Is Founder and Publisher of Captol Hill Blue, Doug Thompson, Criticism Premature? - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

host · 03-09-2005, 11:54 AM

Link to Thompson's editorial critical of Bush;
<a href="http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/article_6363.shtml">http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/article_6363.shtml</a>

Thompson has a reputation for being an accomplished journalist.
Among many points that he makes, is that mainstream media is
owned almost exclusively by huge corporations, such as GE.
GE holds $3 billion in contract work relating mostly to the rebuilding of Iraq. Can GE owned "news" enterprises like MSNBC,
NBC, and CNBC, report objectively on the situtation surrounding
Iraq and the war without compromising stockholder interests?

If you believe that Thompson is premature in levying such strong criticism on Bush, what would have to happen before
you would be more likely to think that Thompson's criticism is timely?

Would a mainstream press, unfettered as Thompson's publication is from conflicting economic and political influences, be more similar in the editorializing of it's opinions
of Bush and his administration, to Thompson's opinions,
than it obviously seems to be at present?

If Thompson is right, is the risk that waiting until "later" to state his views as he did yesterday, might be too risky because of new government restrictions on dissent or because of the risks of government or politically influenced economic or law enforcement/intelligence agency pressures or reprisals?

NCB · 03-09-2005, 12:04 PM

American Hitler? A cancer?? WTF?!?!

You lectured me the other day saying that I slurred you by calling you a "lefty" and now you come back with this hateful piece?

Also, journalists and commentators are two different things. Thompson is undoubtedly the forme, so it's important to distinguish between the two

host · 03-09-2005, 12:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NCB

American Hitler? A cancer?? WTF?!?!

You lectured me the other day saying that I slurred you by calling you a "lefty" and now you come back with this hateful piece?

Also, journalists and commentators are two different things. Thompson is undoubtedly the forme, so it's important to distinguish between the two

I found your comments about me being a "lefty, and about the thread that I authored, "Do Religious Right's Beliefs Pose Threat to U.S.?", that you posted on the "Paul Martin" thread. I took issue with you because you never voiced an
objection on the "Religious Right" thread, but instead, you chose to make your
criticism in another thread. I challenged you to confront me directly, as you
are doing here.

Greg Thompson is a bonafide and well known journalist, in this case, writing
his opinion in a column called "The Rant". If you choose to challenge his credentials and his reputation as part of presenting your viewpoint, please
post some specifics that can be examined and then supported or refuted.

Thompson published his opinion. He is the publisher of a recognized D.C.
political publication. Should it be ignored because it is controversial? Should
I have postponed starting a thread to discuss it in the framework that I stated in the thread starter? Have you made any comments about this subject within that framework?

Willravel · 03-09-2005, 12:33 PM

When I tell my daughter and grandchildren about this someday, I want to be able to say "I was on the side of right". It is obvious that there are two sides to this no matter which side you're on.

There is one side, the side of Doug Thompson for example, that believes that becaue G. W. Bush's actions mirror those of Hitler before and during the establishment of the Nazi party that G. W. may be as much of a threat to the free world as Hitler. We see that his decisions have resulted in the deaths of many American soldiers, MANY Iraqi and Arab people, and the alienating and segregating of Arab peoples. His administration is responsible for the loss of civil liberties and the promotion of "Christian" beliefs which run hand in hand with racism and segregation.

There is another side that believes that G. W. Bush has America's best interest in mind and that all the terrorist talk and action is about protecting American's from a clear and present danger from radical terrorist groups. They see all the liberals as un-American and cowardly.

