Should the Patriot Act be renewed?

[maestrowork]

Discuss.

[BradyH1861]

Not only no, but hell no.

Brady H.

[sgtsdaughter]

Not only no, but hell no.

Brady H.

I concur . . . whole heartedly!!!!!!

[SRHowen]

Not only no, but hell no.

Brady H.

Took the words right out of my mouth--cept--

HELL FREAKING NO!

[astonwest]

Yes.



No reason...just being difficult...

[BradyH1861]

Yes.



No reason...just being difficult...

LOL! Dissent is a good thing!

That reminds me of something else my dad used to say (I'm not sure where he got it from), but he said "Sometimes, you just have to piss in the soup."

Daddy is the king of playing devil's advocate.

Brady H.

[astonwest]

LOL! Dissent is a good thing!

It's hard to have a discussion without both sides...otherwise, you just have a rally...

[Fractured_Chaos]

No. No. No. No. No.

Did I say no? I meant no.

[BradyH1861]

It's hard to have a discussion without both sides...otherwise, you just have a rally...

Indeed....complete with signs, music, chanting....

and police with batons...

Brady H.

[DaveKuzminski]

No. The world doesn't need another Crystal Night.

[robeiae]

What an excellent discussion...good points raised as to why it shouldn't be renewed. Why not just take a poll...that's the best way to make policy.

Rob :)

(Who's the king...)

[sgtsdaughter]

Indeed....complete with signs, music, chanting....

and police with batons...

Brady H.

Done a bit of protesting over the past few years. I always get a kick out of the batons and riot gear . . . several photos of the cops like that. And the metal barricades--those always strike me as cattle herding. :D

[astonwest]

...and police with batons...

I think they might be using tazers now...

[mommie4a]

Should the Patriot Act be renewed?

This is a trick question, right?

[BradyH1861]

I think they might be using tazers now...

Indeed...the non lethal (right....) weapon of choice. Had the pleasure of getting zapped by one in the academy. I think I'd rather the baton.

Luckily our PD hasn't tazed any young children like other departments have, but those days are fast approaching.

Anyway, I am actually tempted to list all of reasons for opposing said act, but I don't have all night to work on it. :Shrug:

Brady H.

[VOTE_BOT]

How about just one of them?

[BradyH1861]

How about just one of them?

Okay, fair enough.

I think it is kind of ironic that, according to our fearless leader, it is our mission to spread liberty and freedom around the world, but to do so, we must give up our freedoms here.

Please don't take that statement as a Bush or Republican bash. I dislike the Democratic Party as well. (they too voted to authorize the act) We are ruled (not governed) by Republicrats and Demicans, if I may quote Michael Savage.

I am not a Savage fan per se, but I enjoy listening to him for the entertainment factor, not because I agree with his politics....which can be scary at times.

Anyway, I could go on, but I said I would leave it at one reason. You know, my dad once saw my ACLU membership paperwork and called me a Pinko. I didn't think people used that word anymore!

Brady H.
(guess what party I belong to...)

[VOTE_BOT]

(guess what party I belong to...)

At first glance, I would say Libertarian, though, with the ACLU thing, DSP is possible.

When I asked for one reason, I was hoping you'd be more specific. I think most of the objections to the Patriot Act can in some way be tied to a fear of diminished freedom.

[BradyH1861]

At first glance, I would say Libertarian, though, with the ACLU thing, DSP is possible.

When I asked for one reason, I was hoping you'd be more specific. I think most of the objections to the Patriot Act can in some way be tied to a fear of diminished freedom.

You are correct Mr. Bot. I am a Libertarian...I even have a card that says so! Granted, I do not "toe the party line" on every issue.

I'd be happy to give you something more specific. Diminished freedom is, as you said, probably the big reason that people oppose it. There are many nuances to that, of course. Naturally I oppose it strictly on the merits. Our rights are inalienable (ie: they come from our Creator) therefore the government cannot take them away...they did not give them, they cannot take them.

But I'll give you something more concrete. And something probably everyone on the board can possibly identify to. There is a provision which allows the FBI to access library records without a warrant. Let's say that I am doing some research for something I am writing. I check out a book which deals with, I don't know, bombmaking. (assume one of my characters is a terrorist) Okay, the FBI decides to pull a list of those who have checked out "How to Make a Bomb" by Billy Bang. My name is on the list. They now think I am up to no good. So they get a warrant (without having to go before a magistrate...under the act) and they can now search my house. Or, they can detain me without charging me with anything since I am a "terror" suspect. And it goes on from there.

Anyway, I hope that illuminates my stance a little bit. I'm not trying to be secretive or anything, I'm actually having to hold myself back. I don't want to write a lengthy denunciation of the act this close to bedtime.

Brady H.

[VOTE_BOT]

Thank you for elaborating. I, too, am a Libertarian.

I suspected what you might list (accessing library records without a warrant), as it's my biggest objection as well.

There are a number of Fourth Amendment issues at stake.

You're absolutely right about the oligarchy, by the way.

Anyway, back to botting.

[BradyH1861]

Glad to hear it Mr. Bot! When I was in grad school, I focused on 19th Century Urban History (development of police and fire protection specifically) and my minor field was Constitutional History. I wrote (in my opinion) a wonderful seminar paper on original intent and the Fourth Amendment.

Allow me to quote James Madison, Father of the Constitution:

"Do not separate text from historical background. If you do, you will have perverted and subverted the Constitution, which can only end in a distorted, bastardized form of illegitimate government."
Brady H.

[Liam Jackson]

I think if you poll most of the local cops in your area on the QT, you'll find they hold the Patriot Act in contempt. *wink*

[BradyH1861]

I think if you poll most of the local cops in your area on the QT, you'll find they hold the Patriot Act in contempt. *wink*

Possibly, though I think most of ours haven't heard of it yet. :Clap:

In fact, I think they only learned about the Miranda decision last week....

Brady H.

(just kidding...our PD is a great group of guys and gals)

[Optimus]

Wait, so your main objection is the fact that the government can, without a warrant, find out if you've been checking out, "Solo Kama Sutra" again?

C'mon, there's SO much more about the PA to be pissed about.

Like...

"SEC. 213. AUTHORITY FOR DELAYING NOTICE OF THE EXECUTION OF A WARRANT."

"SEC. 802. DEFINITION OF DOMESTIC TERRORISM.


(a) DOMESTIC TERRORISM DEFINED- Section 2331 of title 18, United States Code, is amended--





(5) the term `domestic terrorism' means activities that--





`(A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State;






`(B) appear to be intended--







`(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;








`(ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or








`(iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and







`(C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States.'."







So...can a Jesse Jackson rally be defined as "terrorism" if he pisses off enough people in that district?

[DaveKuzminski]

"SEC. 213. AUTHORITY FOR DELAYING NOTICE OF THE EXECUTION OF A WARRANT."

"SEC. 802. DEFINITION OF DOMESTIC TERRORISM.


(a) DOMESTIC TERRORISM DEFINED- Section 2331 of title 18, United States Code, is amended--



(5) the term `domestic terrorism' means activities that--






`(B) appear to be intended--








`(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;








`(C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States.'."



Hmmm, under those provisions, Larry, Willem, and Miranda could qualify. ;)

[robeiae]

I wrote (in my opinion) a wonderful seminar paper on original intent and the Fourth Amendment.

Allow me to quote James Madison, Father of the Constitution:

"Do not separate text from historical background. If you do, you will have perverted and subverted the Constitution, which can only end in a distorted, bastardized form of illegitimate government."
Brady H.
I'm very big on intent; unfortunately, far too many judges don't seem to understand the concept. Speaking of intent and Madison, you know, of course, that he would have preferred there to be no Bill of Rights, though his public opposition was not as pronounced as Hamilton's.

Your quote from Madison is excellent, I think, and it brings up an important issue: namely, what is freedom? What was it to Madison, et al? When we say the PA diminishes freedom, what does this really mean?

To Locke, freedom meant "hav[ing] a standing rule to live by, common to everyone of that society, and made by the legislative power erected in it." Rousseau believed that under a legitimate democratic government, some citizens "shall be forced to be free." Their (Locke and Rousseau's) antogonist, Thomas Hobbes, claimed "Freedom, signifieth, properly the absence of opposition; by opposition, I mean external impediments of motion."

Are any of these consistent with what freedom meant to Madison? To Jefferson? To Adams? To most people today? To you? Love to hear your responses...

Rob :)

[BradyH1861]

Wait, so your main objection is the fact that the government can, without a warrant, find out if you've been checking out, "Solo Kama Sutra" again?

C'mon, there's SO much more about the PA to be pissed about.






Read my posts again. I said that I was holding back and that I had lots of objections. I gave the one that I thought that most people on the board could relate to. But I said more than once that I had many objections.

It's just that most of them are probably the same that everyone else has.

And, by the way, I do not need to check out any copies of Solo Kama Sutra.

I already own my own copy!

Brady H.

[VOTE_BOT]

Wait, so your main objection is the fact that the government can, without a warrant, find out if you've been checking out, "Solo Kama Sutra" again?

This is just silly, to reduce this one facet to something so trivial. The tracking of reading materials is far more insidious than finding out who's peeping at "Solo Kama Sutra".

As Brady pointed out, this is one that should be of grave concern to writers, so it was not at all unreasonable that it would be the one put forth on these boards.

[BradyH1861]

I'm very big on intent; unfortunately, far too many judges don't seem to understand the concept. Speaking of intent and Madison, you know, of course, that he would have preferred there to be no Bill of Rights, though his public opposition was not as pronounced as Hamilton's.

Your quote from Madison is excellent, I think, and it brings up an important issue: namely, what is freedom? What was it to Madison, et al? When we say the PA diminishes freedom, what does this really mean?

To Locke, freedom meant "hav[ing] a standing rule to live by, common to everyone of that society, and made by the legislative power erected in it." Rousseau believed that under a legitimate democratic government, some citizens "shall be forced to be free." Their (Locke and Rousseau's) antogonist, Thomas Hobbes, claimed "Freedom, signifieth, properly the absence of opposition; by opposition, I mean external impediments of motion."

Are any of these consistent with what freedom meant to Madison? To Jefferson? To Adams? To most people today? To you? Love to hear your responses...

Rob :)

Wow! You get the Brady Award for Deep Question of the Day. I think that Jefferson, Madison, et al, had perhaps a slightly different view on liberty and freedom than we do today. In keeping with the Madison quote (and with the PA discussion), I will give you one example.

We all know that the Fourth Amendment prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures and provides that no warrant shall issue without probable cause, etc. Why was and is this so important?

Brady's History Lesson of the Day:

The crown introduced a few things into the colonies that go people very angry during the mid 1700s. One such thing was the Writ of Assistance. This was a general customs warrant which allowed any officer of the crown to go anywhere and search anything or anyone for stolen goods. Notice that the 4th A. requires that a warrant specficially detail the place to be searched and the things to be seized.

In a court case arising out of a seizure made under a Writ of Assistance, Attorney James Otis said "There is a point beyond which, if Parliament goes, their acts bind not." That was in 1755 (I think...)

Fast forward thirty years. As our Founders debated the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, these Crown abuses were fresh in their minds. They wanted a system whereby people could not be arrested and searched merely on the hunch of a state agent. To them, freedom was something that they had just fought the world's most powerful nation for. Not something they read about in history books. They took nothing for granted.

Now, the Courts (with a faulty understanding of history) have created all sorts of exceptions to the Fourth Amendment which were never intended to be there. All because did not pay heed to Madison's warning.

So what does the Patriot Act diminishing freedom actually mean? Well, in my opinion, humble as it may be, I think it goes against everything this country was founded for. It is a blatant attempt to usurp (my word of the day) our liberties. As I said in an earlier post, our Founders were quite clear on the fact that the government did not grant us our rights and they could not therefore, take them away. Not to mention the fact that although it was intended to combat the threat of terrorism, the Feds apparently admit that they are using it for other purposes as well.

In conclusion, I think that Franklin probably said the strongest anti-Patriot act argument when he said the quote that I have below in my signature line.

Well, Rob, I hope that my lengthy pontification addressed some of the wonderful questions you raised. Thanks for your post, and I'm sorry I went so long.

Brady H.

[Fractured_Chaos]

They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.

FBI asked WA Library for list of Osama readers (http://www.speakspeak.org/speak-blog/index.php?p=613)



Power Corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely

Does the Real ID act contain a Constitution-busting Trojan horse? (http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20050509-4886.html)



This is just an example of what to expect as time goes on. -IF- the PA is reauthorized, and the Sunset clause is deleted.

[BradyH1861]

Thanks for the links!

Smokey the Bear says...

"Only you can prevent Constitutional usurpation."

Brady H.

[robeiae]

As our Founders debated the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, these Crown abuses were fresh in their minds. They wanted a system whereby people could not be arrested and searched merely on the hunch of a state agent. To them, freedom was something that they had just fought the world's most powerful nation for. Not something they read about in history books. They took nothing for granted.
Your points are well made, but I must disagree somewhat with the above portion, insofar as 1)there was no debate over a "Bill of Rights" when the Con. was drafted. It (the BoR) was a consequnce of the State Conventions, during which many argued against the Con. becuase it had no such enumeration of rights. Madison and others argued that this would be dangerous, since it would allow the federal government to assume other powers that the Con. did not confer to it (they were, of course, right). Nonetheless, the Bill of Rights was promised to the detractors of the Con. if they would vote to ratify it. Madison fulfilled hiis promise by drafting the BoR: it is a product of the demands he heard at the Conventions and the State Constitutions (as such, the correct meaning or intent of each "right" can usually be ascertained by discovering it's root, including the heavily debated Second Amendment). Of course, there are those "other" Amendments that Madison snuck in, but that another story...

And 2), freedom or liberty did have a specific meaning for them and they did read history books. See Pocock, The Machiavellian Moment, for starters. The federalist/anti-federalist literature is rich with references, as well (as I'm sure you know).

So the question still stands: What is freedom? What was it to Madison? What is it to you?

Rob :)

[BradyH1861]

Point well taken. I should have differentiated between where such debates went on. As far as the history goes, indeed, the Founders were well aware of their past. They were jealously protective of their rights under English Common Law. What I was suggesting was that they had a much more concrete idea of what freedom was since they had just gone through the Revolution. I think that today, it exists more as an abstract notion. They lived and breathed it. Naturally they were well versed in all the relevant theories of the era.

Honestly, to me, I think that freedom is the right to be left alone. I don't want the government hand digging through my wallet. I don't want their leering eyes peering into my bedroom and trying to legislate about what goes on therein. I want to be able to speak my mind. I am naive enough to think that the freedom America enjoys allows people to go as far in life as their inner drive and guts will let them. (I know that is naive) Freedom means the ability to pursue life, liberty, and happiness without government intrusion, so long as I am not hurting anyone else. Maybe Madison, et al, felt the same way?

I think a similar question would be "What is America to you?"

What is America to me? The United States is more than a map on a page. It isn't Congress, or the President, or the Supreme Court. It isn't the Constitution. It isn't the Declaration of Independence. The United States of America is the spirit that lives inside each one of us. It is the spirit of all those, over the years, who risked everything to come here, simply because of the promise of something better than they were leaving behind. The spirit that is the U.S.A. stood alongside the farmers turned soldiers who faced down the British Army at Lexington Green. It was with Washington's men that fateful winter at Valley Forge as they suffered through "the times that try men's souls." The spirit hovered over the battlefield outside New Orleans as Andrew Jackson and his men turned back battle hardened British Regulars. It filled the hearts of men on both sides of the Civil War, each fighting for a different dream. It was there as the Irish built the railroad going west, and the Chinese built the railroad going east. It was with our troops as they turned back the forces of Facism and oppression. The spirit watched over Rosa Parks when she refused to give up her seat, and inspired Dr. King as he said "I have a dream." It has gone to the grave with every American who has died fighting for the freedom of people in far off lands. It exists today in the hearts of those who risk their lives so that others might live. The United States of America is not simply hollow words. The spirit that breathes life into those words also fills the hearts of each of us. WE are the United States of America. And freedom is what lives inside us all.

(stepping off the podium)

Brady H.

[Roger J Carlson]

I can think of two 1300 foot towers that might still be standing if there had been a Patriot Act in September, 2001.

Just because nothing like 9/11 has happened since, doesn't mean it the Act isn't needed. In fact, it's likely that the presence of PA has prevented a reoccurance.

[Optimus]

This is just silly, to reduce this one facet to something so trivial. The tracking of reading materials is far more insidious than finding out who's peeping at "Solo Kama Sutra".

As Brady pointed out, this is one that should be of grave concern to writers, so it was not at all unreasonable that it would be the one put forth on these boards.

Indeed it is silly. I suppose the "tongue-in-cheekness" of my post didn't translate well over the internet.

My apologies.


Brady, you can borrow my copy of that book if you want.

[BradyH1861]

I can think of two 1300 foot towers that might still be standing if there had been a Patriot Act in September, 2001.

Just because nothing like 9/11 has happened since, doesn't mean it the Act isn't needed. In fact, it's likely that the presence of PA has prevented a reoccurance.

We didn't need a Patriot Act to prevent that. The Federal intelligence and law enforcement communities should have followed up on leads that they had already received. They have admitted that they made mistakes. The PA would not have stopped 9/11. Proper intelligence sharing and law enforcement would have. And it will not get in the way of another attack.

Besides, if the government is really concerned about saving us from the terrorists, why didn't they pass the PA after the FIRST World Trade Center attack. Or after Oklahoma City? Or after the bombing in Beruit? Or after the rash of airline hijackings in the 70s and 80s?

And no, it has nothing to do with the fact that they "learned their lesson" and decided to act. The PA was a knee jerk reaction to a terrible tragedy. But how do you reconcile the fact that the Bush administration wants us to believe that it is our God given duty to spread liberty around the globe, yet he says to do so, we must give up some of ours.

The PA would not have prevented 9/11 and it will not prevent another strike, whenever and wherever it might come.

Brady H.

[BradyH1861]

Brady, you can borrow my copy of that book if you want.

Thanks!

Brady H.

[tjwriter]

As far as the Patriot Act stopping terrorists, they share something in common with kids in this aspect: If they really want to do something, nothing is going to stop them. They will find a way. Invading my privacy will not prevent them from doing whatever it is they want to do.

[Roger J Carlson]

We didn't need a Patriot Act to prevent that. The Federal intelligence and law enforcement communities should have followed up on leads that they had already received. They have admitted that they made mistakes. The PA would not have stopped 9/11. Proper intelligence sharing and law enforcement would have. And it will not get in the way of another attack.
The whole purpose of the Patriot Act is to beef up intelligence sharing and law enforcement. This is what they've done and are now being demonized for it.

As far as the Patriot Act stopping terrorists, they share something in common with kids in this aspect: If they really want to do something, nothing is going to stop them. They will find a way. Invading my privacy will not prevent them from doing whatever it is they want to do.So we should just lay down and do nothing? After all, nothing we can do can stop them. I'm just glad people in charge of our government don't have that defeatist attitude.

[tjwriter]

Not in the least, Roger. I was simply agreeing with what Brady had said about agencies not following up on lead. But yes, to a certain extent things will happen no matter what we have to done to prevent them. It happens all the time on a smaller scale in every day life. What makes a large event like a terrorist attack exempt from this?

As often happens when a catastrophe happens, people go overboard trying to prevent it from happening again. What is needed is a long, rational look at what really will work and be most effective without being detrimental to our people.

No, I do not believe that the Patriot Act has prevented another attack. The first one accomplished its intended goals: to kill our people and put us in turmoil.

