|
Banned
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by powerclown
Well said. I agree 100%.
The extreme nature of the title of this thread is proof of just how careless words are thrown around. It's the same irresponsible ridiculousness as yelling fire in a theater, publishing (then retracting, which is worse imo) inflammatory political bombshells, or, say, trolling on the internet.
|
powerclown, the title of this thread is accurate and you are attempting to suppress discussion of this very real and timely threat to the remnants of our pre-Bush civil iberties that still remain. With parallels so easily observed in America today, to past fascist regimes, why are you so intent on minimizing what is an obvious trend, to many of us?
Quote:
http://www.secularhumanism.org/libra...britt_23_2.htm
Fascism Anyone?
Laurence W. Britt
The following article is from Free Inquiry magazine, Volume 23, Number 2.
..........For the purpose of this perspective, I will consider the following regimes: Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, Franco’s Spain, Salazar’s Portugal, Papadopoulos’s Greece, Pinochet’s Chile, and Suharto’s Indonesia. To be sure, they constitute a mixed bag of national identities, cultures, developmental levels, and history. But they all followed the fascist or protofascist model in obtaining, expanding, and maintaining power. Further, all these regimes have been overthrown, so a more or less complete picture of their basic characteristics and abuses is possible.
Analysis of these seven regimes reveals fourteen common threads that link them in recognizable patterns of national behavior and abuse of power. These basic characteristics are more prevalent and intense in some regimes than in others, but they all share at least some level of similarity.
1. Powerful and continuing expressions of nationalism. From the prominent displays of flags and bunting to the ubiquitous lapel pins, the fervor to show patriotic nationalism, both on the part of the regime itself and of citizens caught up in its frenzy, was always obvious. Catchy slogans, pride in the military, and demands for unity were common themes in expressing this nationalism. It was usually coupled with a suspicion of things foreign that often bordered on xenophobia.
2. Disdain for the importance of human rights. The regimes themselves viewed human rights as of little value and a hindrance to realizing the objectives of the ruling elite. Through clever use of propaganda, the population was brought to accept these human rights abuses by marginalizing, even demonizing, those being targeted. When abuse was egregious, the tactic was to use secrecy, denial, and disinformation.
3. Identification of enemies/scapegoats as a unifying cause. The most significant common thread among these regimes was the use of scapegoating as a means to divert the people’s attention from other problems, to shift blame for failures, and to channel frustration in controlled directions. The methods of choice—relentless propaganda and disinformation—were usually effective. Often the regimes would incite “spontaneous” acts against the target scapegoats, usually communists, socialists, liberals, Jews, ethnic and racial minorities, traditional national enemies, members of other religions, secularists, homosexuals, and “terrorists.” Active opponents of these regimes were inevitably labeled as terrorists and dealt with accordingly.
4. The supremacy of the military/avid militarism. Ruling elites always identified closely with the military and the industrial infrastructure that supported it. A disproportionate share of national resources was allocated to the military, even when domestic needs were acute. The military was seen as an expression of nationalism, and was used whenever possible to assert national goals, intimidate other nations, and increase the power and prestige of the ruling elite.
5. Rampant sexism. Beyond the simple fact that the political elite and the national culture were male-dominated, these regimes inevitably viewed women as second-class citizens. They were adamantly anti-abortion and also homophobic. These attitudes were usually codified in Draconian laws that enjoyed strong support by the orthodox religion of the country, thus lending the regime cover for its abuses.
6. A controlled mass media. Under some of the regimes, the mass media were under strict direct control and could be relied upon never to stray from the party line. Other regimes exercised more subtle power to ensure media orthodoxy. Methods included the control of licensing and access to resources, economic pressure, appeals to patriotism, and implied threats. The leaders of the mass media were often politically compatible with the power elite. The result was usually success in keeping the general public unaware of the regimes’ excesses.
7. Obsession with national security. Inevitably, a national security apparatus was under direct control of the ruling elite. It was usually an instrument of oppression, operating in secret and beyond any constraints. Its actions were justified under the rubric of protecting “national security,” and questioning its activities was portrayed as unpatriotic or even treasonous.