The problem? No one wants to budge on their position. The polarization has resluted in a stuborness the likes of which I've never whitnessed in my life. Either way, there are scarey things going on and the key to fixing our problems is not divergence from one another, but convergence. United we stand, divided we FALL. So who here, by a show of hands, wantys America to fall? No one? That's what I thought. Thomas Jefferson once said: "The price of freedom is eternal vigilance". This quote has always resonated in me, as I know that diverging and becoming apathetic and lethargic will result in the death of freedom. In order to preserve true American freedom, we the people of the United States need to be able to come together and speak openly and LISTEN to one another. Some of the things we hear may hurt, but that is the price of freedom. I get really pissed when I hear someone say that G.W. Bush has helped to stop terrorism, because I know that global terrorism has steadily been on the rise since 9/11 and also since the invasion of Iraq. I know because I choose to be informed. I know I really piss people off when I say that G.W. is a selfish fool because he is killing so many innocent people based on lies. Do I know he was lying? No, I honestly don’t. He may have been misinformed by people who were given bad intelligence, and he based his decision on bad information, just as he said.

Is G.W. Bush a threat to freedom? I don’t know. Is G.W. Bush the next Hitler? I don’t know. Does this deserve open minded intestigation and discussion? Absolutely.

That being said, I hope everyone can do their patriotic responsibility and keep an open mind and be eternally vigelant in rpeserving Freedom, Democracy, and morality.

Sorry for the rant.

In direct response to the above post:

Thompson is a respected journalist, and I hope that this article will be taken seriously by at least some people. The comparisons stand up and the reality is seriously frigtening. We should fix this now before it could too late. Do you really want to risk the freedom of our children based on your assumption that our government is always right? What if you’re wrong?

Charlatan · 03-09-2005, 12:41 PM

The problem with rants like these is that using the name Hitler to describe a politician today brings too much baggage (intended or otherwise). Most people when they hear Hitler have no idea what it means except that he is the ultimate in "bad politician".

As such it is a useless analogy.

The same rant could be better argued without resorting to using the Hitler analogy. It is sloppy journallism/commentary.

NCB · 03-09-2005, 12:47 PM

Quote:

Greg Thompson is a bonafide and well known journalist

Former journalist. Practicing journalist aren't supposed to pass judgements like these:

Quote:

I have to laugh whenever these conservative crybabies start whining about the “bias” of the media. Most of these clowns wouldn’t know good journalism if it walked up and bit them in the balls

Classy

Quote:

Sorry, but those who stand up against tyranny are the true patriots and that includes tyranny at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue

Wow, what a hero

. BTW, you wanna know what tyranny is? Ask me about my days in the Saudi desert outside of this little shithole known as al-Batin back during DS

Quote:

Republicans are little more than Fascists

When thinking gets too hard, revert back to the Hitler/Nazi thing.

I could go on, but you get my point. This guy is as much a journalist as Rush Limbaugh or Al Franken. They're commentators. Perhaps he was a journalist at one point, but that ceased when he began passing his judgements

Superbelt · 03-09-2005, 12:48 PM

He, and everyone, really needs to stay away from invoking Nazi's and Hitler.
There's an old USENET axiom called Godwin's Law. That: "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one." Additionally, those who have resorted to this comparison have generally lost their debate.

We can make our arguments well without doing that.

Seaver · 03-09-2005, 01:17 PM

"I dont know why the majority of America supports Bush and ignores what we tell them to think... I know... Bush = Hitler!"

Well at least they posted the comic right there, so I didnt have to waste my time reading it.

Quote:

If Thompson is right, is the risk that waiting until "later" to state his views as he did yesterday, might be too risky because of new government restrictions on dissent or because of the risks of government or politically influenced economic or law enforcement/intelligence agency pressures or reprisals?

Now THAT is premature. I dislike the Patriot Act as much as anyone else, but suggesting the government will step in and prevent him from writing?

1) Either he, or you, have FAR overestimated his influence
2) Both of you need to put on your tin foil hats.

guy44 · 03-09-2005, 01:22 PM

OK, I'm a big goddam bleedingheart lefty, and I can't stand pretty much 100% of what Bush has done.

But please, let us not compare him with Hitler. Bush has been a terrible, dreadful president.

Hitler was...well, Hitler.

Or, to put in another way, Hitler < Bush.

host · 03-10-2005, 12:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Seaver

Now THAT is premature. I dislike the Patriot Act as much as anyone else, but suggesting the government will step in and prevent him from writing?

1) Either he, or you, have FAR overestimated his influence
2) Both of you need to put on your tin foil hats.