[BradyH1861]

The tools were in place to do the job before 9/11. I agree with you that we must do all we can to prevent another attack. Those of us in the Fire Service are the front line of defense in the event of a domestic attack, not the military. We are the "first responders." (along with police and EMS) My whole outlook on life changed after 9/11. Watching 350 of your firefighter "family" die on television is a serious wake up call. But giving up the liberties that men and women have fought and died for is not the way to go about it.

But here is what I am afraid of, Roger. Today the enemy is terror. What will it be 20 years from now? If the PA becomes permanent, who will they go after next? I really do not think that they will contain themselves to just pursuing terrorists. Actually, they admit that they have used it for other means already. It is a tool that the government will be free to use on ANYONE. Who knows what we will have in the future. Perhaps a president that you cannot stand. Maybe you speak out against them. When you get the early morning knock on your door and are wisked away and locked up without being charged with anything, you might think differently. It isn't what they use it for today that I fear, it is what they will use it for in the future.

And once again, I ask you why, if the administration says we are spreading liberty/democracy/freedom, etc, around the world, are they trying to take it away from us here?

Brady H.

[Roger J Carlson]

No, I do not believe that the Patriot Act has prevented another attack. The first one accomplished its intended goals: to kill our people and put us in turmoil.Do you REALLY think this is the intended goal of our government? Granted people have died -- all volunteers -- and certainly we are in turmoil, but I can't believe that is the purpose for which the act was created. That is a very cynical view of leaders that I simply cannot share.

[tjwriter]

I was referring to the first attack. The first attack accomplished its goals of doing what it has done to America. I believe that another attack has not occurred because the first one is still affecting us. Years later, we are still in turmoil about it, though the effects may not be solidly visible.

[BradyH1861]

I think that TJ was saying the first attack did that to us, not the original PA.

Brady H.

[Roger J Carlson]

(Somehow, my lastest post vanished, so I'll repeat. I hope it doesn't show up too.)
I was referring to the first attack. The first attack accomplished its goals of doing what it has done to America. I believe that another attack has not occurred because the first one is still affecting us. Years later, we are still in turmoil about it, though the effects may not be solidly visible. I see. My apologies. I misread.

Still, you cannot prove that the Patriot Act didn't prevent further terrorism. (I'll further stipulate that I can't prove that it has.) But let me argue by analogy.

Should I give up my heart medicine just because I haven't had a heart attack?

I take a cholesterol lowering drug. I can't prove that it has prevented a heart attack, and I can't prove that it hasn't. It's not without risks, however. This drug could destroy my liver. But I continue to take it because my doctor (who is far more knowledgable than I) thinks I should. I don't blindly take his word, but I still follow his recommendation. We monitor it constantly.

I'm saying we should take the same attitude with the Patriot Act. People in positions of knowledge think we should have it. We should follow that recommendation, but continue to ask for verification.

[BradyH1861]

[QUOTE=Roger J Carlson
People in positions of knowledge think we should have it. [/QUOTE]

Are you referring to Congress? If so, I wasn't aware that being elected to office meant that you were more intelligent than anyone else. A position of power, yes. A position of knowledge, not necessarily.

I agree that you should continue to take your medication.

But once again, I ask you why, if the administration says it is our duty to spread liberty and freedom around the world, do they want us to give up ours here in this country?

Brady H.

[BradyH1861]

And I might further add, belatedly, that the 9/11 attack was not just an attack on America. It was an attack on our ideals and what our country stands for. By tossing aside our Constitution in order to pursue terrorists, we are allowing THEIR ideals to win.

This is not a military struggle. It is a stuggle between two different ideologies. Our military and their bombers are simply the weapons used in the struggle.

Brady H.

[Liam Jackson]

Gentlemen, I contend the pre-911 process did in fact work...right up until it bottle-necked at the mid-managment level. It stalled even further as autocratic bureaucracies (FBI aned CIA) engaged in a turf war. I also contend that elements of the the Patriot Act DO make it easier to gather intelligence and intelligence is the principle weapon. Simply look at the basic tenets and apply them to theoretical criminal pursuits and you get modest results, and even an occasional, "DAMN, look what we found!"

Italy, Spain, France and Portugal have been fighting domestic and international terrorism with degrees of success for years using some of the same methodology now made available by the Patriot Act.

The issue isn't "does this stuff work". At issue is the fine, nearly indistinguisable line between legitimate use and general abuse. You want to see an example on a more mundane scale? Research the "Terry Stop." Does it have a positive effect in combating crime. Sure! Is it easy to abuse? Damn tootin'. The Patriot Act carries significantly more risk of abuse in matters that may or may not have anything to do with Global Terrorism.

I am not happy with the deterioration of Constitutuional rights over a modest improvement in national security. Allow the Patriot Act to expire today, imprision the first fifty bureaucrats who allow inter-agency fueds to impede investigations and endanger national security. That would be a true Patriot Act.

One last matter to consider. I have the data in front of me. It's part of the day job. However, I won't share it just yet. Instead, I propose a bit of research for those interested.
First, determine the square miles of the Continential United States, and the square miles of OCONUS (including Alaska, Hawaii and all our US territories. Next, research the linear miles of US coastline and "hard borders", the number of state, regional, national and international airports. Next, research the number of international seaports, inlcuding the world's ten largest commercial ports. Then, research the linear miles of rail, subway, and tram common carrier routes. Finally, examine the number of hard and soft targets you would exploit, were you a terrorist, within 20 miles of your home. Once you've accumulated and examined the data, please tell me how the US should approach securing the borders. Believe me, we'd like to know.

300 million people in the US, give or take a few million.
2.2 Million cops spread across the local, county, state, and federal levels.

Now consider the following:
DOJ Facts (Bureau of Jail statistics)
2,131,180 prisoners were held in Federal or State prisons or in local jails -- an increase of 2.3% from midyear 2003, less than the average annual growth of 3.5% since yearend 1995.
-- there were an estimated 486 prison inmates per 100,000 U.S. residents -- up from 411 at yearend 1995. -- the number of women under the jurisdiction of State or Federal prison authorities increased 2.9% from midyear 2003, reaching 103,310 and the number of men rose 2.0%, totaling 1,390,906.(some cop, somewhere, has been busy) Oh, wait. You're sure those are all non-violent pot smokers, victims of a tyrannical drug policy. Okay, here's a little graph for you from the Buearu Of Prisons, and DoJ.
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/corrtyp.gif

Now, it's pretty clear that most of us, me included, are afraid to bestow additional police powers on Law Enforcement. Only a very small segment of that community will ever have opportunity to use the measures anyway, and still, the risk of abuse is just too high. In order for Law enforcement to be effective, the judical branch must "click" at the lowest levels and I can tell you, that ain't happening.

It should also be apparent that 2.2 million cops spread out and working child porn, civil service, traffic, school resources, homicide, sex cases, theft-related, parental abductions, drugs, white collar crime, illegal import/export, computer crime including identity theft, child-spouse-elderly abuse will NEVER be able to secure the miles and miles and miles of linear routes, borders, and coastlines mentioned above. They sure as hell can't protect the infrastructure. Hire more cops? Naw. Nobody really wants that. Solution? Maybe there isn't one. But there IS a starting point. Get dead-assed serious about the laws already in place, kill the plea-bargain system except for non-violent Class D offenders (drugs-use offenders, hotchecks, etc...) and have at the rest like a pack of mad dogs who've been on a South Beach Diet one day, too long.

The country jumped on a half-assed solution in response to a terrible incident. And keep in mind, at no time has there been a concensus on the full scope of the Act. Its creation is the culmination of backdoor trades, compromises, and favors. And given the timing of an all-too fresh national tragedy, the reactionary sentiments of the American people, and an inexperienced President, such a construct was almost inevitable.

Today, the threat of future terroristic acts still looms on the horizon and in our minds. However, thanks to the passage of time, and an aggressive counter-terrorism effort, ('m not talking about either PA or the Iraq war) the threat it is diminished to the point we now have window of opportunity to reexamine our goals and strategies. Contact your elected officials and demand that they stop the bullshit over who gets a Domestic Preparedness Center of Excellence sticker.

You think our elected folks have a real grip on all this? People, they're still fighting over the "revised acceptable IDLH of radiological beta, gamma and neutron sources, and the standardization of chemcial breakdown limits on mask seals inside 3rd generation Interspiro airpaks. Say that 10 times, real fast. (NIOSH and OSHA folk better start looking over both shoulders. The world as they know it is about to change)

Call your politicians. Make them articulate their thoughts, goals and plans. If they can't or won't, inform them that Burger King has an apprentice management program and an opening on the fry line. Put enough heat on the politicos and you might be surprised. Do it today. Yesterday. Just git 'er done, folks, because what we're doing now is a sloppy stop-gap, not a long term solutuion.

[robeiae]

Naturally they were well versed in all the relevant theories of the era.
Yes, they were. Moreover, they had the knowledge/experiences garnered from the English civil wars of the 17th century to contend with. If you know that period, you know of the Diggers and the Levelers, two very different groups: the first being geared towards socialism, the latter towards a less egalitarian society, though much more democratic than the England of Cromwell. Lockean theory, as well as that of Harrington, Blackstone, and others is more consistent with the latter. Property is the key (or "the pursuit of happiness" if you prefer); Adams, in particular argues from this point of view, as does Hamilton and, to a lesser extent, Madison.

Honestly, to me, I think that freedom is the right to be left alone. I don't want the government hand digging through my wallet. I don't want their leering eyes peering into my bedroom and trying to legislate about what goes on therein. I want to be able to speak my mind. I am naive enough to think that the freedom America enjoys allows people to go as far in life as their inner drive and guts will let them. (I know that is naive) Freedom means the ability to pursue life, liberty, and happiness without government intrusion, so long as I am not hurting anyone else.
Remember what freedom was to Locke: having a standing rule to live by. Madison, et al took it as a given, IMO, that freedom required law (this they really got from Cicero). How far can laws extend? That is the question. But I agree with you about the American Dream; it is an idealization of the kind of freedom this men sought to create (if I'm reading you correctly). The thing is, none of this suggests that this freedom entails doing whatever one wants to do: there must still be laws and behavior must still be controlled. The Framers hoped for a virtuous citizenry, but even by the time of Ratification, some knew this was a dream (especially Madison, who knew it all along). They were prepared to accept the future: that the following generations of America would reap the benefits of the system, often without the costs. But the costs are real and sometimes must be paid. What am I saying? That freedom is not simply a "right" we are entitled to, but is something we must earn. Unfortunately, I find that most see it as a "right," though I do not think you do, despite your initial statement above.

Rob :)

[BradyH1861]

Liam,

You have my vote for President. I agree with everything you said in your excellent post. In my neck of the woods, there are too many potential targets to even mention. I would also add that local police are not that trained in counter-terrorism actions, if at all. They, like those of us on the fire side, are trained to deal with the AFTERMATH. Very little in the way of prevention. But then again, I can always say "hey, that aint MY job." (in true civil service fashion)

Another key question here deals with the borders, as you mention too. If our administration is so dedicated to stopping terrorism, why do we essentially have an open border with Mexico? It is our soft underbelly. I personally do not care one way or the other about legal or even illegal immigration from Mexico. What does, however, concern me is that with very little protection down here, anyone from anywhere can waltz across the border with a small nuclear device and go to town (literally) in the first major city they come across. As I said, I really could care less that people want to enter our country. We should let them in, after all, we are a nation of immigrants. But I would feel better if we could at least make an effort to ensure they aren't carrying a ticking bomb with them. (and I am not talking about people from Mexico, but rather people going through Mexico to come here)

Liam, surely you jest when you say that Terry Stops can be abused! Seriously, I always wondered how patting down a suspects outside clothing for a weapon can yield a baggie of pot hidden inside their underwear.

Oh, and may I add arson to the list of crimes that you enumerated in your paragraph following the graphic?
Brady H.

[SRHowen]

http://smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/4/4_2_205.gif (http://www.smileycentral.com/?partner=ZSzeb001_ZNxdm41442US) Rant Alert!!!!!

Anyone here lived in Europe for any amount of time? Not on a base--
They live with bombs, and terrorists everyday. Police in Germany can literally yank you out of your car--through the window and beat hell out of you if they want. Ever visited a European jail? YIKES (no I didn't spend time in one went to one for a story I did) In Germany you can't have a gun, you can be stopped and asked for papers to tell who you are, where you live, and your citizenship--they set up check points where you can your car can be searched with no reason at all.

Has it saved them from terror attacks? No, they are far more prevalent in Europe than here on any given day. So their freedom is taken but it hasn't stopped the terror.

I could site several examples from my almost 5 years there--didn't live on a base, drove a German licenced car, had a International Driver's permit. They don't have the freedoms we do--are they safer--yes, in some ways. Even in a pretty good sized city people walked around at night without much fear. You rarely heard of children being taken off the street. But, those things I think were more fear of police and jails than any anti freedom laws. And you can't sue anyone there because you teased their dog and got bit--you teased the dog it was your fault dumb bell.

But all their the government must know laws have not stopped terror attacks.

Our nation is fast becoming a place where freedoms are being taken away, all in the name of "It's not my fault" it has to be someone else's. And this goes right along with thinking that it's ok, even good to let the government take "some" freedoms to take care of us because we are to dumb to do it ourselves--heck, we can't even figure out coffee is hot or a wet floor is slippery.

The PA is wrong for that reason. We lived in a safe bubble, that won't happen here that stuff only happens in Europe or the middle east. So things were ignored. The PA isn't going to help any more than what was already known--it can only take freedoms from us that once gone require revolution to bring back--but wait, with the PA how would we even do such a thing? It could turn into a nasty circle that ends up curtailing everything we do.

I don't much care for Texas--sorry Brady. It's hot where I am, I hate big bugs, and I miss snow--but one of the reasons we are buying a house here--at least this state does allow some freedoms other states have taken away.

Got bit by one of my non-domestic cats--happened once in another state. Bit bad enough I needed stitches. In other state--your cat did this? The doc tried to make me bring the cat to be tested for rabies (killed so they could) and he called the police. MY OWN CAT BIT ME! But the law says if it is a mean animal etc etc--I told him to go to hell. But he really made a mess for me and the permits I needed --lord!

Here I registered my "exotic" cats and that was it. Inside? Yes, they don't go out at all. Vaccinated for Rabies? Yup, here's the vet's number and their papers. Ok, long as they are inside and don't go out, you are fine. Oh and if they do go out, and they are a cougar they have to have a top on the fence and yadda yadda.

So I go into the ER, arm streaming blood--doc says--Holly cow, big cat. I say yup. He says --your cat or wild cat? Mine--Ocelot. Huh, good thing it didn't get you with all four teeth. Stich stich stich. Stick--antibiotic and tetnis shot. That's it.

I look at the PA like that--it will curb freedoms in the name of protections we don't need until the goverment has a right to tell us how many squares of TP we can use after taking a dump.

[BradyH1861]

That freedom is not simply a "right" we are entitled to, but is something we must earn. Unfortunately, I find that most see it as a "right," though I do not think you do

Rob :)

Agreed. I am reminded of the story about Ben Franklin leaving the convention hall. Someone asked him "What do we have, a republic or a monarchy." His reply was "A republic if you can keep it."

(note I might have butchered the story, but I think that was the main idea)

Not only must we earn it, we must continually work to keep it. Freedom comes at great cost. It would be far easier to have a government that does all of our thinking and feeling for us. We must work to keep that which the Founders entrusted to us.

Someone, maybe Jefferson, said that eternal vigilance is the price of freedom (or maybe liberty). I wholeheartedly agree. It is something so precious that we must constantly stand guard over it. Like a lot of things, you don't get it unless you are willing to defend it.

Brady H.

[BradyH1861]

I don't much care for Texas--sorry Brady. It's hot where I am, I hate big bugs, and I miss snow--but one of the reasons we are buying a house here--at least this state does allow some freedoms other states have taken away.



That's cool. I was born next door in a certain Frenchified state. But I'm glad you are staying. You are right about some of our state freedoms. Our Bill of Rights in Texas is actually much more protective of the citizen than the Federal bill of rights is. I quote one example:

Article One of our state constitution is our Bill of Rights. Section 29 reads as follows:

Sec. 29: Provisions of Bill of Rights Excepted From Power of Governments, Forever to Remain Inviolate

"To guard against transgressions of the high powers herein delegated, we declare that everything in this "Bill of Rights" is excepted out of the general powers of government, and shall forever remain inviolate, and all laws contrary thereto, or to the following provisions, shall be void."

Of course, that doesn't stop the Reichstag in Austin from passing bills contrary to this provision every session, but hey, at least the cheerleader bill failed.

[Liam Jackson]

Brady, I almost added arson in the very first volley, then decided to save it for you. No kidding. :)

[BradyH1861]

You know, Arson can be used as a terrorist tool. For example, the plot to burn New York City in November of 1864.......

Of course, these days, fires started in several buildings simultaneously would be a serious headache for the FD, but it probably would not result in an entire city being razed, as was the intent in 1864.

Brady H.

[kappapi99]

...and not the brainchild of Dubya's men.

The Foreign Intelligence Surveillence Act of 1978 allowed for most everything in the Patriot Act of 2001.

http://www.fas.org/irp/agency/doj/fisa/

KP

[BradyH1861]

You can go further back than that.

Espionage Act of 1917

Sedition Act of 1918

The problem is the government rather than any specific individual.

But if FISA was effective, why the need for the PA in the first place?

Brady H.

[Fractured_Chaos]

I can think of two 1300 foot towers that might still be standing if there had been a Patriot Act in September, 2001.

I can think of two 1300 foot twoers that might still be standing if we didn't have a history of interfering with the ME in the first place.

Just because nothing like 9/11 has happened since, doesn't mean it the Act isn't needed. In fact, it's likely that the presence of PA has prevented a reoccurance.

I disagree. The reason there hasn't been another terrorist attack of the Radical Islamic kind, is because they don't have to go as far to kill Americans, now. They've all gathered in Iraq, where we're hunting for WMD/Bringing Democracy/Deposing a Dictator/Fighting the War on Terrorism/Empire Building/Fighting for Oil/Whatever reason it is this week.

The terrorists in Iraq, incidently were mostly elsewhere, until we invaded. So I suppose the "War on Terrorism" is working, after a fashion.

Of course, our invasion of Iraq is probably the best recruitment the Alqaida and the like ever hoped to have.

[Fractured_Chaos]

The whole purpose of the Patriot Act is to beef up intelligence sharing and law enforcement. This is what they've done and are now being demonized for it.

It's not that it needed "beefed up". It's a problem with communication. No part of law enforcement, from the beat officer, to the spooks hovering over our elected officials, the FBI, the CIA, National Security, yadda, yadda, yadda...will willingly share information with the other. It's a sad fact that has been the case forever.

Let's also not forget the unconscionable errors made by these same elected officials, when presented with the information. It's already an established fact that Bush delibewrately ignored the fact that some of the information given him about 9/11 that didn't fit in with his agenda.

Face it, he didn't -want- to find out what really happened, and deal with who was really behind it. He just grabbed on anything, no matter how tenuous, that would let him justify an illegal war.

So we should just lay down and do nothing? After all, nothing we can do can stop them. I'm just glad people in charge of our government don't have that defeatist attitude.

Does it have to be all or nothing? Because that's exactly what that comment sounds like from here.

And no, we don't just "lay down and do nothing". That's a crock. What we -DO- is deal with it at the source. The US can stop interfering in the policies of the ME, and they can stop sleeping with the enemy. Namely Saudi Arabia.

And how about we get back to looking for Osama? Why did we stop in the first place? And can someone -please- explain how we can lose an over 6 foot tall Saudi who needs dialasys on a regular basis? Especially since we had our eyes on him constantly until recently?