8. Religion and ruling elite tied together. Unlike communist regimes, the fascist and protofascist regimes were never proclaimed as godless by their opponents. In fact, most of the regimes attached themselves to the predominant religion of the country and chose to portray themselves as militant defenders of that religion. The fact that the ruling elite’s behavior was incompatible with the precepts of the religion was generally swept under the rug. Propaganda kept up the illusion that the ruling elites were defenders of the faith and opponents of the “godless.” A perception was manufactured that opposing the power elite was tantamount to an attack on religion.
9. Power of corporations protected. Although the personal life of ordinary citizens was under strict control, the ability of large corporations to operate in relative freedom was not compromised. The ruling elite saw the corporate structure as a way to not only ensure military production (in developed states), but also as an additional means of social control. Members of the economic elite were often pampered by the political elite to ensure a continued mutuality of interests, especially in the repression of “have-not” citizens.
10. Power of labor suppressed or eliminated. Since organized labor was seen as the one power center that could challenge the political hegemony of the ruling elite and its corporate allies, it was inevitably crushed or made powerless. The poor formed an underclass, viewed with suspicion or outright contempt. Under some regimes, being poor was considered akin to a vice.
11. Disdain and suppression of intellectuals and the arts. Intellectuals and the inherent freedom of ideas and expression associated with them were anathema to these regimes. Intellectual and academic freedom were considered subversive to national security and the patriotic ideal. Universities were tightly controlled; politically unreliable faculty harassed or eliminated. Unorthodox ideas or expressions of dissent were strongly attacked, silenced, or crushed. To these regimes, art and literature should serve the national interest or they had no right to exist.
12. Obsession with crime and punishment. Most of these regimes maintained Draconian systems of criminal justice with huge prison populations. The police were often glorified and had almost unchecked power, leading to rampant abuse. “Normal” and political crime were often merged into trumped-up criminal charges and sometimes used against political opponents of the regime. Fear, and hatred, of criminals or “traitors” was often promoted among the population as an excuse for more police power.
13. Rampant cronyism and corruption. Those in business circles and close to the power elite often used their position to enrich themselves. This corruption worked both ways; the power elite would receive financial gifts and property from the economic elite, who in turn would gain the benefit of government favoritism. Members of the power elite were in a position to obtain vast wealth from other sources as well: for example, by stealing national resources. With the national security apparatus under control and the media muzzled, this corruption was largely unconstrained and not well understood by the general population.
14. Fraudulent elections. Elections in the form of plebiscites or public opinion polls were usually bogus. When actual elections with candidates were held, they would usually be perverted by the power elite to get the desired result. Common methods included maintaining control of the election machinery, intimidating and disenfranchising opposition voters, destroying or disallowing legal votes, and, as a last resort, turning to a judiciary beholden to the power elite.
Does any of this ring alarm bells? Of course not. After all, this is America, officially a democracy with the rule of law, a constitution, a free press, honest elections, and a well-informed public constantly being put on guard against evils. Historical comparisons like these are just exercises in verbal gymnastics. Maybe, maybe not.
|
Quote:
http://www.bordc.org/detail.php?id=155
Resolution regarding the Patriot Act and the Protection of Sonoma Residents' Civil Rights (Excerpt)
WHEREAS, there has been no substantive showing by USA Patriot Act sponsors that these fundamental alterations of our civil liberties increase public safety, and subsequent investigation has shown that government powers of access to personal information prior to the events of September 11, 2001 were adequate to prevent the attacks if properly employed, with the resulting information communicated to the appropriate authorities; and
WHEREAS, the expanded powers of secret surveillance, search and seizure and detention conferred upon the federal government by the provisions of the USA Patriot Act herein opposed are far more likely to have a chilling effect on the free exchange of ideas and expression of disagreement with government policy, than to increase public safety; and
WHEREAS, examples of provisions in the USA Patriot Act which threaten the constitutional rights of Sonoma residents are as follows:
1. Section 216- providing for courts to issue orders authorizing wiretapping and internet surveillance if “the court finds that the attorney for the government has certified to the court that the information likely to be obtained is relevant to an ongoing criminal investigation,” eliminating the requirement, well established by legal precedent, to show probable cause that the subject of the surveillance is involved in criminal activity. Furthermore, section 216 requires wire and electronic service providers to make any information available to government investigators which “may facilitate in the execution of the order.” Such an overly broad and vaguely defined standard virtually eliminates judicial supervision of telephone and internet surveillance.