Seaver, recently.......we've come as close to having that very
thing happen, as I ever want to see us get to:

Quote:

(Quote is near the bottom) - <a href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/09/20010926-5.html">http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/09/20010926-5.html</a>
Q As Commander-In-Chief, what was the President's reaction to television's Bill Maher, in his announcement that members of our Armed Forces who deal with missiles are cowards, while the armed terrorists who killed 6,000 unarmed are not cowards, for which Maher was briefly moved off a Washington television station?

MR. FLEISCHER: I have not discussed it with the President, one. I have --

Q Surely, as a --

MR. FLEISCHER: I'm getting there.

Q Surely as Commander, he was enraged at that, wasn't he?

MR. FLEISCHER: I'm getting there, Les.

Q Okay.

MR. FLEISCHER: I'm aware of the press reports about what he said. I have not seen the actual transcript of the show itself. But assuming the press reports are right, it's a terrible thing to say, and it unfortunate. And that's why -- there was an earlier question about has the President said anything to people in his own party -- they're reminders to all Americans that they need to watch what they say, watch what they do. This is not a time for remarks like that; there never is.

Quote:

<a href="http://www.charlotte.com/mld/observer/news/editorial/11064325.htm">http://www.charlotte.com/mld/observer/news/editorial/11064325.htm</a>
.............Sen. Robert Byrd, D-W.V., a noted parliamentary historian, accused the Republicans of seeking to "turn the law inside out" and compared their behavior to that of Adolf Hitler, who used "the cloak of legality" for his own evil purposes.

Such intemperate language naturally did not sit well with Republican National committee chairman Ken Mehlman, who called Byrd's remarks "reprehensible beyond the pale."

But in the thrust of his remarks Byrd was eloquent in defense of the filibuster: "The Senate is a place designed, from its inception, as expressive of minority views. ... Without the filibuster ... the president of the United States can simply rule by executive order if his party controls both houses of Congress and majority rule reigns supreme ... the power of dissenting views will be diminished and freedom of speech will be attenuated.".............

Quote:

<a href="http://www.supremelaw.org/sls/email/box048/msg04833.htm">http://www.supremelaw.org/sls/email/box048/msg04833.htm</a>
>> In 1982, President Ronald Reagan issued National Security Directive
>>58 which empowered Robert McFarlane and Oliver North to use the National
>>Security Council to secretly retrofit FEMA (Federal Emergency Management
>>Agency) to manage the country during a national crisis. The 1984 "REX
>>exercises" simulated civil unrest culminating in a national emergency
>>with a contingency plan for the imprisonment of 400,000 people. REX 84
>>was so secretive that special metal security doors were installed on the
>>FEMA building's fifth floor, and even long-term officials of the Civil
>>Defense Office were prohibited entry. The ostensible purpose of this
>>exercise was to handle an influx of refugees created by a war in Central
>>America, but a more realistic scenario was the detention of American
>>citizens.
>>
>>STATE OF EMERGENCY
>>
>>
>> Under "REX" the President could declare a state of emergency,
>>empowering the head of FEMA to take control of the internal
>>infrastructure of the United States and suspend the constitution. The
>>President could invoke executive orders 11000 thru 11004 which would: 1-
>>Draft all citizens into work forces under government supervision. 2-
>>Empower the postmaster to register all men, women and children. 3- Seize
>>all airports and aircraft. 4- Seize all housing and establish forced
>>relocation of citizens.
>>
>> FEMA, whose black budget comes from the Department of Defense, has
>>worked closely with the Pentagon in an effort to avoid the legal
>>restrictions of Posse Comitatus. While FEMA may not have been directly
>>responsible for these precedent-setting cases, the principle of federal
>>control was seen during the Los Angeles riots in 1992 with the
>>federalization of the National Guard and during the siege at Waco, where
>>Army tanks equipped with flame throwers were involved in the final
>>conflagration.
>>
>>GOVERNMENT VIOLENCE IS "LEGITIMATE"?
>>
>>
>> The Deputy Attorney General of California commented at a conference
>>that anyone who attacks the State, even verbally, becomes a
>>revolutionary and an enemy by definition.</a> Louis Guiffreda, who was head
>>of FEMA, stated that "legitimate violence is integral to our form of
>>government, for it is from this source that we can continue to purge our
>>weaknesses."