Oh, that's right...because Saddam had WMD.

Wait a minute. No he didn't. But he was a nasty dictator, so we needed to get rid of him.

But he wasn't a threat. Oh, yeah, we needed to bring democracy to the Iraqis. Give them freedom.

But at the same time, let's just take away the freedom of the US citizens.

[Fractured_Chaos]

Do you REALLY think this is the intended goal of our government? Granted people have died -- all volunteers -- and certainly we are in turmoil, but I can't believe that is the purpose for which the act was created. That is a very cynical view of leaders that I simply cannot share.

No. Honestly? I think the -intended- goal of our current government is to create a Fascist state. And they're doing a darn fine job of it.

And sorry if I -do- seem overly cynical. But I'm seeing way too much going on that is ugly, and dangerous.

[Fractured_Chaos]

I was referring to the first attack. The first attack accomplished its goals of doing what it has done to America. I believe that another attack has not occurred because the first one is still affecting us. Years later, we are still in turmoil about it, though the effects may not be solidly visible.

I'm afraid I have to agree with you, TJ. The terrorists who attacked us on 9/11 succeeded in their goals beyong their wildest dreams. They created terror for the entire nation. And they had the help of our own government to do it, with the PA, Homeland Security, and the Rainbow Alert.

And am I the only person who noticed that the rainbow alart would jump up to high every time Bush's ratings went down?

[Fractured_Chaos]

Roger, first off, please don't think I'm angry at you, or picking on you. You just happen to be the only one arguing for the PA, so you're the current target. It's not you I'm angry with, it's our Commander in Thief, and his puppeteers.


Still, you cannot prove that the Patriot Act didn't prevent further terrorism. (I'll further stipulate that I can't prove that it has.) But let me argue by analogy.

Should I give up my heart medicine just because I haven't had a heart attack?

I take a cholesterol lowering drug. I can't prove that it has prevented a heart attack, and I can't prove that it hasn't. It's not without risks, however. This drug could destroy my liver. But I continue to take it because my doctor (who is far more knowledgable than I) thinks I should. I don't blindly take his word, but I still follow his recommendation. We monitor it constantly.

I'm saying we should take the same attitude with the Patriot Act. People in positions of knowledge think we should have it. We should follow that recommendation, but continue to ask for verification.

Let me try it thisa way. No, you don't give up your medicine just because you haven't had a heart attack. But neither do you go to the extreme of getting a heart transplant, either. The PA is the equivalent of the heart transplant for a mild case of arrythmia.

Or, it's the equivalent of using a nuclear warhead to debug your house.

[Fractured_Chaos]

People in positions of knowledge think we should have it. We should follow that recommendation, but continue to ask for verification.

You -do- realize that most of the people who voted for the PA didn't even read it, don't you?

[BradyH1861]

And am I the only person who noticed that the rainbow alart would jump up to high every time Bush's ratings went down?

I didn't notice it at the time, but now that I think back on it, I would have to say that you are on to something there.

Be Afraid! Paranoia is Patriotic!

Brady H.

[Fractured_Chaos]

The issue isn't "does this stuff work". At issue is the fine, nearly indistinguisable line between legitimate use and general abuse. You want to see an example on a more mundane scale? Research the "Terry Stop." Does it have a positive effect in combating crime. Sure! Is it easy to abuse? Damn tootin'. The Patriotic Act carries signigicantly more risk of abuse in matters that may or may not have anything to do with Global Terrorism.

And -that- is where I have a major problem with the PA. The ease in which it can be abused.

Sorry, but it's human nature, that power corrupts most people. And absolute power will corrupt absolutely everyone who gains it.

Allow the Patriot Act to expire today, imprision the first fifty bureaucrats who allow inter-agency fueds to impede investigations and endanger national security. That would be a true Patriot Act.

Now -that- I can get behind!

Really, the problems need to be stopped at the sources. But first, they need to find out what those sources are.

And there are a couple other things you mentioned that will illustrate exactly what I mean, so bear with me...


You're sure those are all non-violent pot smokers, victims of a tyrannical drug policy. Okay, here's a little graph for you from the Buearu Of Prisons, and DoJ.

Question...how many of those violent offenders are in prison for a 2nd, 3rd, 4th, and more times? How many of them were originally non-violent drug offenders, that learned how to be violent criminals in the prison system?


As for immigration...yes, "sealing up" our borders would be next to impossible. But I think one of the easiest solutions to illegal immigration from the south (therefore eliminating, or at least drastically reducing, one major problem we seem to have), is instead of stiffening up the southern border, try coming down much harder on the corporations who hire these people? If it hurts them too much when they get caught hiring illegal aliens, then they'll stop. And logically, if they stop, the job sources for the illegals will dry up, thus making it no longer attractive to sneak in, yes?

INS is already in place, and doing their jobs, but it's no more than a slap on the wrist for the employers, so they get rid of the illegal workers for a bit, and a couple weeks later, after they pay their fines, they hire them back, or hire a new crop. It doesn't hurt them where it needs to...in the pockets...deeply in their pockets. The fines they have to pay are like pocket change to them. It's the equivalent of what I can find in the cushions of my couch.

The country jumped on a half-assed solution in response to a terrible incident. The threat isn't gone, but it is diminished to the point we now have window of opportunity to reexamine our goals and strategies. Contact your elected officials and demand that they stop the bullshit over who gets a Domestic Preparedness Center of Excellence sticker.

I disagree that it's been diminished. With our actions in Iraq, I believe the threat has increased. But I don't think it's going to come from any "brown-skinned" person, or from foreigner.

The next one on US soil is going to be even uglier, and it's going to be domestic.

You think our elected folks have a real grip on all this? People, they're still fighting over the "revised acceptable IDLH of radiological beta, gamma and neutron sources, and the standardization of chemcial breakdown limits on mask seals inside 3rd generation Interspiro airpaks. Say that 10 times, real fast. (NIOSH and OSHA folk better start looking over both shoulders. The world as they know it is about to change)

I'm afraid I only understood the question, to which the answer is a resounding NO. The rest was all greek to me.

[Fractured_Chaos]

I didn't notice it at the time, but now that I think back on it, I would have to say that you are on to something there.

Be Afraid! Paranoia is Patriotic!

Brady H.

Shades of "1984"?

[BradyH1861]

You know, I only recently read 1984. I read it in an afternoon and I couldn't sleep at all that night. It was way too real, or at least it has the potential to be way too real.

Brady H.

[Roger J Carlson]

Are you referring to Congress? If so, I wasn't aware that being elected to office meant that you were more intelligent than anyone else. A position of power, yes. A position of knowledge, not necessarily.

Brady H.I didn't say intelligence. I said knowledge. My doctor isn't significantly more intelligent than I, but he does have more knowledge about his specialty.

So too, do the various governmental branches and agencies have more knowledge than I do. Most of us get our knowledge distilled through CNN or Fox News and we choose to believe either depending on our own political affiliations and beliefs.

I'm just saying that they are in a better postion to know the truth. Sometimes they're wrong. More often they're right.

[BradyH1861]

I didn't say intelligence. I said knowledge. My doctor isn't significantly more intelligent than I, but he does have more knowledge about his specialty.

So too, do the various governmental branches and agencies have more knowledge than I do. Most of us get our knowledge distilled through CNN or Fox News and we choose to believe either depending on our own political affiliations and beliefs.

I'm just saying that they are in a better postion to know the truth. Sometimes they're wrong. More often they're right.

Okay. I'll go along with that to a certain extent. I would agree that certain governmental branches and agencies have more knowledge than the rest of us, at least the guys and gals actually out there doing the work. I thought that you meant Congress only.

Brady H.

[Roger J Carlson]

Roger, first off, please don't think I'm angry at you, or picking on you. You just happen to be the only one arguing for the PA, so you're the current target. It's not you I'm angry with, it's our Commander in Thief, and his puppeteers.drgnlvr, believe me, I don't think you're picking on me or angry at me. This is just a debate, a reasoned discourse.

However, please don't feel that I'm picking on you if I say that calling our President the "Commander in Thief" and saying that his intention is to "create a Fascist state" rather descends into name-calling and sloganing.

I disagree with the unstated, but underlying assertion, that this is all George W. Bush's idea. I maintain that we would have a Patriot Act regardless of who was in the Whitehouse. Furthermore, we would still be in Iraq if Bill Clinton was still in office. There are historical forces at work here that are larger than any one man or political party.

...and not the brainchild of Dubya's men.

The Foreign Intelligence Surveillence Act of 1978 allowed for most everything in the Patriot Act of 2001.

http://www.fas.org/irp/agency/doj/fisa/

KPThis rather makes my point here and also gives me hope. Just because similar legislation has come and gone does not mean that it wasn't needed at the time. It just means that the time has passed. I believe this will happen to the current Patriot Act. Desperate times require desperate measures. When the desperate times go away, so do the measures.

And -that- is where I have a major problem with the PA. The ease in which it can be abused.

Sorry, but it's human nature, that power corrupts most people. And absolute power will corrupt absolutely everyone who gains it.This is quite true, but it's true for ANY legislation in ANY government of ANY size, right on down to City Hall. It is up to an informed citizenry and court system to keep it in check. I'm not saying that the Patriot Act is perfect or immune to abuse. However, I don't believe it is an unmitigated evil that will inevitably send us down the slippery slope to dictatorship.

I have faith in our system regardless of who is in office.

[Liam Jackson]

Question...how many of those violent offenders are in prison for a 2nd, 3rd, 4th, and more times? How many of them were originally non-violent drug offenders, that learned how to be violent criminals in the prison system?

I'm not sure I understand the relevancy of the question to the Patriot Act issue. I've known many, many drug offenders who've done time without "learning" to commit criminal acts on their fellow inmates and/or staff. Most, in fact, do the time and re-enter society without taking up manslaughter as a hobby. I think a thorough search of the FBI Crime Index may answer many questions on this issue.

As for the recidivism rate, many violent criminals are repeat offenders and are "re-caught". It consumes just as much time, manhours (peoplehours?) and resources to catch a repeat offender as a first timer, and in many cases, more.

In the case of most violent offenders, the question isn't how he came to shoot a convenience store clerk over a carton of Salems. That's an entirely different issue. The real question as it relates to PA is why is the offender who just pulled a inconceivable 22 months (Yeah, 22 months) for 2nd degree murder prior to moving into your neighborhood? Boy, all that vicious jail time really showed him, right? Why is the prematurely released offender loose again to divert already strained resources from the business of securing "home?"

The answer to the why is, because he took an offered plea bargain from some "elected" prosecutor (elected official) eager for a quick and dirty conviction rate, without having to spend time and dollars in a trial. This offender kills someone and is back on the street before you can earn an online degree and the cycle begins anew. Crazy. Just crazy.

The point being, with the numbers of crimes reported, and actions taken by local law enforcement, there leaves damn little time to watch 500+ commercial airports, 340+ seaports, thousands of miles rail, highway, seacoasts, hard borders, and tens of thousands of soft and hard infrastructure targets.

Oh, and as for info sharing, local and county NCIC terminals overheat every single day of the week, as info is disseminated in a 100 different directions.The bottlenecking generally comes from these sources: State Police agencies, FBI, CIA, ICE, Customs Legacy, and Border Patrol. Why? Funding issues! Cities and counties don't have dogs in that fight. Their appropriations generally come from other sources, so they don't have to play the "look at me" game in order to secure additional funding. That's not to say a couple of major cities won't break off intel-sharing, especially if a prior joint effort failed or resulted in litigation. But the real intel problem starts with the entities who have the most to gain or lose in terms of fiscal budgets.

If the position is that we need a reallocation of resources, again, put the heat on politicians. It's already working by degrees. ICE and Border patrol are undergoing mergers, for the first time in history, real cooperation is being offered and accepted between municple and federal agencies. I can site ICE and it's south Florida operations as a prime example.

But if you want a real and permanent fix at the grass roots level, (city and county) you're going to have to start with elected prosecutors and judges. Law enforcement has become less than a public service entity and more of a tool of the judiciary. You really want to know why a certain attitude or agenda seems to exist in certain communities? Most times, you have to look no further than your prosecuting attorney's office.

You've got some people carrying badges who have no business in the profession. Thanks to the media, and internal efforts, the number of whackos is on the decline. Arguable, perhaps, but I stand by the statement. Still, you have that percentage, who really should be shaking fries at Happy's Burger Palace. The last thing they need is prosecutor revving them up, while in hot pursuit of a non-mainstream agenda. And prosecutors DO dictate which cases are pursued and, very often, with the degree of aggressiveness.

[BradyH1861]

I maintain that we would have a Patriot Act regardless of who was in the Whitehouse. Furthermore, we would still be in Iraq if Bill Clinton was still in office. There are historical forces at work here that are larger than any one man or political party.



I agree. After all, both parties voted for it. And I think if Kerry had won in 2004, we'd still be in Iraq too. I fear we will be there for some time to come. The Goddess of History will alone be the judge of whether these actions in these very uncertain times were right or not.

Brady H.

[Liam Jackson]

Oh, and Roger, I can site several instances in which certain aspects of the PA have worked as intended. You won't read about every instance of smuggled raw radiological materials being confiscated at a facility like Port Everglades, but it happens, and far more frequently than the public knows. Many times, the intel resulting in that confiscation was gathered through means not available or legal prior to the PA.

I could even make an argument for a "special circumstances" extension or emergency reinstatement of the PA, in the event of another major incident of domestic terrorism. (Provided, there is a hard, fast time limit. So you're not totally alone in your views. However, I am firmly convinced that the Patriot Act poses far more threat than remedy, over the long haul.

Regardless, I respect your opinion. *salute*

[BradyH1861]

As do I *another salute*

Brady H.

[Fractured_Chaos]

drgnlvr, believe me, I don't think you're picking on me or angry at me. This is just a debate, a reasoned discourse.

However, please don't feel that I'm picking on you if I say that calling our President the "Commander in Thief" and saying that his intention is to "create a Fascist state" rather descends into name-calling and sloganing.

And that's fine. But as long as I still have some freedom, I'm going to feel free to call him the "Commander in Thief" ;)

I disagree with the unstated, but underlying assertion, that this is all George W. Bush's idea. I maintain that we would have a Patriot Act regardless of who was in the Whitehouse. Furthermore, we would still be in Iraq if Bill Clinton was still in office. There are historical forces at work here that are larger than any one man or political party.

Oh, I have no doubt there would be -something-...just not sure if it would be the PA. And keep in mind, all those other acts that passed in history, expired, and were not renewed. The politicians are now discussing whether to renew the PA, and exclude the sunset clase, thus making it permanent. Not a good idea, IMO.

As far as being in Iraq...no, I -don't- think we would be in Iraq if someone else was in office. We might still be in Afghanistan...but you'll notice I haven't said anything about that. Because we had a valid reason for going there. This is where the terrorists groups were holing up. Remember?

Why did we abandon Afghanistan, and suddenly invade Iraq? We practically had Bin Laden in our grasp, and we were routing out the terrorists involved in 9/11. We just suddenly dropped it like it was diseased, and went to Iraq. Why? For WMD we had no hard proof existed? To depose a dictator? Why haven't we done that elsewherew in the world? Why aren't we dealing with China, and North Korea, who -IS- a threat?

Honestly, remember, the people running the show, and pulling Bush the Younger's strings are the same people who were running the show when Bush the Elder was in office...when we invaded Iraq before (although we had a more legit reason...sorta. At least the reason didn't change every week).

Think about what we stand to gain if we conquor Iraq, and make no mistakes about it...this is precisely the plan.

It's nothing more than Empire building, and if you follow the money, you'll see that's what it is.

The Iraqis are not the enemy. The Iraqi's were NOT involved in 9/11. The people who were involved were Saudi. And if you dig a little deeper, and you follow the money, you'll see that the puppetmasters in the white house are puppets, too...and the Saudis are pulling their strings. We're sleeping with the enemy, and the guards at the gate are asleep.

This rather makes my point here and also gives me hope. Just because similar legislation has come and gone does not mean that it wasn't needed at the time. It just means that the time has passed. I believe this will happen to the current Patriot Act. Desperate times require desperate measures. When the desperate times go away, so do the measures.

Right. These are the same people who buried the National ID act (and the nice little clause with that, that allows Homeland Security full authority when it comes to sealing our southern border...to the point that they do not have to answer to anyone...period...not even the Supreme Court. This means, if someone is murdered in the process, their death will be erased from the records for all the justice that will be served.), in an appropriations bill for our GIs in Iraq, and the Tsunami victims, that -NO- Legislator would vote against if he wanted to keep his job. And we don't have the line-item veto. How convienient.

And you want to trust these people? I cannot, and will not put my faith in ANYONE who would be that sneaky.

I never trusted any politician...but the people in charge right now, terrify me.

This is quite true, but it's true for ANY legislation in ANY government of ANY size, right on down to City Hall. It is up to an informed citizenry and court system to keep it in check. I'm not saying that the Patriot Act is perfect or immune to abuse. However, I don't believe it is an unmitigated evil that will inevitably send us down the slippery slope to dictatorship.

And how do the "people" keep it in check, if -all- the politicians pass bills that the people never get a chance to vote on, nor protest against. You -do- recall that the PA2 was passed without a word, in the middle of the night, right? It wasn't even leaked to the press before it was sent to the floor.

I have faith in our system regardless of who is in office.

And, no offence, but IMO you're placing your faith in the wrong people. These people are not just self-serving liars...they're power-hungry, empire-building, terrifying despots. Any organization that is -that- sneaky, that often, is dangerous. And we're not talking about "pet projects" (ie; pork) getting slipped into a popular bill. This is where all politicians are self-serving liars. We're talking MAJOR changes to policy, and complete shredding of the Constitution.

We're talking a massive loss of freedoms that are gaining speed as this monster rolls down hill.

At what point do we say, "Enough", and put on the brakes? How much freedom do we have to lose before we take to the streets?

You know, let's take the example health care. I suffer from seasonal allergies. When spring rolls around, I need to make sure I have my meds, or I'll be stuffy, sneezing, and my ears will itch. If I ignore the season, and think I can get through it just fine without the meds, I will, inevitably, end up with a sinus infection. If I ignore that, thinking I can just suffer through it, it will become massive, with bloody noses, upper resperatory congestion, even asthma attacks. And if I keep ignoring it, I end up in the hospital getting industrial strength anti-biotics IV.

So what makes more sense? Ignoring it, and only dealing with it when I have no choice (ending up in the hospital), or making sure I have my allergy meds when Spring starts, and staying on top of it?

Frankly, I hate taking medication. I'd prefer not to, if I can avoid it. But taking the meds is less of a pain in the azze than ending up in the hospital, nearly dead (and yes, that did happen once...I learned my lesson).

It's the same thing with our freedoms. We can't just ignore some of them going bye-bye, because they're little freedoms, not all that important "in the grand scheme of things". All our freedoms are just as important as the other. If one goes, it starts the ball rolling down hill, and anything that rolls down hill gathers speed.

We need to stop it, NOW. Not later when there's no more threat, because that day will never come. There will always be a threat somewhere.

And I've ranted enough.

At least for now.

[Liam Jackson]

I'm with Drgnlvr. It's tme for me to give this topic a break. I know it's volitile, and there's slim chance we're going to solve the crisis within the hallowed halls of AW. It's been a good discussion, though, and I appreciate the degree of civility in evidence.

Safe journeys, all.

[Fractured_Chaos]

I'm not sure I understand the relevancy of the question to the Patriot Act issue. I've known many, many drug offenders who've done time without "learning" to commit criminal acts on their fellow inmates and/or staff. Most, in fact, do the time and re-enter society without taking up manslaughter as a hobby. I think a thorough search of the FBI Crime Index may answer many questions on this issue.

