disinformation agent.
How about giving me equal time on the main board to make my case?
Instead of taking this blithering, miserable fool's ranting as proof of Buchanan's true leanings, just Google him under the phrase "Paul G. Buchanan" or "Paul Buchanan" and "Auckland." You will get a fuller picture of the man's writings.
Disnformation 101? Better stick with your porn fetish, freak.
Believe it or not there are plenty of us, ex students and others, who know Paul and as Bomber pointed out, realise that he is able to see many sides of a story without necesarilly revealing his own views. THAT is where his intelligence bakcground fits in.
BTW Brewer: your claim to having been a soldier--an aside coupled with an insult you made to SDM a few posts ago--is an outright lie. Along with the duplicitous posting above it demonstrates that regardless of whatever merit some of your views may have, you are a seriously disturbed individual.
gnadmasher.
Care to address the points raised above?
Didn't think you would.
BTW. I'd bust your I.O. He's got it wrong again.
It would be easier to believe there are plenty of you ex students and others if one or two of them showed up to defend their friend's statements, or if you yourself did so instead of invoking the invective that you deplored last time mr gnadmasher.
Personally i think the "seriously disturbed" tag is appropriate to someone who advocates atrocities by government decree.
I for one do not take brewersdroop's ranting as proof of Buchanan's true leanings.
It seems to me, from the quotes above, the professor has provided plenty of proof in his own words.
As this thread disappears into the netherworld of the archives I feel moved to a last post.
I have been accused of pathological hatred, lying and many other crimes during, in my view, a pursuit of fair analysis of the Middle East situation. Along the way I have had to dispute a plethora of opinions made by so-called “experts.” When I have asked for fact or independent verification of these opinions, I have been presented with more opinions. Foremost among these are the opinions of Paul G. Buchanan.
As more and more facts about the origins of the Lebanon affair came to light, Buchanan’s opinions were shown to be demonstrably flawed. Those flaws were subtly but consistently favourable to the aggressor, Israel and the Bush doctrine.
In view of the fact that Buchanan is supposedly an expert and has access to intelligence, I was left with only two possibilities. Either he has good intelligence and is deliberately withholding it or he does not have good intelligence and lacks powers of analysis.
I became interested in what, if anything, he had said about what has now been exposed as deliberate misinformation leading up to the Iraq War. WMDs, Al Quaeda links to Saddam. I have yet to find any such writing. (I am sure that it must exist and would be glad if someone can guide me to it.)
What I did find was the article posted above which recommends a fascist response to terrorism and advocates State Sponsored murder and Atrocity.
With the exception of three posters, it seems that I am alone in finding this appalling.
Even Bomber finds it excusable.
That someone holding a high position in a New Zealand University could have reached that office without having learned the fundamental principles of the Rule of Law and Habeas Corpus and understood why they must remain sacrosanct concerns me greatly.
That Mr Buchanan has not openly debated these matters is also a matter for concern. I believe that opinion makers have a duty to defend their pronouncements and answer criticism.
I therefore conclude that Mr Buchanan’s opinions should be regarded with skepticism and subjected to close scrutiny before being accepted as authoritative.
One last fact.
In the recent conflict, now known to have been initiated by Israel, 1200 Lebanese civilians died, up to one million were made homeless and the cluster bombs continue to reap their harvest of children. 44 Israelis died, very few were made homeless.
“Mass movements do not usually rise until the prevailing order has been discredited. The discrediting is not an automatic result of the blunders and abuses of those in power, but the deliberate work of men of words with a grievance.”
-Eric Hoffer The True Believer
"Television is altering the meaning of "being informed" by creating a species of information that might properly be called disinformation... Disinformation does not mean false information. It means misleading information - misplaced, irrelevant, fragmented or superficial information -
information that creates the illusion of knowing something, but which in fact leads one away from
knowing."
Post a Comment
<< Home