Quote:

<a href="http://slate.msn.com/id/2114506/">http://slate.msn.com/id/2114506/</a>
Patriot Games
Spinning the invalidation of the government's spy laws.
By Robert Poe
Posted Tuesday, March 8, 2005, at 2:11 PM PT

In a case in which a federal judge found a key provision of the Patriot Act unconstitutional last year, the government insisted on blacking out from legal papers the phrase "the [still redacted] NSL violates the First, Fourth and Fifth Amendments."

And that's just one of the details the ACLU released today, about government attempts to cloak in secrecy the lawsuit that led to the invalidation, last September, of the National Security Letters provision of the USA Patriot Act. NSLs allow the FBI to demand sensitive customer records from providers of electronic communication services and other businesses without judicial oversight, and they do so under guidelines so broad that critics have said they amount to blanket permission to spy on innocent Americans. After the NSL provision was deemed unconstitutional, the Justice Department appealed the decision in late December.

These redactions were the legal equivalent of trying to contain an explosion while it is still happening. The explosion was the lawsuit itself—which exposed for the first time the operation of a law meant to function in complete darkness. The entire process also demonstrated an immutable law of democracy: If you keep squeezing more and more secrecy into a limited space, it will eventually reach critical mass and blow up in your face. The overturned law contained such strict secrecy rules that it effectively cut citizens off from each other and from judicial recourse, which was the main reason the judge declared the law unconstitutional. ..............................

It all started sometime before April of last year, when the FBI sent a National Security Letter to an Internet service provider, similar to hundreds of similar letters apparently sent to other electronic communication service providers following the passage of the Patriot Act in October 2001. The letter instructed the ISP to turn over to the FBI certain information, which still remains secret but apparently included some sort of customer records. The letter "further advised" the ISP that the law prohibited him or anyone working for him from disclosing even the existence of the letter itself to "any person."

If that letter meant what it said—and it would take a bold soul to bet it didn't—even talking to an attorney could have meant going directly to jail. Additionally, and though a non-lawyer might not have known it, the law allows the FBI to send these letters without the prior approval of a judge or anyone but an FBI "Special Agent in Charge" in a field office. In short, there was no way for a judge to decide the merits of these letters either before or after they were sent. Meaning there could never be a constitutional challenge to the letters, nor to the law that authorized them. ..............................

The FBI, free of any need for a judge's OK, could conceivably issue NSLs in at least three ways: in accordance with the new, looser rules; in accordance with the older, more restrictive rules; or in violation, intentional or not, of any and all rules. It's also conceivable that at least some of the resulting NSLs could violate the constitutional rights of citizens. For example, Judge Marrero himself noted that the FBI could theoretically use an NSL to demand that a political campaign turn over the names of everyone with an e-mail address through the campaign's computer system, or to discern the identity of the author of an anonymous blog critical of government. Previous decisions, he observed, have established such constitutional rights as anonymous association and speech.

Ultimately, Judge Marrero had no need to decide whether any given type of NSL violated any specific constitutional rights of individuals, nor did he need to gauge the honesty of the FBI. All he needed to know was that such violation was possible and that the secrecy provisions built into the law meant there was no way to have a future judge probe any such question about any NSL. That lack of recourse made the entire law unconstitutional in his view.

Marrero ruled that NSLs, at the time of the lawsuit, presented a serious enough threat to citizens' constitutional rights that the lack of access to judicial review was a fatal flaw. That means those who want to claim that the ruling had nothing to do with the Patriot Act have their work cut out for them. To make their case, they have to penetrate the mind of the judge and discern that he would have made the same decision about pre-Patriot Act NSLs that he did about post-Patriot Act ones. And that would be a hard sell, given that the earlier NSLs carefully targeted only spies and terrorists.