Everything I know about our prison system, is that no one is "rehabilitated". People who end up in prison only learn how to be better criminals. That was what I was talking about.

Of course, I might not be following your logic with violent criminals as oppsed to non-violent drug offenders. How many of the violent criminals are there because of drug prohibition? We're talking gang warfare, etc, most often due to turf wars, and those have to to with territory of the drug dealers, correct?

How many of the violent criminals in prison would not be in prison if drugs were decriminalized? How many of them, because if the drugs were decriminalized, there would be no need for the acts of violence that are committed? Would the crack-addict have killed the shop-owner if he could buy crack legally?

After all, other than driving to the liquor store while intoxicated, no one actually commits crimes to get their hands on alcohol. The crimes committed while intoxicated are another story. But alcohol addiction is treated as a health issue, not a criminal issue. The crimes committed while intoxicated are a different issue. But the crimes commited in -aquiring- alcohol are not that many, IIRC. A guy isn't going to shoot the shop owner because he needs money to pay his supplier for that bottle of MD 20/20, IOW.

Think back to the violence during alcohol prohibition.

As for the recidivism rate, many violent criminals are repeat offenders and are "re-caught". It consumes just as much time, manhours (peoplehours?) and resources to catch a repeat offender as a first timer, and in many cases, more. For that matter, it can be argued that a person who just pulled 22 months (Yeah, 22 months) for 2nd degree murder has no business moving into your neighborhood because he took a plea bargain with some prosecutor eager for a quick and dirty conviction rate. This guy kills someone and is back on the street before you can earn an online degree. Crazy. Just crazy.

Oh, don't even get me started about sexual predators getting out in 8 years, while the guy in Cali got LIFE for growing medicinal marijuana, as he was deputized to do by the state.

The point being, with the numbers of crimes reported, and actions taken by local law enforcement, there leaves damn little time to watch 500+ commercial airports, 340+ seaports, thousands of miles rail, highway, seacoasts, hard borders, and tens of thousands of soft and hard infrastructure targets.

Oh, I know. But our people were doing a damn fine job before the PA. Yes, sometimes things slip through the cracks. It's horrible when it happens. But like Shawn mentioned in an earlier post...percentage-wise, we have MUCH fewer acts of terrorism on our own soil, than most other countries. And as much as we piss off the rest of the world, I would say that's a pretty darn good indicator that our people are doing their jobs, wouldn't you?

If the position is that we need a reallocation of resources, again, put the heat on politicians. For the record, law enforcement is aimed like a weapon by judges and prosecutors. You really want to know why a certain attitude or agenda seems to exist in certain communities? Most times, you have to look no further than your prosecuting attorney's office. You've got some people carrying badges who have no business in the profession. The last thing they need is prosecutor in pursuit of a non-mainstream agenda. And prosecutors dictate which cases are pursued and, very often, with what degree of aggressiveness.

Oh, I agree with you, there.

We need to get the politician's off the backs of law enforcement, and let these people do their jobs.

[Liam Jackson]

My contention is that prohibition never sent a single murderer to prison. The individual must take responisbility for his own actions. If selling 5 pounds of weed is illegal and everyone in the country knows this, (meaning there's no ambushes) how can I conceivably blame a bad law because Joe Schmuck decided to rip of the dealer and put two bullets into him on the way out? Makes no sense to me.

The violent offender is there because he/she engaged in an activity that caused another person bodily harm. Not even a bad drug law can be held accoutable for that.

Oh, don't even get me started about sexual predators getting out in 8 years, while the guy in Cali got LIFE for growing medicinal marijuana, as he was deputized to do by the state.
Yeah, that's one of the nuttiest things I've ever heard. The craziest thing is Oakland didn't bother to consider no state or city ordinance can superced federal law. That they deputized someone means nada. They never had the authority. I feel for Rosenthal. If anyone should be doing jail time over this, (and I'm saying I'm convinced that's the case) It should be the politicos that drafted Proposition 215 without researching the AGs opinion of it's compatability with federal law. That was inexcusable and Joe-Blow citizen is paying for it.

Regarding alcohol, yes, it is treated as an addiction/disease. It is ALSO treated criminally. There's a considerable prison population consisting of repeat DWI offenders in several states. Good law? Guess it depends on the viewpoint. However, if one of those guys kills someone with a shotgun, either before or after prison time, alcohol may be used to create mitigating circumtances, but it can't be allowed to excuse the action unless it becomes part of an insanity plea.

Final note, I promise. I think we need to stay ON the backs of law enforcement. Guess I should qualify that sentence.
There must be a degree of accountability any time you empower a segment of your population and allow them to exercise deadly force against citizens. I used to get sick of the glass-house scrutiny, but I understood it.

[Fractured_Chaos]

My contention is that prohibition never sent a single murderer to prison. The individual must take responisbility for his own actions. If selling 5 pounds of weed is illegal and everyone in the country knows this, (meaning there's no ambushes) how can I conceivably blame a bad law because Joe Schmuck decided to rip of the dealer and put two bullets into him on the way out? Makes no sense to me.

`Ah, but here is where we part, Dear. Up to a point, yes...Personal responsibility is key, yes. However...if Marijuana were legal, would Joe Schmuck even been in a situation to commit violence? This is the point I was trying to make.

The violent offender is there because he/she engaged in an activity that caused another person bodily harm. Not even a bad drug law can be held accoutable for that.

No, violence is violence, I agree. My contention is that alot of these violent acts would have never occurred, if Joe Schmuck could just trot down to the local store and get a pack of reefers, or a baggie of crack.

Yeah, that's one of the nuttiest things I've ever heard. The craziest thing is Oakland didn't bother to consider no state or city ordinance can superced federal law. That they deputized someone means nada. They never had the authority. I feel for Rosenthal. If anyone should be doing jail time over this, (and I'm saying I'm convinced that's the case) It should be the politicos that drafted Proposition 215 without researching the AGs opinion of it's compatability with federal law. That was inexcusable and Joe-Blow citizen is paying for it.

But what about states rights? Why didn't the Feds shut the whole operation down at the onset, instead of allowing Cali to do this? Someone was scapegoated, Dear.

Regarding alcohol, yes, it is treated as an addiction/disease. It is ALSO treated criminally. There's a considerable prison population consisting of repeat DWI offenders in several states. Good law? Guess it depends on the viewpoint. However, if one of those guys kills someone with a shotgun, either before or after prison time, alcohol may be used to create mitigating circumtances, but it can't be allowed to excuse the action unless it becomes part of an insanity plea.

the DWI laws are separate from aquiring alcohol, though. You can get a DWI while on prescription drugs...legally aquired prescription drugs. I don't disagree with the validity of those laws, either. Any action that one takes that has the potential to victimize someone should be made illegal. Driviing while under the influence of any mind-altering drug has the potential to victimize someone. Smoking a doob while in the privacy of your own home does not.

Getting drunk, and beating your wife is victimizing someone. The man is arrested for beating his wife...-NOT- because he was drinking. The second action stemmed from the first, yes...but they are still separate issues.

Final note, I promise. I think we need to stay ON the backs of law enforcement. Guess I should qualify that sentence.
There must be a degree of accountability any time you empower a segment of your population and allow them to exercise deadly force against citizens. I used to get sick of the glass-house scrutiny, but I understood it.

Oh, don't get me wrong, I agree that we need the checks and balances. I'm talking about spending man hours to hunt down some small-time pot supplier, because the DA is a big anti-drug guy, rather than hunting down that child molester down the street.

What's more important? The poor sap who just wants to relax after work, and his buddy who just happens to have a connection, but only buys an ounce or two for friends? Or the cretin who's victimizing all the kids in the neighborhood?

[kappapi99]

But if FISA was effective, why the need for the PA in the first place?

Brady H.

Because in 1996, the Justice Department established a policy which effectively put a "wall" between different intelligence and federal institutions. That "wall" prevented the sharing of information that could have helped prevent (notice I said could - hindsight is 20/20) the attacks.

For the record, I do agree there are part of the PA that seem unnessary and even scary, but on the whole, it has been effective. My own personal opinion is redo it. Take out certain parts and renew other parts. I think agencies need to share information and I think it should not be so difficult to get a wire tap on a terrorist suspect, but why in the world do they need to track down what books I buy or borrow?

Unfortunately, the book part is the only one getting any press...

KP

[BradyH1861]

The wall between Federal agencies existed long before 1996. I cannot recall a time when the Feds worked and played well with each other, or with local agencies.

The only Federal agency I have had any real dealings with is the ATF. I've worked with them on some arson investigations in the past, or, what I should say is that they have assisted us. I can tell you this, although they are skilled at what they do, they look down their long federal noses at those of us at the local level. Share information with us? ha ha ha That'll never happen. But of course, we are expected to share all with them.

The Patriot Act hasn't fixed that any.

But who knows, 20 years from now when another administration has taken the permanent PA to an all new level, people will wonder where we went wrong. I will leave you with a quote by a German minister named Martin Neimroller who lived through the Nazi era and did not take a stand when he had a chance to do so:

"First they came for the Jews, but I did not speak out because I wasn't a Jew. Then they came for the Communists, but I did not speak out because I wasn't a Communist. Then they came for the trade unionists, but I did not speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist. Then they came for me, and there was no one left to speak for me."

What does this have to do with the PA? Well, consider this:

"First they came from the terror suspect, but I did not speak out because I wasn't a terror suspect..."

Brady H.

[robeiae]

And, no offence, but IMO you're placing your faith in the wrong people. These people are not just self-serving liars...they're power-hungry, empire-building, terrifying despots. Any organization that is -that- sneaky, that often, is dangerous. And we're not talking about "pet projects" (ie; pork) getting slipped into a popular bill. This is where all politicians are self-serving liars. We're talking MAJOR changes to policy, and complete shredding of the Constitution.

We're talking a massive loss of freedoms that are gaining speed as this monster rolls down hill.

Pffft!

The continued growth of government bureaucracies, particularly those dealing with the social services sectors and the IRS, have sapped more freedoms from us since the 1930's than any of the people you're worried about could even dream of doing. Once upon a time, your vote mattered; people in office could actually change things. Now, I'm afraid we've almost lost/surrendered too much freedom to the bureaucrats...

You can call George Bush the commander-in-thief, that's cool; but I can call Howard Dean a maniacal nut job, Ted Kennedy a sniveling coward, Hilary Clinton an two-faced socialist, Al Gore a...a...he's too lame to even get a name! The rest of the pandering populist anything for a buck politicians, well as a rule, if they dwell on class, the can dwell in hell. All of them want more from me; they expect me to pay for everyone else. Now I'm pretty active with my church; I donate alot of time and dough to charity: I'm tired of the government forcing me to participate in programs that, in the long run, benefit no one. Healthcare, a great example. You know the current mess is all Ted K's fault, right? Now he is crying about the monster he created. His solution? Make a bigger monster...Yeah, everyone complains that the government is too big, that it spends too much, but that's just waste, right? Guess again: everytime these bureaucracies expand their services, they not only require more money, they also narrow the range of choices we all get to make just a little bit. It's insidious, it's dangerous, and it leads to...well, go read Hayek again, he's timeless.

Now Bill Clinton, I could deal with, since he was content to leave things alone (more concerned with getting his...well, you know).

Now my rant is done!

Love ya!

Rob :)

[Roger J Carlson]

However, please don't feel that I'm picking on you if I say that calling our President the "Commander in Thief" and saying that his intention is to "create a Fascist state" rather descends into name-calling and sloganing.drgnlvr, I apologized in private, but I want to do so publicly. I did not intend offense when I used the "name-calling and sloganing" line. I simply thought that calling the president the Commander in Thief was not relevant to the discussion.

And that's fine. But as long as I still have some freedom, I'm going to feel free to call him the "Commander in Thief" ;).
You are certainly free to do so and I'll fight anybody who tries to stop you!:box:

However, in retrospect, I believe MY comment was uncalled for and inflammatory, and again I apologize. Thanks for not responding in kind.

My reason for the comment was that it is effectively non-rebutable. Not because it's true, but because it's a belief. You believe the current administration is sneaky at best, fascist at worst. It is impossible to prove to you that they are not. Even though I believe they have the best interests of the country at heart. Once we have stated our respective positions, the debate is at a stand-still unless we want to start repeating ourselves. Too often that's what these threads become. (Although I am gratified that this thread has maintained a high level of civility and reason.)

I also agree with Liam and Kappi that there are parts of the Act that I find disturbing and even silly. However other parts I think are vital to the interests of our nation (at least in the short term). Governments always want to enact legistlation that lasts forever. It's up to us to make sure that this doesn't happen when the time is right. I just don't think that time is yet.

I don't usually join in political discussions. They too often devolve into something less than enlightening. However, I chimed in because, up to that point, the only answers to the question were: "No" and "Hell, no." Since then, a real exchange of ideas has occurred. There's even been some consessions that the opposite view may have some validity (I include myself in that. You guys DO have a point.)

I'd like to thank everyone involved for keeping this discussion in the spirit of reasoned debate.

[robeiae]

"First they came for the Jews, but I did not speak out because I wasn't a Jew. Then they came for the Communists, but I did not speak out because I wasn't a Communist. Then they came for the trade unionists, but I did not speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist. Then they came for me, and there was no one left to speak for me."

What does this have to do with the PA? Well, consider this:

"First they came from the terror suspect, but I did not speak out because I wasn't a terror suspect..."

I love your quotes, but I have to say, I despise argument by analogy. Rarely are said analogies valid. There's simply no basis for comparing 1930/40's Germany with the U.S. in the twenty-first century. Sorry to say, anyone who thinks there is knows very little about history...

I haven't chimed in on the PA yet, but I guess now I will: I agree with KP, parts of it go way too far, but parts of it were/are needed.

I think that actions/policies like the PA can be seen throughout our history during times of societal stress; some worked out good, some not so well, but over time the system has allowed lapses to be corrected. I see the same thing here; I'm not scared one bit and, I am sorry to add, I have yet to change my behavior or be barred from doing/reading/seeing something because of the PA.

Bye!

Rob :)

[Liam Jackson]

Yep, thats where we part. I still can't see the connection. Legal weed, or illlegal weed has nothing to do with a concious effort to commit a violent act against another person. That's like saying, well if we didn't build highwaysand establish laws for their use, people would never break a traffic law. Therefore, all speeding must be the fault of state or federal highway initiatives. Sorry, I just can't buy it. There's an old saying..."If you never want to lose a bar fight, stay out of the bars. Loosely translated, people really do have options, and consequences follow, accordingly. Again, I know too many people who've done serious time without adding to their problems by attacking someone. Going to jail isn't an automatic precursor to violent behavior.

Second part of that is, the laws aren't some great big secret, used to ambush the unwary. I don't know of a sixth grader in the US who can't name half a hundred laws on any given day. Now, if someone knows on the front end certain behavior results in penalites, yet they persist in criminal behavior, they can't cry foul. Well, maybe they can, but it's going to fall on deaf ears. Mine, anyway.

You and I may not agree with some of those laws. There are some really sucky laws out there. But we do not live in a society that endorses criminal behavior simply because you don't like a particular regulation. If someone engages in criminal behavior knowing full well the possible consequences, and the situation escalates into a violent encounter, the individual must be held responsible. If we ever fail in enforcing this precept as a society, the society well develop cracks from which we may never fully recover. The trick is in passing "just laws", and defeating "unjust laws", not in breaking them, then blaming the "system." The Tea Party occured long before the advent of a system that provides for change. We have that system, now.

Laws are changed or amended everyday, thanks to efforts of those who choose to work within the system. Another example of people accepting personal responsibility and acting accordingly. I don't always agree with laws or changes in laws, but I'll damn sure defend and support a person's right to effect change.

[Jamesaritchie]

They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.

FBI asked WA Library for list of Osama readers (http://www.speakspeak.org/speak-blog/index.php?p=613)



Power Corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely

Does the Real ID act contain a Constitution-busting Trojan horse? (http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20050509-4886.html)



This is just an example of what to expect as time goes on. -IF- the PA is reauthorized, and the Sunset clause is deleted.

"The price of freedom is eternal vigilance." -- Thomas Jefferson.

There are certainly bad aspects to teh Patriot Act, but as a whole, it's a good bill, and you can bet it will be renewed, as it should be.

Should the FBI be able to see who checked what out of the library? It depends entirely on why they want to know, and on whether or not they have cause to look at the person independently of this. The Patriot acts certainly goes too far in some areas, but it is a needed act.

And certainly, absolutely and completely no offense to Liam, but I'm darned if I want local police making decisions concerning national security, or even my local safety. As the Surpreme Court has stated, the job of local police is not to prevent crime, but to arrest those who have already committed a crime. This makes it just a bit late for the victim.

There is no such thing as complete freedom. There never has been, there never will be. Freedom has always depended on a man with a gun standing between you and another man with a gun. . .or a bomb. Whether you're a peace activist, a stay at home mom, a businessperson, a retiree, a Cub Scout, or a hooker on the corner, every last freedom you have is there solely because someone with a gun is standing between you and those who would kill or endlave you.

The enemy within is nearly always more dangerous than the enemy on the outside, and cute quotations aside, there must always be a balance between personal freedom and security. There always has been, and those who think the Patriot Act is overly invasive must have very little knowledge of history. The Patriot Act is a mild-manned pussycat compared to the invasive tactics and laws of previous generations.

Adjust the Patriot Act where needed, but getting rid of it would be the height of fooloshness, and would, in the long run, bring in laws far worse, far more invasive.

As for a national ID card, well, we should have done this twenty years ago. Funny how people don't mind state ID cards that contain the exact same information, but somehow think a national ID card is the work of the devil.

[BradyH1861]

I love your quotes, but I have to say, I despise argument by analogy. Rarely are said analogies valid. There's simply no basis for comparing 1930/40's Germany with the U.S. in the twenty-first century. Sorry to say, anyone who thinks there is knows very little about history...



I may be a humble fireman, but I do have a few degrees (graduate included) in history. So, if I may say so, I know quite a bit about history. (if I have a the degrees hanging on the wall, I must be edumacated, right? :) ) I agree that there are no valid comparisons between Nazi Germany and Modern Day America. My quote was not intended to draw comparisons between our forms of government and society.

What I intended to point out was that apathy, the belief that it only affects them and not us, and the fear of speaking out are just as dangerous now as they were in Nazi Germany. That is a valid argument, one that deals more with human nature than with history.

I merely meant to suggest that thinking that it doesn't affect me today, so it won't affect me tomorrow is a dangerous thing. (I am not saying that you suggested that though, merely using an example) That was my intention by using said quote. And it doesn't only relate to the Patriot Act. The kids in the school yard might not like it when they see the bully harrassing another child, but it is easier for them to say nothing than it is for them to say something and get beaten too, right?

And Rob, you were much more kind in your statements in regards to Ted Kennedy than I would have been! The man makes me ashamed to call myself an Irish American. (and I am usually very proud of my heritage)

Best Regards,
Brady H.

[BradyH1861]

Should the FBI be able to see who checked what out of the library? It depends entirely on why they want to know, and on whether or not they have cause to look at the person independently of this. The Patriot acts certainly goes too far in some areas, but it is a needed act.

And certainly, absolutely and completely no offense to Liam, but I'm darned if I want local police making decisions concerning national security, or even my local safety.