2. Section 411- granting unchecked power to the Attorney General and the Secretary of State to designate domestic groups as “terrorist organizations” if they qualify as “a political or social group whose endorsements of acts of terrorist activity the Secretary of State has determined undermines United States efforts to reduce or eliminate terrorism,” which could include a Palestinian support group or a group opposing economic globalization.
3. Section 412- allowing the Attorney General to subject non-citizens to indefinite detention, even though they have committed no crime, if the Attorney General “has reasonable grounds to believe that the alien is engaged in any activity that endangers the national security of the United States.”
4. Sections 215, 218, 358 and 508 giving law enforcement broad access to sensitive medical, mental health, library, business, financial and other records about individuals without showing probable cause or evidence of a crime, where suspicion that the person is the agent of a foreign government is a “significant purpose” of the surveillance; and
WHEREAS, our civil rights and liberties are further threatened by orders and rules of the executive branch that:
5. establish secret military tribunals for terrorism suspects (Military Order, Nov. 13, 2001
6. permit wiretapping of conversations between federal prisoners and their lawyers (28 Code of Federal Regulations 501.3)
7. limit the disclosure of public documents and records under the Freedom of Information Act (Memorandum of Attorney general to Heads of all Federal Departments and Agencies, October 12, 2001; and........................
|
powerclown, you talk as if you are not keeping abreast of current events, or else your statement quoted above requires exclusion of the changes in law since 9/11 and the changes proposed in an effort by the Bush administration to permanently eliminate the rights that these officials swore on Jan. 20, 2001 to defend, protect, and to uphold.....not to compromise or to eliminate:
Quote:
http://www.ftimes.com/main.asp?Secti...18&TM=82221.88
5/19/2005 8:29:00 AM
GOP Aides Say New Patriot Act Proposals Obliges Bush
By MARK SHERMAN, Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON - The chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee is working on a bill that would renew the Patriot Act and expand government powers in the name of fighting terrorism, letting the FBI subpoena records without permission from a judge or grand jury.
Much of the debate in Congress has concerned possibly limiting some of the powers in the anti-terrorism law passed 45 days after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.
But the measure being written by Sen. Pat Roberts, R-Kan., would give the FBI new power to issue administrative subpoenas, which are not reviewed by a judge or grand jury, for quickly obtaining records, electronic data or other evidence in terrorism investigations, according to aides for the GOP majority on the committee who briefed reporters Wednesday.
Recipients could challenge the subpoenas in court and the Bush administration would have to report to Congress twice a year exactly how it was using this investigatory power, the aides said.
The administration has sought this power for two years, but so far been rebuffed by lawmakers. It is far from certain that Congress will give the administration everything it wants this year.
Roberts' planned bill also would make it easier for prosecutors to use special court-approved warrants for secret wiretaps and searches of suspected terrorists and spies in criminal cases, the committee aides said.
Eight expiring sections of the law that deal with foreign intelligence investigations would become permanent, they said.
So, too, would a provision that authorizes wiretapping of suspected terrorists who operate without clear ties to a particular terrorist network.
The aides spokes on condition of anonymity because Roberts has yet to make public the bill's contents.
Opponents of expanding the Patriot Act said Roberts' proposal would amount to an expansive wish list for the administration.
"While we're fighting to bring provisions ... back into balance with the Bill of Rights, here we have the intelligence committee moving to give the government more power outside the judicial system to gain access to records of Americans," said former GOP Rep. Bob Barr of Georgia, a critic of the law.
Lisa Graves, the American Civil Liberties Union's senior counsel for legislative strategy, said the new subpoena power would "be a dramatic expansion of secret search powers."
Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and other administration officials have been adamant that the expiring provisions become permanent, with few changes.
They also have pushed for the administrative subpoena power, which they say prosecutors already are using in health care fraud and other criminal cases.
Justice Department officials have been consulted on the legislation and offered technical advice, department spokesman Kevin Madden said.
"The Department of Justice appreciates that the Senate Intelligence Committee has signaled their intention to support provisions that enhance law enforcement's ability to combat terrorism effectively," Madden said.
Committee aides said the committee planned to meet in private when it considers the bill because the discussions would involve intelligence operations.
Barr said he was distressed that the committee "would do something like this in secret."
|
|