In one sense, it doesn't matter whether the public believes the decision overturned a part of the Patriot Act or part of the ECPA. The practical effect, if the ruling is upheld on appeal, will be that the government no longer has these vastly expanded powers of surveillance over ordinary American citizens it received under the Patriot Act. In fact, it will have lost the powerful NSL tool itself, unless lawmakers introduce new legislation to reinstate such powers.

But that's where, in another sense, it does matter what ordinary people think happened in that New York court. If the ruling signals that judges may have serious doubts about the constitutionality of the Patriot Act, at least in terms of government surveillance of citizens, writers of future such legislation will tread cautiously. If the ruling seems merely about the flaws of an older, relatively innocuous law, they'll be bolder. And any unwarranted boldness, even if later corrected in court, can do a lot of damage in the meantime.

If Judge Marrero's ruling is overturned on appeal, of course, this boldness is warranted. Either way, the renewal of the sections of the Patriot Act due to sunset this year could hinge on the outcome of this appeal, and on the spin campaign that accompanies it.

Seaver, did you know that facism is:

Quote:

<a href="http://www.couplescompany.com/Features/Politics/Structure3.htm">http://www.couplescompany.com/Features/Politics/Structure3.htm</a>
An interesting note to end this article: As of January 2004, the United States fulfills all fourteen points of fascism and all seven warning signs are present. But we're not alone. Israel also fulfills all fourteen points and all seven warning signs as well. Welcome to the new republic, redefined, revised and spun. It is not too late to reverse this in either country, but it will be soon. The first step is realizing it. The second step is getting involved. As the propaganda slogan disguising our current war goes, "Freedom isn't free." But our war for freedom isn't abroad; it's here at home.

retsuki03 · 03-10-2005, 12:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by host

Thompson has a reputation for being an accomplished journalist.
Among many points that he makes, is that mainstream media is
owned almost exclusively by huge corporations, such as GE.
GE holds $3 billion in contract work relating mostly to the rebuilding of Iraq. Can GE owned "news" enterprises like MSNBC,
NBC, and CNBC, report objectively on the situtation surrounding
Iraq and the war without compromising stockholder interests?

I think competition in the news world between CBS, NBC, ABC, FOX, BBC, Al-jazeera, print, and internet news suggest that MSNBC will have to keep pretty much in line, or the other news outlets will nail them.

Quote:

Originally Posted by host

If you believe that Thompson is premature in levying such strong criticism on Bush, what would have to happen before you would be more likely to think that Thompson's criticism is timely?

Now is fine. Later is fine. People are free to criticize the president whenever they want.

Quote:

Originally Posted by host

Would a mainstream press, unfettered as Thompson's publication is from conflicting economic and political influences, be more similar in the editorializing of it's opinions
of Bush and his administration, to Thompson's opinions,
than it obviously seems to be at present?

I think Thompson is probably overdoing it a bit, but if you read Krugman, I wouldn't say he is far off. I would say Krugman at writes with a less "world is gonna end!!!" tone and tries to sound more intellectual as not to alienate his readers. Thompson (seems to) write strictly to a left wing audience, and caters to them very well.

Quote:

Originally Posted by host

If Thompson is right, is the risk that waiting until "later" to state his views as he did yesterday, might be too risky because of new government restrictions on dissent or because of the risks of government or politically influenced economic or law enforcement/intelligence agency pressures or reprisals?

Honestly, I don't have any idea what your asking here.

Also to willravel from another fan of TJ:
He also said, "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."

host · 03-10-2005, 01:08 AM

Quote:

<a href="http://www.couplescompany.com/Features/Politics/Structure3.htm">http://www.couplescompany.com/Features/Politics/Structure3.htm</a>
The 14 Defining
Characteristics Of Fascism
by Dr. Lawrence Britt

Dr. Lawrence Britt has examined the fascist regimes of Hitler (Germany), Mussolini (Italy), Franco (Spain), Suharto (Indonesia) and several Latin American regimes. Britt found 14-defining characteristics common to each:

4. Supremacy of the Military -
Even when there are widespread domestic problems, the military is given a disproportionate amount of government funding, and the domestic agenda is neglected. Soldiers and military service are glamorized. TOP

Here are some recent evidence in the news of "defining characteristic " #4..........