I would be willing to go along with that in regards to the library books. It is one thing to develop a suspicion about a particular person and THEN take a peak at what they've been reading. (with a warrant, of course) Which, if they've done enough background work, they should have no problem getting. It really isn't all that hard to get warrants. Nor is it time consuming. So sure, if they are already looking at the person independently, by all means take a look at their reading list. Pulling lists at random, or lists of people who have checked out certain books just to see who is reading them is what I have a problem with. (and honestly I don't know if that is going on or not)

And I agree James. Relying on the police to keep you safe is a lot like relying on the Fire Department to keep your house from catching on fire. Sure, we can help you once it happens, but not before. But then again, so is relying on the government to protect you from terrorists. So who protects us? Damned if I know.

Brady H.

[BradyH1861]

and then I'll shutup. I was just getting used to PA as the abbreviation for Publish America. Now it is Patriot Act. I'm going to be confused!

Brady H.

[DaveKuzminski]

I believe that the US and several other nations with high levels of personal freedom and liberty have experienced fewer incidents of terrorism in the past than other countries in the world simply because they actually had those high levels of personal freedom and liberty. In effect, fewer individuals were restricted by what they could do so there was no need and no incentive for any large scale opposition to the government to form.

While President Bush may have noble intentions in asking for the Patriot Act to be extended and strengthened, I have to keep in mind that the next individual who follows him might not be so inclined and would leap past any last protections to establish himself as a dictator-for-life. That is the point at which we can never recover without resorting to the worst possible scenario imaginable for it will truly be horrible. Keep in mind the movie Failsafe where the only solution at the end was to promise the Soviets after accidentally bombing them that we would bomb one of our own cities. There will always be individuals in the military like G. Gordon Liddy or H.B. Marcus who are willing to do whatever is asked or ordered, so it is not inconceivable that American cities would be bombed into oblivion or patrolled by global hawks should an armed insurrection ever materialize to recover lost freedoms from a tyrannical state put into place by the Patriot Act. It is that ultimate possibility that we must protect against by ensuring that our politicians do not take away any of our freedoms regardless of their reasoning.

By now, a few politicians do realize that such things can happen, particularly those who have found themselves targeted by no-fly rules that operate on names alone and give virtually no way of regaining the freedom to move about by all means allowed to others. We can only hope and encourage those few to stand up against laws that accomplish nothing other than to create large segments disenfranchized from our society for the larger those segments become, the more self-fulfilling the need for the Patriot Act will become.

[DaveKuzminski]

Why not refer to it as the PAct?

By the way, does invoking HB as an example automatically mean you've lost the argument?

[BradyH1861]

While President Bush may have noble intentions in asking for the Patriot Act to be extended and strengthened, I have to keep in mind that the next individual who follows him might not be so inclined and would leap past any last protections to establish himself as a dictator-for-life.

Exactly. I do not think Bush or Congress has evil designs when it comes to the PACT. They probably mean well and they may even have our best interests in mind. But it has the potential for great abuse should the right (or actually wrong) person be in charge.

Brady H.

[robeiae]

I agree that there are no valid comparisons between Nazi Germany and Modern Day America. My quote was not intended to draw comparisons between our forms of government and society.

What I intended to point out was that apathy, the belief that it only affects them and not us, and the fear of speaking out are just as dangerous now as they were in Nazi Germany. That is a valid argument, one that deals more with human nature than with history.

Well, then I apoligize for infering that was what you meant. Yet, you are not the only one who creates these kinds of analogies...I hear them everyday, and most who say them and like to hear them seem to accept the comparison as a valid one, as meanigful, as demonstrative of something. I'll reiterate: it's a bad comparison, right Dave :Thumbs: ! It bothers me because your defense of it is a more reasoned, logical argument, as ooposed to the analogy, itself. It's easy to proclaim "he's a Nazi!" or "that law is fascist!" and move some with raw emotion (demagoguery anyone?). It's harder to make a reasoned argument.

BTW, isn't it funny that Nazism, fascism, and Hitler are always the subject of these kinds od analogies? Of course, they're universal bad guys, so they are easy targets. You rarely hear anyone using communism, Bolshevism, Stalin, Mao, et al as the point of comparison, even though there are plenty of fruitful examples/analogies that could be given with reference to this group. Interesting...

Rob :)

[Richard]

You rarely hear anyone using communism, Bolshevism, Stalin, Mao, et al as the point of comparison, even though there are plenty of fruitful examples/analogies that could be given with reference to this group. Interesting...

Er...I've heard loads about both Stalin and communists.

As for a national ID card, well, we should have done this twenty years ago. Funny how people don't mind state ID cards that contain the exact same information, but somehow think a national ID card is the work of the devil.

National ID cards are stupid beyond belief. We're currently fighting to avoid getting them over here in the UK, because they WILL NOT WORK. They won't protect you against anything whatsoever, if only because any bad guys can quite easily circumnavigate them by... having valid ID. We've got a government that doesn't understand even the vaguest part of the technology, and proves it every time they open their mouths, is prepared to lie openly about its support (something like 70% against turning into 60% for, because they conveniently threw away thousands and thousands of protests) and plans to charge everyone in the country a fortune for the joy of carrying it about.

As for the US, the Patriot Act should most definitely be axed. It's one of the most paranoid, insipid, over-reaching laws imaginable - especially when you consider that even the single terrorist act that spawned it wouldn't have been stopped had it been in effect. If you're in the US, you're as safe as you ever were. Aside from that one event, according to the statistics, you're more likely to be abducted by aliens than killed by terrorists. Relax.

[VOTE_BOT]

So you been to school
For a year or two
And you know you’ve seen it all
In daddy’s car
Thinkin’ you’ll go far
Back east your type don’t crawl

Play ethnicky jazz
To parade your snazz
On your five grand stereo
Braggin’ that you know
How the niggers feel cold
And the slums got so much soul

It’s time to taste what you most fear
Right guard will not help you here
Brace yourself, my dear*

It’s a holiday in cambodia
It’s tough, kid, but it’s life
It’s a holiday in cambodia
Don’t forget to pack a wife

You’re a star-belly sneech
You suck like a leech
You want everyone to act like you
Kiss a$s while you b1tch
So you can get rich
But your boss gets richer off you

Well you’ll work harder
With a gun in your back
For a bowl of rice a day
Slave for soldiers
Till you starve
Then your head is skewered on a stake

Now you can go where people are one
Now you can go where they get things done
What you need, my son*.

Is a holiday in cambodia
Where people dress in black
A holiday in cambodia
Where you’ll kiss a$s or crack

Pol Pot, Pol Pot, Pol Pot, Pol Pot.

And it’s a holiday in cambodia
Where you’ll do what you’re told
A holiday in cambodia
Where the slums got so much soul

Pol Pot!

[robeiae]

Er...I've heard loads about both Stalin and communists.

Hmmm...well, I must be hanging out in all the wrong places (or right places, orleft places, depending on your point of view). But that's cool, even if I was hearing analogies using Stalin and communism instead of Hitler and Nazism, I'd still think they were BS.

Rob :)

[Richard]

http://www.wootang.net/communism.jpg

[Richard]

(Randomly - yes, that is a parody, not a real announcement from the RIAA ;-))

[BradyH1861]

But raw emotion is so much more fun!

Seriously, I think you are onto something about using Facism as the "boogeyman" in lieu of Communism. I usually hear people claim the Nazis were bad guys (which of course, everyone agrees that they were), but little is said about the oppression suffered under Communist rule. At least not much is said about that in my neck of the woods...it could just be the company I keep. Who knows.

If anything, I think that those of us who have taken part in this discussion have proven one thing. There is a middle ground out there. Maybe the country isn't as polarized as some would have us think. Perhaps if WE got together, then we could come up with a PACT that everyone could live with. How's that for a thought?

I would like to once again thank everyone who has taken part in this thread. The topic alone was one charged with strong feelings and emotion. I think we have shown that controversial issues can be debated in a calm, rational, respectful, and reasonable manner.

My hat is off to all of you. And I hope that you will continue to voice you opinions so that we can continue to learn from each other and grow.

Regards,
Brady H.

[VOTE_BOT]

And I hope that you will continue to voice you opinions so that we can continue to learn from each other and grow.

At least till they shut down the Internet and fire up the ovens, eh?

[robeiae]

At least till they shut down the Internet and fire up the ovens, eh?

D*ckhead...

:ROFL:

Rob :)

[BradyH1861]

At least till they shut down the Internet and fire up the ovens, eh?

Ummmm, sure. Until then.

:flag:

Brady H.

[Birol]

If anything, I think that those of us who have taken part in this discussion have proven one thing. There is a middle ground out there. Maybe the country isn't as polarized as some would have us think. Perhaps if WE got together, then we could come up with a PACT that everyone could live with. How's that for a thought?

I would like to once again thank everyone who has taken part in this thread. The topic alone was one charged with strong feelings and emotion. I think we have shown that controversial issues can be debated in a calm, rational, respectful, and reasonable manner.



My experience has been that this is the case with most controversial matters. Those who have an opinion but do not adopt an extreme stance are much more able to come together and find solutions everyone can live with than those at the far right or far left. Life is often not black or white; those who see and can maneuver within the gray areas are much more likely to find mutual understanding.

[Fractured_Chaos]

"The price of freedom is eternal vigilance." -- Thomas Jefferson.

Exactly. Because if we, the people are not vigilant, then the people in charge will run roughshod over us all.

There are certainly bad aspects to teh Patriot Act, but as a whole, it's a good bill, and you can bet it will be renewed, as it should be.

As a whole, no it is not a good bill. It's a very bad bill. There are a -few- redeemable aspects to it. Very few.

And it looks like those of you who think it should be reauthorized will get your wish.

PACT negotiations brought to a screeching halt. (http://www.buzzflash.com/analysis/05/06/ana05020.html)

You know what? I know that this particular article is an Op-Ed piece. But I watched this fiasco this morning on CSpan*. No commercial interruptions, no cutting or editing. It played out exactly as it happed IRL. The person who wrote this article understated what happened.

Mr. Sensenbrenner -rudely- admonished the people testifying on the actions that have occurred since the PACT was put in place, stating that they were all essentially liars, and not discussin the PACT, but their own agendas. He stated that nothing that any of the speakers brought up had anything to do with the PACT. And every single thing that was discussed was in direct relation to the PACT.

He made his little admonishment about the speakers going "off the subject", and gavelled the meeting closed. He did not bother to try to bring it back "on track" (It wasn't -off- track to begin with).

It's one thing to read it. You can just blow it off as overreacting, and editorializing.

But it's an entirely different thing to watch this travesty rebroadcaast, with no editing, no breaks, exactly as it played out. And let me tell you, it made me literally -sick-.

Yeah, our governemnt has been growing fat, happy, and decadant for many, many years. But there have always been checks and balances for the people to use, if any of our elected officials became too big for their britches. Unfortunately, this country got lazy.

They stopped being vigilant.

What's happening now is not just the fault of the politicians, but the fault of the complacent, and the blind sheeple who voted these crooks into office.

Adjust the Patriot Act where needed, but getting rid of it would be the height of fooloshness, and would, in the long run, bring in laws far worse, far more invasive.

Nope. Toss it, and start fresh, with the rights of the people in mind. The PACT -should- have been directed more towards communication between the different law enforcement organizations.

Instead, it's become a cudgel for the people.

As for a national ID card, well, we should have done this twenty years ago. Funny how people don't mind state ID cards that contain the exact same information, but somehow think a national ID card is the work of the devil.

The National ID card is one of the least of our worries, it's the absolute power for Homeland Security that was buried in that bill, that was buried deceptively in an appropriations bill that would not be voted down.

Before I comment on the things that are very -wrong- with the National ID, let me ask you this...Doesn't the fact that they buried this absolute power for DHS, and the N. ID in an appropriations bill concern you? Doesn't it make you suspicious? After all, if these were "good" bills, why didn't they put them on the floor on their own? Why did they hide them?

I have kids, and the one thing I learned, is that if my kid is trying to hide something like that, they're up to no good.

As for the N. ID? Keep this in mind...there is a blackmail clause buried in this NID. The states have the "choice" to participate. But if they do not, the residents of that state will not be allowed to travel by plane, train, or bus.

Another thing. With a centralized database like they're proposing, it makes it that much easier for identy theft.

And here's a question....If these NID cards are going to be embedded with a certain amount of information, what is to stop DHS from wanting more info...you know, like DNA? Orgianization affilliations? Political affiliations?

Where are the checks and balances?


*btw, if you have the stomach for it, or just want your eyes opened up, you can see this replayed on c-span.org. (http://www.c-span.org/)

[Fractured_Chaos]

Pffft!

The continued growth of government bureaucracies, particularly those dealing with the social services sectors and the IRS, have sapped more freedoms from us since the 1930's than any of the people you're worried about could even dream of doing. Once upon a time, your vote mattered; people in office could actually change things. Now, I'm afraid we've almost lost/surrendered too much freedom to the bureaucrats..

Yes, I know. It's disgusting, IMO. We've become complacent. And look what happens when we abdicate our social responsibility.

Now Bill Clinton, I could deal with, since he was content to leave things alone (more concerned with getting his...well, you know).

Can't argue with the rest of that comment. And I agree with you about Clinton. I look at it this way...

1) What goes on below the belt is none of my business, and...

2) As long as he was smoking cigars with Monica, his hand wasn't on that red button.

Now my rant is done!

Love ya!

Rob :)

Love ya too, Rob. But I can't say I'm done with my rant. Just done for now. That might change in 5 minutes. ;)

[BradyH1861]

I'm sorry I missed the program. From how you described things, it sounds like our city council meetings! (talk about people up to no good and drunk with their own power...)

:Shrug:

Brady H.

[Fractured_Chaos]

drgnlvr, I apologized in private, but I want to do so publicly. I did not intend offense when I used the "name-calling and sloganing" line. I simply thought that calling the president the Commander in Thief was not relevant to the discussion.

You're very kind, but no apology was needed. :kiss:


You are certainly free to do so and I'll fight anybody who tries to stop you!:box:

Amen! And I've got your back, as well. I might not agree with you, but I -will- fight tooth and nail for you to be allowed your opinion.

However, in retrospect, I believe MY comment was uncalled for and inflammatory, and again I apologize. Thanks for not responding in kind.

Nonsense! I certainly didn't see it that way. This is a subject that arrouses alot of passion, on both sides. I don't think there's a single "luke-warm" opinion out there on this.

You have been a complete gentleman.

Even if you are misinformed! :wag:

[Fractured_Chaos]

Hmmm...well, I must be hanging out in all the wrong places (or right places, orleft places, depending on your point of view). But that's cool, even if I was hearing analogies using Stalin and communism instead of Hitler and Nazism, I'd still think they were BS.

Rob :)

You know, I keep hearing the other side say this, but I'm wondering how you come to the conclusions that they're not similar?

After all, Hitler didn't wake up one morning and just decide right then to send 6 million people to their deaths. It was a gradual process, and the destruction of what was once a democracy.

Explain it to me. What are the differences? Please make me see that today, and what happened in Germany are not similar. I -want- to be convinced.

[BradyH1861]

Germany as we know it today is a relatively new country. They were unified in 1871. Prior to that, they were a collection of German states ruled by princes. The Prussians unified the country and installed their head of state as Kaiser. The Kaiser ruled Germany until the end of World War One. Only then were they a democracy under the Weimar Republic. However, with numerous factions fighting for control of the country (literally fighting in the streets on many occasions), the country did not really have a high opinion of "democracy." The rotten state of affairs, plus the lack of a democratic tradition made it relatively easy for a strongman like Hitler to assume power. Nazis were elected to offices in the Reichstag, as were other parties. However, once they got total control (after Hitler assumed the office of President AND Chancellor after the death of Hindenburg), they outlawed other parties.

If it hadn't of been the Nazis, there was a good chance that perhaps Germany would have become a socialist/communist state. So Germany was actually only a democracy for about 15 years before Hitler came to power. That is a fundamental difference between the United States and Germany. Here we have a long established tradition of freedom. That actually did not exist in Germany even before Hitler.

Brady H.

[VOTE_BOT]

Not to mention we haven't just lost a World War, after which our borders shrunk, and we're not rolling wheelbarrows of dollar bills into stores just to pay for basic foodstuffs because of ruaway inflation.

Those were crucial factors in creating an atmosphere in which a militant nationalistic party could rise.

[Fractured_Chaos]

Germany as we know it today is a relatively new country. They were unified in 1871. Prior to that, they were a collection of German states ruled by princes. The Prussians unified the country and installed their head of state as Kaiser. The Kaiser ruled Germany until the end of World War One. Only then were they a democracy under the Weimar Republic. However, with numerous factions fighting for control of the country (literally fighting in the streets on many occasions), the country did not really have a high opinion of "democracy." The rotten state of affairs, plus the lack of a democratic tradition made it relatively easy for a strongman like Hitler to assume power. Nazis were elected to offices in the Reichstag, as were other parties. However, once they got total control (after Hitler assumed the office of President AND Chancellor after the death of Hindenburg), they outlawed other parties.

If it hadn't of been the Nazis, there was a good chance that perhaps Germany would have become a socialist/communist state. So Germany was actually only a democracy for about 15 years before Hitler came to power. That is a fundamental difference between the United States and Germany. Here we have a long established tradition of freedom. That actually did not exist in Germany even before Hitler.

Brady H.

Okay, I can understand where the idea that there is no similarity between the two.

Insofar as reaching a certain point in German history.

Now, start from the time the Reichstag burned down (Yes, yes, I know Hitler had no intention of remaining Chancellor anyway, but then, how do we know that Bush...or more likely Ashcroft or Chaney don't have dreams of ultimate power? No one has been able to prove otherwise to me, yet).

The first thing that happens, is a scapegoat is found. In this case, the Communists. And the next day, the German President signs a bill that suspends freedom of speech.

Now, it's been established that the Reichstag was actually burned by the Nazi's, and there is no way I want anyone to misunderstand that I even for a moment think 9/11 was caused by our own people.

At least not deliberately. There's evidence aplenty that the information and warnings were there, and everyone dropped the ball.

But the act of "terrorism" in Germany, and the subsequent loss of freedom, the scapegoating of certain groups, and the gaining of absolute power by the people in charge are all very familiar feeling. The names and faces are different, but the similarities are there, and it has the potential to become another Nazi Germany, if we are not very, very careful, and very, very vigilant. It creeps closer and closer to that line, every day.

Did you read that link I posted about Sensenbrenner shutting the PACT negotiations down? Did you see the replay on C-Span? Or go to c-span.org?

What he did was very frightening, IMO. The implications are disturbing.

So while I agree that what happened to Germany and what is happening here are not exactly the same, there are enough similarities to worry me.

[BradyH1861]

When I was in grad school, I took a course in Modern Germany 1871-1945 as an elective. The professor said something very interesting that has stayed with me longer than the information learned in the class.

He said "Nazism is a uniquely German phenomenon. Fascism, however, can happen anywhere."

Oh, and after banning free speech, etc, Hitler also outlawed private ownership of firearms.....just thought I'd pass that along too :guns:

Brady H.

[Fractured_Chaos]

Not to mention we haven't just lost a World War, after which our borders shrunk, and we're not rolling wheelbarrows of dollar bills into stores just to pay for basic foodstuffs because of ruaway inflation.

Those were crucial factors in creating an atmosphere in which a militant nationalistic party could rise.

And there are crucial factors in creating an atmosphere for a Fascist party to rise here.


Fascism
A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.
A political philosophy or movement based on or advocating such a system of government.

Oppressive, dictatorial control.
What concerns me is the first definition. Remember last year? An election year? Do you recall all the people who demonstrated against Bush, and how they were treated? (http://www.thememoryhole.org/policestate/pier57/) Corralled in "Free Speech Zones", far out of the sight of our illustrius POTUS. Often arrested, and held without being allowed their one phone call, frequently told that the Miranda was a "privledge" and they were undeserving of it.