Quote:

<a href="http://www.sptimes.com/2005/03/09/Tampabay/Military_news_program.shtml">http://www.sptimes.com/2005/03/09/Tampabay/Military_news_program.shtml</a>
Military news programs secure a public outlet

Tampa Bay area government access channels air Defense Department programming that also goes to military bases and features anchors in uniform.

By CANDACE RONDEAUX, Times Staff Writer
Published March 9, 2005

How's this for a niche network - a TV audience of 2.6-million, all dressed in fatigues.

The Pentagon Channel has been a favorite with the troops for years. But these days you don't need a crew cut to watch it. All you need to do is tune in to Pinellas County's Channel 18 at 5:30 p.m. six days a week.

The Pentagon Channel's 24-hour news programming was originally aimed at American troops. But the U.S. Department of Defense recently has enlisted public and government access cable channels to help spread its message, including Channel 18. The county-run cable channel began running two half-hour Pentagon Channel programs, Army Newswatch and Focus on the Force, in January.

"The Pentagon programs are fresh and are new, and they give us a chance to fill that slot while we work on developing new in-house programs," said county communications director Marcia Crawley.

Defense Department satellite feeds also are aired on Hillsborough County government's Channel 22 and Tampa's city government channel CCTV.

Army Newswatch, produced in Washington, D.C., and Focus on the Force, produced in Germany, are part of a roster of 24 such shows produced by the Pentagon and beamed around the world via satellite.

Before it was launched in May, the C-SPAN-style network for the military was originally broadcast on closed-circuit Defense Department television. With an operating budget of $6-million for the 2004-05 fiscal year, the Pentagon Channel reaches 136 American military bases in 177 countries around the world. In operation less than a year, the channel began streaming its programming to its Web site, www.pentagonchannel.mil 24 hours a day, and it is now distributed by 10 companies, including TimeWarner and Knology, to the general public.

Last month, the Defense Department network expanded its reach considerably after EchoStar Communications Corp. agreed to offer the Pentagon Channel to Dish Network's satellite television subscribers for free, bringing the channel's total general viewership to about 11.6-million, Pentagon officials said.

The Pentagon Channel has the look and feel of CNN, except the news anchors are sometimes in uniform. The programs shown on Channel 18 and others on the Pentagon Channel cover everything from the latest changes in benefits for National Guard and Reserve members to updates on American military missions around the world...............

........................... Pentagon Channel programs cover a wide range of issues, but you're not likely to see much coverage of controversial military topics such as the Abu Ghraib prison abuse scandal or the secret military tribunals of detainees held at Guantanamo Bay. And that, some media analysts say, could be problematic.

"There's nothing wrong with the military bringing this onto the base," said Robert Snyder, director of Rutgers University-Newark's journalism and media Studies program in New Jersey. "But broadcasting Pentagon programs on a public access cable channel is basically going to be the equivalent of a public relations channel intruding into the public sphere. They shouldn't be broadcast and published out into the general world as if they were an independent source of journalism."................

Too tame or inconsequential to use the above as an example?
How about this ??

Quote:

<a href="http://www.army.mil/usapa/epubs/pdf/r210_35.pdf">http://www.army.mil/usapa/epubs/pdf/r210_35.pdf</a>
Army Regulation 210–35
Installations
Civilian Inmate
Labor Program

SUMMARY of CHANGE
AR 210–35
Civilian Inmate Labor Program
This rapid action revision dated 14 January 2005--
o Assigns responsibilities to Headquarters, Installation Management Agency
(para 1-4j).
o Makes administrative and editorial changes (throughout).
This new regulation dated 9 December 1997
o Provides Army policy and guidance for establishing civilian inmate labor
programs and civilian prison camps on Army installations.
o Discusses sources of Federal and State civilian inmate labor.