Wouldn't you say that qualified as suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship? After all, the most vital part of our freedom of speech is the freedom to address the wrongdoing of our government. It's meant to keep them in line, and not allow them to get too big for their britches.

How are we able to do this, if we are not even allowed to demonstrate peacefully, where we can be seen and heard? How can we feel free to do so, if we're in fear of being arrested, and held without due process?

How can we even attempt to try to be vigilant, and fight for our freedom, when our current government -encourages- your neighbors to spy on you? (http://www.retakingamerica.com/fbi_flyer_01.html)
(btw, please note the part in the red box...knowing your rights, and being familiar with the US Constitution makes you a terror suspect)

And isn't the attempt at blacking out the photographs of the caskets of our dead soldiers also censorship? (http://www.thememoryhole.org/war/coffin_photos/)

And Altering History is another form of censorship. (http://www.thememoryhole.org/pol/iraq-combat/)(Yes, the example was "mild", but indicative of the current atmosphere in this country)

If definition #1 isn't stopped, then definition #2 will become reality.

[Fractured_Chaos]

When I was in grad school, I took a course in Modern Germany 1871-1945 as an elective. The professor said something very interesting that has stayed with me longer than the information learned in the class.

He said "Nazism is a uniquely German phenomenon. Fascism, however, can happen anywhere."

Oh, and after banning free speech, etc, Hitler also outlawed private ownership of firearms.....just thought I'd pass that along too :guns:

Brady H.

Yup.

But see, there's a more "Cowboy" mentality here in the US. If the government tried to completely outlaw personal firearms, there would be rioting in the streets ASAP....most likely -with- their guns. You know this as well as I do, and it doesn't take a high IQ for anyone to figure that out, including the government.

Besides, by the time it gets to the point that personal firearms are outlawed, it'll already be too late.

[parowley]

*Sigh*

I'm new to Absolute Write and the boards, and frankly I wasn't really planning on posting just yet (still a lurker at heart I guess), but I'm just a sucker for political debate and wanted to contribute a little something...

No. Honestly? I think the -intended- goal of our current government is to create a Fascist state. And they're doing a darn fine job of it.

And sorry if I -do- seem overly cynical. But I'm seeing way too much going on that is ugly, and dangerous.

Laurence Britt wrote a little something a while back called "Fascism Anyone?" in which he outlines 14 points that are common to some of the great fascist regimes of history (Hitler, Mussolini, Franco, Suharto and Pinochet were his case studies) and then sees how well the administration of George W. Bush matches up with the these other regimes.

The results are pretty darn scary....let's take a look shall we?

1) Powerful and Continuing Nationalism
Fascist regimes tend to make constant use of patriotic mottos, slogans, symbols, songs, and other paraphernalia. Flags are seen everywhere, as are flag symbols on clothing and in public displays.

Well, as one of America's neighbours to the north (you can even tell with my fancy shmancy spelling) I've always thought that Americans were an incredibly patriotic lot...almost pathologically so in fact. Ever since 9/11 however it was taken to a whole new level, understandably in my opinion, yet also disturbing. Case in point, quite often I'll take a look at CNN or Fox News, not for news but for entertainment (if I want news I'll take the BBC thankyouverymuch) and I'm shocked at how often debate is stifled by responses that basically amount to "if you disagree with the policy of our government you're 'Un-american' or 'un-patriotic.'" In my opinion the Bush's American clearly meets this point.

2) Disdain for the recognition of Human Rights.
Because of fear of enemies and the need for security, people in fascist regimes are persuaded that human rights can be ignored in certain cases because of "need." The people tend to look the other way or even approve of torture, summary executions, assassinations, long incarcerations of prisoners, etc.

Abhu Garib, GitMo, the leaked "torture memo." Need I say more?

3) Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a unifying cause
The people are rallied into a unifying patriotic frenzy over the need to eliminate a perceived common threat or foe: racial, ethnic, or religious minorities; liberals; communists; socialists; terrorists, etc.

Well, I do believe that terrorists should be eliminated. Absolutely and whole heartedly. And while I do believe that the Bush administration is expending SOME of it's energy towards that end it seems that once they had the pretext of a war on terror they got a little bit side tracked onto other things...like a certain middle eastern country that shall remain nameless.

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 professions are glamorized.

There are serious, serious, serious domestic problems in the United States. Infrastructure is falling apart. Health care is a shambles (I realize that as a Canadian I'm a bit biased when it comes to that). Many regions still live in absolutely crushing, almost third world poverty. The proposed military budget for 2006 is $2.57 trillion dollars, yet many social programs are being cut. Does the US military, by far the MOST powerful military in the world, really need all that money? Frankly I kind of wonder...

As for the glorification of soldiers and military professions all you need do is take a look at a recruitment video and see that there's at least a little bit of truth to that...

5) Rampant Sexism
The governments of fascist nations tend to be almost exclusively male-dominated. Under fascist regimes, traditional gender roles are made more rigid. Opposition to abortion is high, as is homophobia and anti-gay legislation and national policy.

The big flap over gay marriage would seem to back up this criteria. So too would Bush's expressed desire to get rid of Roe v. Wade in regards to abortion.

6) Controlled Mass Media
Sometimes the media is directly controlled by the government, but in other cases, the media is indirectly controlled by government regulation, or sympathetic media spokepeople and executives. Censorship, especially in war time, is very common.

Look at the way Fox News covers a story. Compare it to the way that the BBC covers the story. If you want an even bigger contrast go and comapre it to the way that Al Jazeera covers the story. There will always be bias in the media. What's scary is the lack of alternative news sources in mainstream American culture these days. Also scary is the way in which the Bush administration and channels like Fox News went on the attack when Newsweek (it was Newsweek wasn't it?) ran their story about Koran desecration at GitMo. A wee bit ironic that after being dragged through the mud and accused of severely damaging US interests abroad that corroborating evidence came up in some leaked FBI documents...

File that under things that make you go "hmmmm"...

7) Obsession with National Security
Fear is used as a motivational tool by the government over the masses.

I believe it was drgnlvr who commented on a startling connection between Bush taking a dive in the polls and the rainbow alert (or whatever the damn thing's called) goes up. Using fear for political gain? Naaaaah.

8) Religion and Government are Intertwined
Governments in fascist nations tend to use the most common religion in the nation as a tool to manipulate public opinion. Religious rhetoric and terminology is common from government leaders, even when the major tenets of the religion are diametrically opposed to the government's policies or actions.

Bush describing the war on terror as a "crusade" (talk about a poor choice of words). The on-going Creationism vs. Theory of Evolution debate in many southern school districts. Tom DeLay saying that "the US need not separate Church and state." The so-called "Judicial War on Faith" (yikes).

9) Corporate Power is Protected
The industrial and business aristocracy of a fascist nation often are the ones who put the government leaders into power, creating a mutually beneficial business/government relationship and power elite.

I don't think that anyone can possibly deny that the Bush administration has some very, very close ties to big business. Some of these dealings are more than a little shady. Case in point, many of the Iraq reconstruction contracts going to Halliburton without a competitive bidding process. Or the supreme court overturning the conviction of the Arthur Andersen accounting firm in regards to Enron. Smells fishy to me.

10) Labor Power is Suppressed
Because the organizing power of labor is the only real threat to a fascist government, labor unions are either eliminated entirely, or are severely suppressed.

Labor relations in the US is something I know next to nothing about, so I'm not going to comment too much asides from saying that given the government/big business ties I don't see how they possibly COULD be pro-Union as well...

11) Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts
Fascist nations tend to promote and tolerate open hostility to higher education, and academia. It is not uncommon for professors and other academics to be censored or even arrested. Free expression in the arts is openly attacked, and governments often refuse to fund the arts.

One need look only at the lack of open and spirited debate when it comes to policy to see a form of censorship (true people aren't being locked up, but it's not an atmosphere that lends itself to constructive debate). Bush has also repeatedly slashed funding for things like the National Endowment for the Arts and education.

12) Obsession with Crime and Punishment
Under fascist regimes, the police are given almost limitless power to enforce laws. The people are often willing to overlook police abuses and even forego civil liberties in the name of patriotism. There is often a national police force with virtually unlimited power in fascist nations.

The Patriot Act fits very nicely into this niche.

13) Rampant Cronyism and Corruption
Fascist regimes are almost always governed by by groups of friends and associates who appoint each other to government positions and use governmental powers and authority to protect their friends from accountability. It is not uncommon in fascist regimes for national resources and even treasures to be appropriated or even outright stolen by government leaders.

Big business connections again. The deep personal friendships and family ties (especially with George sr.) that many members of Bush's cabinet have.

14) Fraudulent Elections
Sometimes elections in fascist nations are a complete sham. Other times elections are manipulated by smear campaigns against or even assassination of opposition candidates, use of legislation to control voting numbers or political district boundaries, and manipulation of the media. Fascist nations also typically use their judiciaries to manipulate or control elections.

One word: FLORIDA!!!!!!


Does all this mean that the United States has devolved into a fascist regime?

I don't believe it's quite that bad. I do believe, however, that things have definitely, definitely, definitely taken a turn for the worse since Dubya has been Commander in Chief (to my mind the Patriot Act is a symptom of the underlying problems).

Terrorism was always with us and it will always be with us. Everyone has a right to protect themselves and those they love. What I think we should all ask ourselves is whether legislation like the Patriot Act and policy like the invasion of Iraq are making things safer or if they're moving us closer and closer to the brink...

Personally I'd say it was the latter...

[Fractured_Chaos]

Wow, parowley, what a great, and thought-provoking first post. Welcome to the Cooler! :)

And you nailed it. Dead center.

[parowley]

Thanks for the warm reception drgnlvr, all I have to say is that it's amazing what a bout of insomnia and a lively political debate can do...

Oh...and I wish I could take credit for all of that, but without Laurence Britt's wonderful article I would of had a much, much harder time expressing all of that in an organized, concise fashion...

[Roger J Carlson]

Laurence Britt wrote a little something a while back called "Fascism Anyone?" in which he outlines 14 points that are common to some of the great fascist regimes of history (Hitler, Mussolini, Franco, Suharto and Pinochet were his case studies) and then sees how well the administration of George W. Bush matches up with the these other regimes.

The results are pretty darn scary....let's take a look shall we?Yes, let's. And let's further see how they can be correctly interpreted.


1) Powerful and Continuing Nationalism
Fascist regimes tend to make constant use of patriotic mottos, slogans, symbols, songs, and other paraphernalia. Flags are seen everywhere, as are flag symbols on clothing and in public displays.

Well, as one of America's neighbours to the north (you can even tell with my fancy shmancy spelling) I've always thought that Americans were an incredibly patriotic lot...almost pathologically so in fact. Ever since 9/11 however it was taken to a whole new level, understandably in my opinion, yet also disturbing. Case in point, quite often I'll take a look at CNN or Fox News, not for news but for entertainment (if I want news I'll take the BBC thankyouverymuch) and I'm shocked at how often debate is stifled by responses that basically amount to "if you disagree with the policy of our government you're 'Un-american' or 'un-patriotic.'" In my opinion the Bush's American clearly meets this point.This was also fairly typical of the US during WWII, a time when the US lead the fight against Fascism. I guess it's sad to me when a love of one's country is equated to fascism.

2) Disdain for the recognition of Human Rights.
Because of fear of enemies and the need for security, people in fascist regimes are persuaded that human rights can be ignored in certain cases because of "need." The people tend to look the other way or even approve of torture, summary executions, assassinations, long incarcerations of prisoners, etc.

Abhu Garib, GitMo, the leaked "torture memo." Need I say more?Yes, I think you do. Are you seriously comparing the abuses (and there were abuses) of Abhu Garib with the beheading in the Iraq? With the mass execution of Jews by the Nazis? With the physical and psychological torture inflicted by the North Koreans? Muslim clerics encouraging suicide bombings? You are measuring with the wrong scale.

3) Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a unifying cause
The people are rallied into a unifying patriotic frenzy over the need to eliminate a perceived common threat or foe: racial, ethnic, or religious minorities; liberals; communists; socialists; terrorists, etc.

Well, I do believe that terrorists should be eliminated. Absolutely and whole heartedly. And while I do believe that the Bush administration is expending SOME of it's energy towards that end it seems that once they had the pretext of a war on terror they got a little bit side tracked onto other things...like a certain middle eastern country that shall remain nameless.Unified? The US? If we're in such a unified frenzy, you certainly can't tell it by the news, radio, television, or this board. In fact, this country is split about in half between conservatives and liberals. I think that's rather healthy.

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 professions are glamorized.

There are serious, serious, serious domestic problems in the United States. Infrastructure is falling apart. Health care is a shambles (I realize that as a Canadian I'm a bit biased when it comes to that). Many regions still live in absolutely crushing, almost third world poverty. The proposed military budget for 2006 is $2.57 trillion dollars, yet many social programs are being cut. Does the US military, by far the MOST powerful military in the world, really need all that money? Frankly I kind of wonder...

As for the glorification of soldiers and military professions all you need do is take a look at a recruitment video and see that there's at least a little bit of truth to that...You make a lot of claims with no proof. Infrastructure falling apart? I don't see that. Healthcare a shambles? I work in a very large health care system and it is not a shambles. Third world poverty? Ridiculous! Why then are Mexicans streaming into our borders? Yes our military budget is increasing. We ARE fighting a war pretty much alone. Thanks for your help. And glorification of the soldier in military recruitment. You find that disturbing? It's an AD! What should they say to try to encourage people to join?

5) Rampant Sexism
The governments of fascist nations tend to be almost exclusively male-dominated. Under fascist regimes, traditional gender roles are made more rigid. Opposition to abortion is high, as is homophobia and anti-gay legislation and national policy.

The big flap over gay marriage would seem to back up this criteria. So too would Bush's expressed desire to get rid of Roe v. Wade in regards to abortion. Let's see: Condolezza Rice. She is in a very high position for a male dominated regime.

Yes, there is question in this country about gay marriage. This is a far cry from "anti-gay" legislation. Gay people are freer now than ever and this freedom is increasing. And Row v. Wade. Let's not forget that while Bush is against it, it HAS been the law in this land for 30 years.

6) Controlled Mass Media
Sometimes the media is directly controlled by the government, but in other cases, the media is indirectly controlled by government regulation, or sympathetic media spokepeople and executives. Censorship, especially in war time, is very common.

Look at the way Fox News covers a story. Compare it to the way that the BBC covers the story. If you want an even bigger contrast go and comapre it to the way that Al Jazeera covers the story. There will always be bias in the media. What's scary is the lack of alternative news sources in mainstream American culture these days. Also scary is the way in which the Bush administration and channels like Fox News went on the attack when Newsweek (it was Newsweek wasn't it?) ran their story about Koran desecration at GitMo. A wee bit ironic that after being dragged through the mud and accused of severely damaging US interests abroad that corroborating evidence came up in some leaked FBI documents...

File that under things that make you go "hmmmm"...Illogic. Just because Fox doesn't report it the way the BBC doesn't make Fox wrong. You are assuming facts not in evidence. In fact, the fact that Fox reports things differently than CNN or MSNBC, is evidence that our media is NOT controlled in any way.

7) Obsession with National Security
Fear is used as a motivational tool by the government over the masses.

I believe it was drgnlvr who commented on a startling connection between Bush taking a dive in the polls and the rainbow alert (or whatever the damn thing's called) goes up. Using fear for political gain? Naaaaah.Well, forgive us for being concerned about a big hole at the Southern tip of Manhattan.

8) Religion and Government are Intertwined
Governments in fascist nations tend to use the most common religion in the nation as a tool to manipulate public opinion. Religious rhetoric and terminology is common from government leaders, even when the major tenets of the religion are diametrically opposed to the government's policies or actions.

Bush describing the war on terror as a "crusade" (talk about a poor choice of words). The on-going Creationism vs. Theory of Evolution debate in many southern school districts. Tom DeLay saying that "the US need not separate Church and state." The so-called "Judicial War on Faith" (yikes).Yes. And the law of this land IS a "wall of separation" between church and state. It is also the tradition of this country for people to feel free to question and have opinions about this for and against.

9) Corporate Power is Protected
The industrial and business aristocracy of a fascist nation often are the ones who put the government leaders into power, creating a mutually beneficial business/government relationship and power elite.

I don't think that anyone can possibly deny that the Bush administration has some very, very close ties to big business. Some of these dealings are more than a little shady. Case in point, many of the Iraq reconstruction contracts going to Halliburton without a competitive bidding process. Or the supreme court overturning the conviction of the Arthur Andersen accounting firm in regards to Enron. Smells fishy to me.No government can NOT have close ties to big business. John Kerry had close ties to big business. Even the Canadian government has close ties to big business. The reason is that government needs big business and big business needs the government. The surest way to drive your economy into the ground is to try to punish big business.

10) Labor Power is Suppressed
Because the organizing power of labor is the only real threat to a fascist government, labor unions are either eliminated entirely, or are severely suppressed.

Labor relations in the US is something I know next to nothing about, so I'm not going to comment too much asides from saying that given the government/big business ties I don't see how they possibly COULD be pro-Union as well...Labor is losing ground in this country at the grassroots level, not by any surpression from above.

11) Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts
Fascist nations tend to promote and tolerate open hostility to higher education, and academia. It is not uncommon for professors and other academics to be censored or even arrested. Free expression in the arts is openly attacked, and governments often refuse to fund the arts.

One need look only at the lack of open and spirited debate when it comes to policy to see a form of censorship (true people aren't being locked up, but it's not an atmosphere that lends itself to constructive debate). Bush has also repeatedly slashed funding for things like the National Endowment for the Arts and education. Since when is it a right for governments to fund the Arts? Preposterous! And I see a lot of open and spirited debate. Right here on this board in fact.

12) Obsession with Crime and Punishment
Under fascist regimes, the police are given almost limitless power to enforce laws. The people are often willing to overlook police abuses and even forego civil liberties in the name of patriotism. There is often a national police force with virtually unlimited power in fascist nations.

The Patriot Act fits very nicely into this niche. Police do not have limitless powers, even under th Patriot Act. And as seen by the dust up over Abhu Garib, people are not "willing to overlook police abuses".

13) Rampant Cronyism and Corruption
Fascist regimes are almost always governed by by groups of friends and associates who appoint each other to government positions and use governmental powers and authority to protect their friends from accountability. It is not uncommon in fascist regimes for national resources and even treasures to be appropriated or even outright stolen by government leaders.

Big business connections again. The deep personal friendships and family ties (especially with George sr.) that many members of Bush's cabinet have. Again, connection to big business does not equate to Saddam looting millions from Iraq. It's a comparison of apples to oranges.

14) Fraudulent Elections
Sometimes elections in fascist nations are a complete sham. Other times elections are manipulated by smear campaigns against or even assassination of opposition candidates, use of legislation to control voting numbers or political district boundaries, and manipulation of the media. Fascist nations also typically use their judiciaries to manipulate or control elections.

One word: FLORIDA!!!!!!Sometimes elections have problems. That was one. But to equate this with the kind of wide spread abuse that fascist nations use is ludicrious and disingenuous. Oh, and who was assassinated in Florida?

It really looks to me like Laurence Britt simply looked for things he didn't like in the US and retrofitted them (stretching them quite a bit) to fit into the defintion of Fascism.

[Sheryl Nantus]

considering that for the past decade, coming up on two, there has only been ONE political party running Canada (and extremely corrupt, as the recent headlines are detailing) and the country is rapidly becoming a Third World country, I'd take the "broken" US anytime...

jmo, ymmv.

[robeiae]

But the act of "terrorism" in Germany, and the subsequent loss of freedom, the scapegoating of certain groups, and the gaining of absolute power by the people in charge are all very familiar feeling. The names and faces are different, but the similarities are there, and it has the potential to become another Nazi Germany, if we are not very, very careful, and very, very vigilant. It creeps closer and closer to that line, every day.

No, the similarities are not there, especially with regard to "the scapegoating of certain groups..." The Jews were easy targets for the Nazis for a number of very specific and unique historical conditions. A primary one is that the German defeat in WWI was attributed (by the Junkers and their political sympathizers) to the Jews at large. It was argued that the Jews did not support the country in the war, did not contribute their fair share, held back their wealth...all untrue, by the way. The defeat was thus becuase of a "stab in the back" by the Jews and their allies. Furthermore, because many Jews were successful, well-educated, and professional, it appeared to the general populace that this was a valid argument.

As Brady already noted, there was no history of democracy in Germany; it was a new thing to the Germans. And note that many of them were never happy about it from the start. It was forced down their throats...

Again, I would say our potential lies not on this raod, but on the opposit one of socialism (though they both end up in the same place). We are creeping closer to that line becuase of bureaucratic growth and the accompanying loss of freedom such growth engenders.

Yet, the real hole in your argument about our approach to fascism/Nazism is the very definition you cited-both require massive socioeconomic controls; the only people reaching for anyhting approaching this requirement are the same ones trying to increase taxes, increase entitlements, etc.

Rob :)

[Fractured_Chaos]

I'm sorry I missed the program. From how you described things, it sounds like our city council meetings! (talk about people up to no good and drunk with their own power...)

:Shrug:

Brady H.

Sorry I missed this earlier, Brady. You can see the travesty on c-span.org.

[Roger J Carlson]

Thanks for the warm reception drgnlvr, all I have to say is that it's amazing what a bout of insomnia and a lively political debate can do...
parowley,

I'm glad you found a welcome at AW. It's a pretty awesome place for writers. But one of the ground rules is respect for fellow writers. This doesn't mean we never disagree, but we do so without belittling or insulting each other.

It might interest you to know that there are some Americans here who love their country and support their President. Everyone here has a right to an opinion, but comparing the USA to a fascist state crosses the line from opinion into disrespect. Such name-calling is not in the spirit of this board.

I hope you stick around. There is no more supportive place on the web for writers.

[Fractured_Chaos]

It might interest you to know that there are some Americans here who love their country and support their President. Everyone here has a right to an opinion, but comparing the USA to a fascist state crosses the line from opinion into disrespect. Such name-calling is not in the spirit of this board.



Forgive me Roger, but if you are going to scold someone for comparing the US to a Fascist state, I deserve a ding too.

Let's be fair here.

[James D. Macdonald]

The question isn't whether the Patriot Act should be renewed -- of course not. It shouldn't have been passed in the first place. The question is whether the Bill of Rights should be renewed. We've forgotten that.

[Roger J Carlson]

Forgive me Roger, but if you are going to scold someone for comparing the US to a Fascist state, I deserve a ding too.

Let's be fair here.Yes and no. You are a US citizen are you not? As such, you have a right to believe that YOUR government is becoming fascist and to be alarmed by that fact. But parowley is Canadian. It is an entirely different thing to tell us that OUR government is becoming fascist. She has a right to believe that and be alarmed by it. But it is disrespectful for him/her to come here, call MY President by an insulting name, and claim that MY country is becoming a fascist state.

I might call my brother a slob, but it is impolite for you to call my brother a slob.

Canadians should look to the problems in their own goverment and not comment on ours.

And if you are not a US citizen, then yes, my scold applies to you as well.

Aside: Why is it all right for Canadians to be proud of Canada, but it is not all right for Americans to be proud of the US?

[SRHowen]

Aside: Why is it all right for Canadians to be proud of Canada, but it is not all right for Americans to be proud of the US?

After 9/11 everyone had flags out, trucks ran around with them full sized flapping in the truck box.

If everyone was so proud, then why did it take a thing like 9/11 for them to find the pride? And now those same flags are tattered ruins still flapping away their sad threads. Where is the pride in that? You take the flag in at night unless it is illuminated. You don't have it in the box of your truck torn to shreds in all weather.

That's not pride in country, that's jumping on the band wagon.

We've always had a flag out. It didn't take a major terror attack to make me find my so called pride.

I've always voted.

The number of registered voters didn't change all that much after 9/11.

Hate crimes sure did. Japanese internment camps anyone? I know a number of people who said off hand remarks like all people of middle eastern desent should be locked up. Gee, how American let’s have some pride in that.

Sorry, but a jump on the band wagon mentality --and an excuse to hate what you don’t understand are no reason to lose freedoms we have. But they sure are American aren’t they?

[BradyH1861]

I'm at work, and will be until 630 am tomorrow, so I don't have time to post anything lengthy at the moment....been a busy shift.

Anyway, can anyone tell me where the line is between patriotism and nationalism? And frankly, is nationalism always bad? I know it can be, but it isn't necessarily so. I happen to be fiercely proud to be a Texan AND an American (Irish-American at that). I have a flagpole in my backyard and I proudly fly the US and the Texas flag over my property. Except on Saint Patrick's Day when I fly the Irish flag and a replica of the flag carried by the Irish Brigade during the Civil War.

So maybe I am pathologically patriotic, or a nationalist even, but I don't really see anything wrong with it. What would be wrong would be for me to live in this country and hate it, which I don't. I love my country. Sure, sometimes I might criticize or question what our government does, but I can thank God every night that I live in the kind of country in which I am allowed to do that.

I would imagine that a person who lives in another country would be proud of their's too, which is certainly their right. But seriously, I do not think that we pathologically patriotic. We have a LOT to be proud of and be thankful for in this country. We must be doing something right, seeing as how people still dream of coming here and often risk all to do so.

Anyway, gotta run. Duty calls.

Brady H.

[William Haskins]

wheeeee!

(one could argue that if you have to (and are free to) debate whether your nation is fascist... it probably isn't)

[SRHowen]

true, william, so true--and that's what we don't want to lose.

[Roger J Carlson]

After 9/11 everyone had flags out, trucks ran around with them full sized flapping in the truck box.

If everyone was so proud, then why did it take a thing like 9/11 for them to find the pride? And now those same flags are tattered ruins still flapping away their sad threads. Where is the pride in that? You take the flag in at night unless it is illuminated. You don't have it in the box of your truck torn to shreds in all weather.

That's not pride in country, that's jumping on the band wagon.

We've always had a flag out. It didn't take a major terror attack to make me find my so called pride.

I've always voted.

The number of registered voters didn't change all that much after 9/11.

Hate crimes sure did. Japanese internment camps anyone? I know a number of people who said off hand remarks like all people of middle eastern desent should be locked up. Gee, how American let’s have some pride in that.

Sorry, but a jump on the band wagon mentality --and an excuse to hate what you don’t understand are no reason to lose freedoms we have. But they sure are American aren’t they?If that was a response to my question, I missed it.

I'm not talking about flag waving. I'm talking about a deep and abiding love of this country. I'm talking about a belief that on balance we have done more good in this world than bad.

There is a thread in this forum (Reasons to fear Canada) in which many Canadians take pride in Canada. No one scoffs at them. When an American does that, he is ridiculed. Why is that?

[William Haskins]

true, william, so true--and that's what we don't want to lose.

of course, no one wants to lose it.

my personal view is it's a lot of crying wolf, and it fosters an unhealthy mistrust of government (i'm a BIG advocate of healthy mistrust).

but the mihop and lihop crowd, and various others who i don't really want to get into, have an agenda to turn a generation of politically naive voters against the american system of government -- in my opinion.

and i find it really hard to take these people seriously.

[Fractured_Chaos]

Yes and no. You are a US citizen are you not? As such, you have a right to believe that YOUR government is becoming fascist and to be alarmed by that fact. But parowley is Canadian. It is an entirely different thing to tell us that OUR government is becoming fascist. She has a right to believe that and be alarmed by it. But it is disrespectful for him/her to come here, call MY President by an insulting name, and claim that MY country is becoming a fascist state.

I disagree. Don't we discuss politics for France, Japan, Germany, Great Britain? Don't we sometimes mention that European countries are Socialist states, and use a tone of disapproval?

I do believe I've seen more than a few Americans on this board make uncomplimentary comments about Blair.

1) The US is a thing. And ideal, a chunk of land, and sometimes, it's people. -Most- often, when discussing the US, we're discussing policy...the Government. Our government officials are -public- figures, therefore they are fair and open targets for criticism.

2) Canada and the US share a border. And policies in the US can, and -DO- effect Canada. Perhaps not as dramtically as they effect us, but they still effect them. Canadians are entitled to their opinion of the US, positive, or negative.

3) Dinging a non-US citizen for criticizing the US is on the same level as dinging someone for criticizing your latest book. Not everyone is going to like us. We need to accept that, and move on.

4) Most importantly, dinging a non-US Citizen for criticizing the US is -not- what we're about. While the First Amendment might be the letter of the law for people within the US borders, it should also be the -spirit- of the law the world over. After all, sometimes an outside observer can see what those closest to the issue might miss.

I might call my brother a slob, but it is impolite for you to call my brother a slob.

Apples and oranges. Your brother is not the country, nor is he a public official.


Aside: Why is it all right for Canadians to be proud of Canada, but it is not all right for Americans to be proud of the US?

Who said it wasn't? I love my country. I'm very proud of the accomplishments that were made in our name. I'm very proud of the good things we do and have done in the past. There are alot of positives about this country, and its people.

I'm just not real thrilled about the current govenment and their policies.

[SRHowen]

If that was a response to my question, I missed it.

I'm not talking about flag waving. I'm talking about a deep and abiding love of this country. I'm talking about a belief that on balance we have done more good in this world than bad.

There is a thread in this forum (Reasons to fear Canada) in which many Canadians take pride in Canada. No one scoffs at them. When an American does that, he is ridiculed. Why is that?

I don't think anyone is ridiculing <sp> you. I don't see it that way at all. We are having a debate.

My post meant --false love of country. These people who suddenly started waving flags and spouting hatred for anyone who looked even a little middle eastern, or who speaks any language from that area. My hubby is blond haired blue eyed and looks like a Viking. He speaks arabic. He asked at the local library if they had any books in Arabic---could have heard a pin drop in there.

I don't see anything wrong with love of country--I don't see the PA as a love of country thing at all--I see it as the destruction of our country. Of what we stand for.

The same as I see those flag waving jump on the band wagon folks--if they really cared, they'd vote, and they'd protect the freedoms our country was founded on.

[Fractured_Chaos]

Anyway, can anyone tell me where the line is between patriotism and nationalism?

I think it's the same as the line drawn between love and obsession. You can love someone dearly, but still see their faults, and if it's a strong relationship, you will work together to evolve past each others faults, or you learn to live with them, depending on just how -bad- that particular fault is. But you never turn a blind eye to them. They are there, you acknowledge them.

Obsession, OTOH, is remaining blind to even the most glaring of personlaity problems, making excuses when brought to your attention, or just flat-out shouting someone down and telling them -they- are the one with the problem, if they think you have a problem.

And frankly, is nationalism always bad? I know it can be, but it isn't necessarily so. I happen to be fiercely proud to be a Texan AND an American (Irish-American at that). I have a flagpole in my backyard and I proudly fly the US and the Texas flag over my property. Except on Saint Patrick's Day when I fly the Irish flag and a replica of the flag carried by the Irish Brigade during the Civil War.

But do you turn a blind eye to the problems in this country, your state, or even the problems in Ireland, and take it personal, or call someone anti-American (or anti-Texan, or anti-Irish) if they point out the problems? That's Nationalism. It's a "My Country, Right or Wrong" attitude, and -that-, I'm sorry to say, is the worst attitude you can have for a country that prides itself on freedom of speech. That is essentially saying you are abdicating your right to address your elected officials on grieviences.

[Fractured_Chaos]

wheeeee!

(one could argue that if you have to (and are free to) debate whether your nation is fascist... it probably isn't)

True, but if things continue on the way they are, it -will- be.

Why should we wait until it reaches that point to do anything? We should all do our part...our -responsibility- to nip it in the bud while it's still small.

[William Haskins]

True, but if things continue on the way they are, it -will- be.

see, i just don't buy this.

Why should we wait until it reaches that point to do anything? We should all do our part...our -responsibility- to nip it in the bud while it's still small.

i think the cure could be worse than the disease, especially when it's imagined by political hypochondriacs.

[parowley]

Aha!! Let the debate begin!!

Yes, let's. And let's further see how they can be correctly interpreted.

Personally I think that all political debate is a matter of opinion, is there one "correct" way to interpret things? Not in my books, so feel free to take everything I have to say as opinion and keep or discard it as you will.

This was also fairly typical of the US during WWII, a time when the US lead the fight against Fascism. I guess it's sad to me when a love of one's country is equated to fascism.

Heightened nationalism is indeed a symptom of times of stress and conflict, and therefore shouldn't necessarily be taken as proof of a fascist state. The thing to keep in mind about ALL of these points is that anyone of them alone does not offer conclusive proof, taken together and they paint a disturbing picture.

But is there a "Heightened and Continuing Nationalism" in the States at the moment? Absolutely.

Yes, I think you do. Are you seriously comparing the abuses (and there were abuses) of Abhu Garib with the beheading in the Iraq? With the mass execution of Jews by the Nazis? With the physical and psychological torture inflicted by the North Koreans? Muslim clerics encouraging suicide bombings? You are measuring with the wrong scale.

All of the things you mentioned are definitely Human Rights violations. But I didn't realize that Human Rights were a matter of scale, and frankly the idea makes me ill. Human Rights as set out in documents like the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (http://www.unhchr.ch/udhr/lang/eng.htm), the Geneva Convention or even the Billl of Rights are meant to be inalienable. It's not, or at least shouldn't, be a matter of scale. If there are violations of Human Rights, then there are violations of Human Rights.

If the US wants to be a world leader and spread freedom and democracy (and yes, human rights) then they should be held to a higher standard, something that doesn't seem to be happening.

Unified? The US? If we're in such a unified frenzy, you certainly can't tell it by the news, radio, television, or this board. In fact, this country is split about in half between conservatives and liberals. I think that's rather healthy.

You're missing the point. It's not a question of whether or not the States IS unified, it's a question of finding external scapegoats to blame and use as a means of UNIFYING. If the Bush administration didn't do that with 9/11 and the Islamic world I'm not sure what he did. If one looks at the immediate aftermath of 9/11 there was no political debate. Thankfully that's starting to change now.

You make a lot of claims with no proof. Infrastructure falling apart? I don't see that. Healthcare a shambles? I work in a very large health care system and it is not a shambles. Third world poverty? Ridiculous! Why then are Mexicans streaming into our borders? Yes our military budget is increasing. We ARE fighting a war pretty much alone. Thanks for your help. And glorification of the soldier in military recruitment. You find that disturbing? It's an AD! What should they say to try to encourage people to join?

I'm completely willing to cede the ad.

As for everything else...well...the US is in trouble.

Poverty is defined by the US Census Board as an annual income of $9,573 or less for an individual and $18,860 or less for a family. Between 2000 and 2002 the number of people meeting this criteria rose by roughly 1.5 million. If you take into account the National Academy of Science's recommendation to factor in the rising cost of medical care (undoubtedly a hardship for those struggling to get by) the total number of American poor reached 37 million in 2002 and soon those numbers will reach levels recorded in 1965 when the Census board first started tracking the data. Remarkable considering that US poverty rates have consistently declined EXCEPT during the terms of the Bushes....

Educational infrastructure in the States is in a sorry state. High schools with no books. Class rooms with borken windows. Kids are dropping out from ALL levels of school in record numbers (180,000 drop outs from the 10 largest US school districts ANNUALLY). Executives in fields like IT and financial services have been saying for years that it's becoming more and more difficult to find qualified personnel. One of the reasons being that american schools aren't producing enough skilled individuals....

As for Health Care infrastructure...here are some scary facts. 35 years ago there was approximately 1 public health worker for every 457 people. By 1999 there was 1 worker per 635 persons. That's approximately 157 workers per 100,000. Community hospitals are closing at a record rate, those that remain open are fighting not to provide better service but just to keep their doors open. The Hill-Burton Law (passed in 1946) recognized the importance of community hospitals to public health care. The purpose of the law was to ensure that EVERY county had at least one hospital. In the '70s there were approximately 7,000 hospitals serving 3,064 counties nationwide. By 2001 there were 4,704 hospitals nation wide. Even more alarmingly the number of hospital beds per 1,000 people dropped from 4.5 to a little less than 2.9. Frankly these figures (taken from the AHA) seem to bear out Dr. Julie Gerberding (director of the CDC) when she says that "Sadly, our public health system was allowed to deteriorate for decades---it is in tatters."

The 2006 US budget allocates almost half of it's total to the military while significantly cutting or eliminating entirely programs meant to address the problems I outlined above (and don't forget the many problems I didn't even touch on). Take a look at the programs (http://www.msnbc.com/modules/interactive.asp?id=/d/tables/bush_budgetcuts_05/data.js&navid=3032552&cp1=1) being cut and tell me that it might not be an idea to spend a little money on them rather than buy one more Tomahawk missile.

Let's see: Condolezza Rice. She is in a very high position for a male dominated regime.

Yes, there is question in this country about gay marriage. This is a far cry from "anti-gay" legislation. Gay people are freer now than ever and this freedom is increasing. And Row v. Wade. Let's not forget that while Bush is against it, it HAS been the law in this land for 30 years.

One woman in a 12 person cabinet. That's a grand total of 8%. I'd call that domination, but that's just me.

Bush has cut off funding for any international family-planning organisations which offer abortion services or counselling. Not exactly pro-feminist. Bush renamed January 22, the day on which Roe v. Wade was passed by the way, National Sanctity of Human Life Day. Bush has also compared abortion to terrorism. I think that takes care of abortion.

By champinoning a constitutional ban on gay marriage Bush singled out gays in the CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES. Maybe it's just me but I can't help but be reminded of "negroes being 1/3 of a white man."

Illogic. Just because Fox doesn't report it the way the BBC doesn't make Fox wrong. You are assuming facts not in evidence. In fact, the fact that Fox reports things differently than CNN or MSNBC, is evidence that our media is NOT controlled in any way.

Mainstream US media is (in my opinion) slanted in favor of the Bush administration. As an outsider looking in I don't notice a difference between Fox News, MSNBC, CNN, etc. They all have the same slant. This is much harder to prove or offer evidence in support of than others since it's much more subjective. As I said bias will always exist in the media.

Where I do draw the line, however, is at the strong arm tactics used by the Bush administration in regards to Newsweek and it's Koran desecration story. The backlash against Newsweek from other media sources and the regime itself was out of line. Especially considering that FBI documents later backed up Newsweek's allegations.

Oh, and the "retraction" issued by Newsweek wasn't a retraction for the story but for the sources...the simple fact that they were browbeaten by government and sympathetic news agencies to issue a retraction points to the fact that government has an inordinate amount of influence over the mass media.

Well, forgive us for being concerned about a big hole at the Southern tip of Manhattan.

You're concerned for national security, in particular where it relates to terrorist attacks? Why are you in Iraq then? Neither Iraq nor Saddam Hussein EVER had ties with Al-Quaeda (bin Laden hated Hussein as a matter of fact). Iraq never had any WMDs, and even if they did they have no means of delivering them to the continental US. So why are you there?

If National Security is the over riding goal then why isn't there more concern over North Korea? North Korea HAS nuclear weapons. North Korea HAS the ability to produce more nuclear weapons. North Korea HAS a delivery mechanism capable of delivering a nuke to the western continental US. Why isn't that a concern?