Headquarters
Department of the Army
Washington, DC
14 January 2005
Installations
Civilian Inmate Labor Program
*Army Regulation 210–35

Effective 14 February 2005

History. This publication is a rapid action
r e v i s i o n . T h e p o r t i o n s a f f e c t e d b y t h i s
r a p i d a c t i o n r e v i s i o n a r e l i s t e d i n t h e
summary of change.
S u m m a r y . T h i s r e g u l a t i o n p r o v i d e s
guidance for establishing and managing
civilian inmate labor programs on Army
installations. It provides guidance on establishing
prison camps on Army installat
i o n s . I t a d d r e s s e s r e c o r d k e e p i n g a n d
reporting incidents related to the Civilian
Inmate Labor Program and/or prison camp
administration.
Applicability. This regulation applies to
t h e A c t i v e A r m y , t h e A r m y N a t i o n a l
Guard of the United States, and the U.S.
A r m y R e s e r v e u n l e s s o t h e r w i s e s t a t e d .
During mobilization, the Assistant Chief
of Staff for Installation Management may
modify chapters and policies contained in
this regulation.

Quote:

<a href="http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2002/07/27/1027497418339.html?oneclick=true">http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2002/07/27/1027497418339.html?oneclick=true</a>
Foundations are in place for martial law in the US

By Ritt Goldstein
July 27 2002

Recent pronouncements from the Bush Administration and national security initiatives put in place in the Reagan era could see internment camps and martial law in the United States.............

............... On July 20 the Detroit Free Press ran a story entitled "Arabs in US could be held, official warns". The story referred to a member of the US Civil Rights Commission who foresaw the possibility of internment camps for Arab Americans. FEMA has practised for such an occasion.

FEMA, whose main role is disaster response, is also responsible for handling US domestic unrest.

From 1982-84 Colonel Oliver North assisted FEMA in drafting its civil defence preparations. Details of these plans emerged during the 1987 Iran-Contra scandal.

They included executive orders providing for suspension of the constitution, the imposition of martial law, internment camps, and the turning over of government to the president and FEMA.

A Miami Herald article on July 5, 1987, reported that the former FEMA director Louis Guiffrida's deputy, John Brinkerhoff, handled the martial law portion of the planning. The plan was said to be similar to one Mr Giuffrida had developed earlier to combat "a national uprising by black militants". It provided for the detention "of at least 21million American Negroes"' in "assembly centres or relocation camps"..................

.............. The preface to the article also provided the revelation that the national plan he had worked on, under Mr Giuffrida, was "approved by Reagan, and actions were taken to implement it".

By April, the US military had created a Northern Command to aid Homeland defence. Reuters reported that the command is "mainly expected to play a supporting role to local authorities".

However, Mr Ridge, the Director of Homeland Security, has just advocated a review of US law regarding the use of the military for law enforcement duties.

Disturbingly, the full facts and final contents of Mr Reagan's national plan remain uncertain. This is in part because President Bush took the unusual step of sealing the Reagan presidential papers last November. However, many of the key figures of the Reagan era are part of the present administration, including John Poindexter, to whom Oliver North later reported.

"Tin foil hats", Seaver?

03-09-2005, 11:54 AM	#1 (permalink)
host Banned	Is Founder and Publisher of Captol Hill Blue, Doug Thompson, Criticism Premature? Link to Thompson's editorial critical of Bush; <a href="http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/article_6363.shtml">http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/article_6363.shtml</a> Thompson has a reputation for being an accomplished journalist. Among many points that he makes, is that mainstream media is owned almost exclusively by huge corporations, such as GE. GE holds $3 billion in contract work relating mostly to the rebuilding of Iraq. Can GE owned "news" enterprises like MSNBC, NBC, and CNBC, report objectively on the situtation surrounding Iraq and the war without compromising stockholder interests? If you believe that Thompson is premature in levying such strong criticism on Bush, what would have to happen before you would be more likely to think that Thompson's criticism is timely? Would a mainstream press, unfettered as Thompson's publication is from conflicting economic and political influences, be more similar in the editorializing of it's opinions of Bush and his administration, to Thompson's opinions, than it obviously seems to be at present? If Thompson is right, is the risk that waiting until "later" to state his views as he did yesterday, might be too risky because of new government restrictions on dissent or because of the risks of government or politically influenced economic or law enforcement/intelligence agency pressures or reprisals?

03-09-2005, 12:41 PM	#5 (permalink)
Charlatan Getting it. Super Moderator Location: Lion City	The problem with rants like these is that using the name Hitler to describe a politician today brings too much baggage (intended or otherwise). Most people when they hear Hitler have no idea what it means except that he is the ultimate in "bad politician". As such it is a useless analogy. The same rant could be better argued without resorting to using the Hitler analogy. It is sloppy journallism/commentary. __________________ "My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars." - Old Man Luedecke

03-09-2005, 01:22 PM	#9 (permalink)
guy44 Somnabulist Location: corner of No and Where	OK, I'm a big goddam bleedingheart lefty, and I can't stand pretty much 100% of what Bush has done. But please, let us not compare him with Hitler. Bush has been a terrible, dreadful president. Hitler was...well, Hitler. Or, to put in another way, Hitler < Bush. __________________ "You have reached Ritual Sacrifice. For goats press one, or say 'goats.'"

03-09-2005, 12:33 PM	#4 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	When I tell my daughter and grandchildren about this someday, I want to be able to say "I was on the side of right". It is obvious that there are two sides to this no matter which side you're on. There is one side, the side of Doug Thompson for example, that believes that becaue G. W. Bush's actions mirror those of Hitler before and during the establishment of the Nazi party that G. W. may be as much of a threat to the free world as Hitler. We see that his decisions have resulted in the deaths of many American soldiers, MANY Iraqi and Arab people, and the alienating and segregating of Arab peoples. His administration is responsible for the loss of civil liberties and the promotion of "Christian" beliefs which run hand in hand with racism and segregation. There is another side that believes that G. W. Bush has America's best interest in mind and that all the terrorist talk and action is about protecting American's from a clear and present danger from radical terrorist groups. They see all the liberals as un-American and cowardly. The problem? No one wants to budge on their position. The polarization has resluted in a stuborness the likes of which I've never whitnessed in my life. Either way, there are scarey things going on and the key to fixing our problems is not divergence from one another, but convergence. United we stand, divided we FALL. So who here, by a show of hands, wantys America to fall? No one? That's what I thought. Thomas Jefferson once said: "The price of freedom is eternal vigilance". This quote has always resonated in me, as I know that diverging and becoming apathetic and lethargic will result in the death of freedom. In order to preserve true American freedom, we the people of the United States need to be able to come together and speak openly and LISTEN to one another. Some of the things we hear may hurt, but that is the price of freedom. I get really pissed when I hear someone say that G.W. Bush has helped to stop terrorism, because I know that global terrorism has steadily been on the rise since 9/11 and also since the invasion of Iraq. I know because I choose to be informed. I know I really piss people off when I say that G.W. is a selfish fool because he is killing so many innocent people based on lies. Do I know he was lying? No, I honestly don’t. He may have been misinformed by people who were given bad intelligence, and he based his decision on bad information, just as he said. Is G.W. Bush a threat to freedom? I don’t know. Is G.W. Bush the next Hitler? I don’t know. Does this deserve open minded intestigation and discussion? Absolutely. That being said, I hope everyone can do their patriotic responsibility and keep an open mind and be eternally vigelant in rpeserving Freedom, Democracy, and morality. Sorry for the rant. In direct response to the above post: Thompson is a respected journalist, and I hope that this article will be taken seriously by at least some people. The comparisons stand up and the reality is seriously frigtening. We should fix this now before it could too late. Do you really want to risk the freedom of our children based on your assumption that our government is always right? What if you’re wrong?

03-09-2005, 12:48 PM	#7 (permalink)
Superbelt This vexes me. I am terribly vexed. Location: Grantville, Pa	He, and everyone, really needs to stay away from invoking Nazi's and Hitler. There's an old USENET axiom called Godwin's Law. That: "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one." Additionally, those who have resorted to this comparison have generally lost their debate. We can make our arguments well without doing that.