No. If National Security were the penultimate goal US policy would be very much different than it is, there is evidence of the Bush adiministration using fear over national security as a political tool though. Don't believe me? Take a look at this (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A10573-2004Oct6?language=printer) article...6th paragraph. Interesting.

Yes. And the law of this land IS a "wall of separation" between church and state. It is also the tradition of this country for people to feel free to question and have opinions about this for and against.

School prayer. Creationism vs. Darwinism (not only in schools but also in state parks!!!). Hell, the governor of Texas recently held a bill signing in his church! There is clearly a blurring of the lines between church and state. None of that strikes me as being particularly secular. And I'm not going to even get started on religious rhetoric being used by political leaders...

And I'm glad that freedom of speech and debate is traditional in the states (although I'm a bit confused why it was brought up here), you are after all the defenders of democracy...

No government can NOT have close ties to big business. John Kerry had close ties to big business. Even the Canadian government has close ties to big business. The reason is that government needs big business and big business needs the government. The surest way to drive your economy into the ground is to try to punish big business.

Touche. The Canadian government definitely has some murky ties to big business, one need look no further than the sponsorhip scandal to see that. Giving the proverbial pork to supporters though is a little bit different than OVERTURNING A CRIMINAL CONVICTION!!! Government is interfering with the JUDICIAL PROCESS to help out business connections. What happened to checks and balances?

Labor is losing ground in this country at the grassroots level, not by any surpression from above.

Again I know nothing about labor in the US so I will refrain from commenting.

Since when is it a right for governments to fund the Arts? Preposterous! And I see a lot of open and spirited debate. Right here on this board in fact.

Governments have always funded the arts. It was called patronage, and some pretty famous people have received it at one time or another. People like Leonardo DaVinci, Michaelangelo, et al. I'm sorry, that was flippant, but I couldn't resist. Seriously though, the National Endowment for the Arts was established in 1965. It helped fund things like The Sundance Film Festival, Steppenwolf Theatre Company, Minnesota Public Radio's A Prairie Home Companion, Spoleto Festival U.S.A. and PBS's Great Performance series. It also created the American Film Institute. Perhaps ever more importantly (given the fact that this discussion is taking place on a writer's board) "Since 1990, 39 of the 58 recipients of National Book Awards, National Book Critics Circle Awards, and Pullitzer Prizes in fiction and poetry were awarded Arts Endowment Literature Fellowships, often 10 to 20 years earlier."

If the states can spend billions and billions of dollars on the military why shouldn't they spend a couple million dollars on the arts? Frankly if that money means that one more author gets the chance to write another Grapes of Wrath or Cat On A Hot Tin Roof then I think it's worth it.

Police do not have limitless powers, even under th Patriot Act. And as seen by the dust up over Abhu Garib, people are not "willing to overlook police abuses".

Police have more power now than they did before 2001. Basic rights, like Habeas Corpus, are being overlooked at Guantanamo Bay. And while there are "dust ups" over these things, many members of the media and the administration don't seem to share that concern.

Again, connection to big business does not equate to Saddam looting millions from Iraq. It's a comparison of apples to oranges.

And fascist states are not uniform. Mussolini's Italy was different than Hitler's Germany. Stalin's Russia was different than Franco's Spain. There are no hard and fast rules in Political Science, there are however, commonalities shared by many of these regimes, and as such they CAN be compared.

The question at hand is not whether or not connection to big business equates to Saddam looting millions from Iraq, but whether or not connections to big business result in rampant cronyism and corruption. Halliburton, with it's connections to Cheney, was able to secure many multi-million (if not billion) reconstruction contracts in Iraq without going through a competitive bidding process. Reconstruction funds in Iraq have been horribly mis-managed and millions of dollars are missing (and no, it wasn't mismanaged by Iraqis but by the American political appointees in charge of reconstruction). The Arthur Andersen accounting firm, the frim at the center of the Enron scandal, had it's convictions in regards to Enron overturned by the Supreme Court. All of these things point to corruption and cronyism in the current political regime.

Sometimes elections have problems. That was one. But to equate this with the kind of wide spread abuse that fascist nations use is ludicrious and disingenuous. Oh, and who was assassinated in Florida?

Again I say that as the "leader of the free world" and the "guardian of democracy" the United States MUST be held to a higher standard. It's not a question of scale, it's a question of whether or not the abuses took place. While no one was assassinated there were MANY abuses in the Florida election. People (almost all of whom were African-American, go figure) were stripped from the voter rolls and denied there right to vote!!

It really looks to me like Laurence Britt simply looked for things he didn't like in the US and retrofitted them (stretching them quite a bit) to fit into the defintion of Fascism.

Laurence Britt's article does not mention the US at all. He simply analyzes various fascist regimes in search of commonalities. All the stretching of things that we don't like in the US was done by other members of the community (including myself obviously) who don't like the current form and path that the states is taking.

And here's one thing that I feel I really have to get across. I love the states. I spent 5 years living and going to school in San Diego. I often winter in Scottsdale. I love the ideas behind the States, I love (most of) the americans I've met and I love what the States USED to stand for. What I really, really hate though is the path that the current administration is walking. I think it's dangerous, not only for America, but for the world.

The United States is BETTER than this and better than Bush.

I just wish I could vote down there....

[Fractured_Chaos]

see, i just don't buy this.



i think the cure could be worse than the disease, especially when it's imagined by political hypochondriacs.

Is the woman who finds a small lump on her breast, and talks to her doctor about it a hypochondriac? Even if the biopsy showed that it was benign? Does she need to wait until her breast is completely destroyed by cancer, along with most of her body, before taking her concerns to the doctor would not be considered hypochondriacal?

You're entitled to your opinion. As am I. And as long as I have the freedom to do so, I -will- address any grieviences against my government. That is not just my right, but (IMO), my responsibility as a US citizen. If that makes me a political hypochondriac, then so be it. I'd rather find out that it was benign, than to wait until it was destroyed.

[parowley]

parowley,

I'm glad you found a welcome at AW. It's a pretty awesome place for writers. But one of the ground rules is respect for fellow writers. This doesn't mean we never disagree, but we do so without belittling or insulting each other.

It might interest you to know that there are some Americans here who love their country and support their President. Everyone here has a right to an opinion, but comparing the USA to a fascist state crosses the line from opinion into disrespect. Such name-calling is not in the spirit of this board.

I hope you stick around. There is no more supportive place on the web for writers.

Wow. I'm really, really sorry if I've caused offence. It wasn't my intent at all.

One of the things I've been amazed by while reading this thread is how polite and intelligent everyone is, even while they're discussing such volatile topics. I have nothing but respect for you and your opinion and I can only hope that what I posted was not construed as disrespect.

I don't hate the US, in fact I'm quite partial to it having spent 5 years living in San Diego as a student and spending pretty much every winter in Phoenix. Nor do I mean to disrespect it. And I CERTAINLY don't think that it's a fascist state. What I do believe though is that the US under President Bush has embarked upon a very dangerous path, and one that does bear some disturbing similarities to the modus operandi of fascist states.

Frankly, it scares the bejeezus out of me, but I'm glad that there is a place where we can still discuss and debate openly.

Again, I can only offer my sincerest apologies if I have cause you offence. It was not my intent. And I also hope that we can continue to have a vigorous debate, because while I hope I haven't hurt anyone else I also hope that you realize that I'm not just going to lay down and die, espeically when it comes to something that I feel is so important...

[William Haskins]

You're entitled to your opinion. As am I. And as long as I have the freedom to do so, I -will- address any grieviences against my government.

by all means, please do.

just don't think that screaming till your red in the face that you're living under some fascist theocracy makes it so.

[BradyH1861]

I'll chime in one on particular point your post, Par. The police officer does not have more power today than they did prior to 2001. We have balkanized law enforcement in the United States. We do not have a Federal Police force. That's right. Federal LE agencies have jurisdiction over federal crimes. That's it. They can and do assist local agencies when asked, but that usually ends in a urination contest between the two.

The municipal police officer, the sheriff or his deputy, or the constable and his deputy, or hell, even Fire Department peace officers do not have any more power because of the PACT. Nor will they. The danger comes from expanding federal power. The PACT is not binding upon the states because each state has their own Bill of Rights in the state constitution. Texas, for example, gives the citizen more protection than the US Constitution does, which is perfectly fine.

There is a danger of Federal encroachment into areas that were traditionally state criminal matters. But there is also Federal encroachment into plenty of areas that were traditionally the function of the state.

I may have misunderstood your post. You may have intended to refer to Federal agents and their agencies having more power than prior to 9/11. If that is what you meant, then you are arguably correct. However, federal agents are not "police officers" in the traditional sense. The traffic cop or the homicide detective does not have any more power because of the PACT. Neither does the arson investigator (I speak from experience on that one) However, as I said, one day they might if the Feds decide to make everything a federal crime. But if they were to do that, you would have no more state and local police because they would have no jurisdiction.

Brady H.

[BradyH1861]

wheeeee!

(one could argue that if you have to (and are free to) debate whether your nation is fascist... it probably isn't)

Welcome to the conversation sir! I look forward to hearing your views.

Brady H.

[parowley]

Yup...you're absolutely correct Brady, I misspoke, my apologies.

I should have probably phrased it as "Federal law enforcement" rather than "police" to avoid confusion...

The PACT is a terrifying piece of legislation with a host of problems in my books though. The freedom that it gives federal law enforcement agencies in regards to acquiring things like wire taps and library records is a well documented and dangerous precedent. This was mainly what I was trying to get at when I said that they had more power since 9/11 than before 9/11.

Thanks for the correction and for keeping me on my toes...although I'm curious as to the rest of your opinion on the matter since I can't help but notice that you said I'm "Arguably correct." I'm curious...

[robeiae]

I'm sorry, but the idea that the U.S. government is approaching a fascist state or meets some set of arbitrary criteria that indicate it is headed that way is, to me, nonsense. Historically, fascism has appeared in specific places at specific times. Rather than look at some of the consequences of fascism, which is what Britt's analysis is really based on (I don't care if he says it's not, for it is), look at the history and experiences of governemnts that became fascist...you'll find that none look anything like the U.S. Nor do they look like England, or Australia. Why? Alot of it has to do with economics; free-market capitalism is nor condicive to fascism becaust it is conducive to international trade. You're never gonna get fascism as long as the majority of the wealth in a country is privately held and attached to free market systems, or at least nothing in history suggests that this is possible. Fascists, like communists, require economic controls (so do theocrats, for that matter). Again, the only groups that are seeking greater government control over economic activity are distinctly not the ones being accused of working towards fascism.

Have a nice day!

Rob :)

[BradyH1861]

Thanks for the correction and for keeping me on my toes...although I'm curious as to the rest of your opinion on the matter since I can't help but notice that you said I'm "Arguably correct." I'm curious...

I said arguably simply because of the debate on the thread, that's all. I count myself among the anti-PACTers. (is that the proper term?)

All I can say is that if the PACT is renewed, the citizen will still have one line of defense open to them. Who, in America, protects the rights of the accused? Yes, ladies and gentlemen, the defense attorney.

(running for cover)

Brady H.

[parowley]

I said arguably simply because of the debate on the thread, that's all. I count myself among the anti-PACTers. (is that the proper term?)

All I can say is that if the PACT is renewed, the citizen will still have one line of defense open to them. Who, in America, protects the rights of the accused? Yes, ladies and gentlemen, the defense attorney.

(running for cover)

Brady H.

Ah, gotcha. I should've been able to figure that one out for myself...

*smacks self upside the head*

And I actually was considering becoming a defense attorney for a while...

*smacks self again*

Writing is much better!

[parowley]

I'm sorry, but the idea that the U.S. government is approaching a fascist state or meets some set of arbitrary criteria that indicate it is headed that way is, to me, nonsense. Historically, fascism has appeared in specific places at specific times. Rather than look at some of the consequences of fascism, which is what Britt's analysis is really based on (I don't care if he says it's not, for it is), look at the history and experiences of governemnts that became fascist...you'll find that none look anything like the U.S. Nor do they look like England, or Australia. Why? Alot of it has to do with economics; free-market capitalism is nor condicive to fascism becaust it is conducive to international trade. You're never gonna get fascism as long as the majority of the wealth in a country is privately held and attached to free market systems, or at least nothing in history suggests that this is possible. Fascists, like communists, require economic controls (so do theocrats, for that matter). Again, the only groups that are seeking greater government control over economic activity are distinctly not the ones being accused of working towards fascism.

Have a nice day!

Rob :)

I freely admit that economics isn't my strong suit. Any way I could convince you to elaborate some on why free-market capitalism and international trade aren't conducive to fascism?

I realize that fascist states, by their nature, strive to attain greater economic control over the state (Labour and capital must work together under state direction and all that jazz). Mussolini also described fascism as a cooperative effort between government and business. In fact the key supporters of Mussolini in his rise to power were the Italian industrialists, without them there never would have been a fascist Italy (there wouldn't of been fascism itslef for that matter).

The democratic history of the United States, the fact that it has a very well developped and robust civil society and the freedoms already constitutionally entrenched mean that it is extraordinairily unlikely that a true, historical fascist regime will arise. That doesn't mean, however, that the current government can't share certain aspects common to fascist regimes. That's the point I'm trying to make.

[parowley]

I just wanted to post an interesting link I dug up. It's an attempt to understand what fascism is and how it's changed over the years. To do this it survey's the work of many leading scholars and writers in the field. And while it was originally written in the "blogosphere," I hope you won't hold that against it since it's very well written and quite insightful...

Rush, Newspeak and Fascism: An Exegis (http://www.cursor.org/stories/fascismintroduction.php)

Enjoy...

[Roger J Carlson]

Aha!! Let the debate begin!!I'm sorry, but I really don't have the time or energy to debate this point by point. Each of them could be its own thread. Besides, this is the "Should the Patriot Act be renewed?" thread and not the "What's wrong with America?" thread.

My intent was to point out that while each of Britt's points had a kernel of truth, each was an exaggeration designed to put America in the worst possible light, and each has an alternative that is much more reasonable.

I'll just mention a few:

Poverty: Sure we have poverty, but you specifically equated it with third-world poverty, which is ridiculous. The poorest people in this country have access to wonders that the poor in the third-world can only dream of. Apples to oranges.

Health care: Again, sure there are problems. But if health care is such a shambles in the US, why then do people around the world come to the US for treatment? Why do most of the advances in medicine and pharmacology come from the US? Calling our system a shambles over states the problem by a wide margin.

Military budget: This one frosts me the most. Much of the US budgetary problem is a result of our military spending. Granted. But the fact that we have such a large and costly military is the main reason that Canada doesn't have to. And then you can spend that money on your own social programs. Rather selfish, don't you think?

The world (Canada included) expects the US to be involved in every hot spot on the globe. We are criticized if we do not involve ourselves (Rwanda) and criticized if we do (Iraq).

In closing you said: "Again I say that as the "leader of the free world" and the "guardian of democracy" the United States MUST be held to a higher standard." Doesn't that also imply that it should also be held in higher respect because of the job that it is doing? Calling the leader of the free world by the dismissive title of "Dubya" is disrespectful to both the President AND the country he leads.

Question: In your original post, you said this "Laurence Britt wrote a little something a while back called "Fascism Anyone?" in which he outlines 14 points that are common to some of the great fascist regimes of history (Hitler, Mussolini, Franco, Suharto and Pinochet were his case studies) and then sees how well the administration of George W. Bush matches up with the these other regimes." But in your second post, you said this: "Laurence Britt's article does not mention the US at all." Which is it?

[Roger J Carlson]

I don't think anyone is ridiculing <sp> you. I don't see it that way at all. We are having a debate.

My post meant --false love of country. These people who suddenly started waving flags and spouting hatred for anyone who looked even a little middle eastern, or who speaks any language from that area. My hubby is blond haired blue eyed and looks like a Viking. He speaks arabic. He asked at the local library if they had any books in Arabic---could have heard a pin drop in there.

I don't see anything wrong with love of country--I don't see the PA as a love of country thing at all--I see it as the destruction of our country. Of what we stand for.

The same as I see those flag waving jump on the band wagon folks--if they really cared, they'd vote, and they'd protect the freedoms our country was founded on.Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that I felt that I was personally ridiculed. It was more of a general observation.

In the "Reasons to Fear Canada" thread, there is some gentle kidding about Canada and several people declare how much they love it. Not a single person said a single negative thing. Over here in this thread, there is only invective. Professing love for your country is dismissed as "jumping on the band wagon" and "flag waving."

For the last 40 years or so, it hasn't been cool to love America. Our celebrities, rock stars, atheletes, news services, intelligencia have all made it clear that if you want to be truly sophisticated, you have to criticize everything the US does.

I just wonder why it is OK for Canadians to love Canada?

[DaveKuzminski]

I don't believe it's a case of not loving our country. In my instance, it's a case of loving it enough that I remain suspicious of those who dare to curtail, even ever so slightly, its rights and freedoms.

This is rightly so because we already know of past events where people in our country, citizen and non-citizen alike were denied their rights and freedoms. We are better than that and must remain vigilant to prevent even one more such occurrence if that is possible. If it is not, then we must be ready to act to redress those problems and bring those rights and liberties back into fruition for everyone within our borders.

[Roger J Carlson]

I'd like to apologize for the tenor of my last few posts. I couldn't sleep last night, and I was tired and cranky. Not an excuse, but perhaps a mitigation. Insomnia and politics don't mix well, at least for me.

I am especially chagrined at my jab at Canadians. It was both uncalled for and unfair. I've read many articles by Canadians in support of the US and its policies. But if you are Canadian and you were insulted, perhaps you can understand how it feels to have your country unfairly characterized.

EDIT: In looking back now, I can't find the jab at Canadians I mentioned above. I'm almost certain I made one. Perhaps I cancelled it before I sent it. If so, it was more restraint than I thought I had. I won't repeat it. Use your imagination. :)

And now I'm going to retire from this thread. It has morphed from a discussion of the pros and cons of the Patriot Act into a discussion of the pros and cons of America. While I can discuss the former dispassionately, the latter, I cannot.

[robeiae]

The democratic history of the United States, the fact that it has a very well developped and robust civil society and the freedoms already constitutionally entrenched mean that it is extraordinairily unlikely that a true, historical fascist regime will arise. That doesn't mean, however, that the current government can't share certain aspects common to fascist regimes. That's the point I'm trying to make.
In times of great societal stress, this is possible in any country. But, those aspects that are common to fascist regimes in this regard are not the defining elements of fascism, nor are they the causes of fascism.

You mentioned in one of the points the so-called fraudulent election with regard to Florida. Think about what you're suggesting: a narrow margin of victory in a hotly contested election may have been held together by some monkey business...this is fascism? If it's anything (and I'm not saying it is) it's corruption. Find me a democratic/republican nation that has never experienced fraud in an election...

It's easy to pick out singular examples that match a list of characteristics; I could devise a list of characteristics for a communist state and find examples in the U.S. and Canada that demonstrate both are headed in that direction. But it wouldn't be valid to do so in my mind; it's too simplistic and ahistorical.

As to the link, or lack thereof, between fascism and free market capitalism: well, history is the best indicator, the evidence is there and plain to see. One thing, though, development is clearly important. You can't slap down a free market system in a place that has never had such and expect it to take hold overnight; the same is, of course, true about democratic systems of government. But where frre markets develop over time, fascism has a hard time taking hold. Alot has to do, not with the specifics of the system but with it's consequences: success. Fascism feeds off of fear (as does socialism and communism), we all know this. When it comes to industry, that fear is either because of a nation's industrial weakness (prompting nationalization of an industry) or a monopoly's greed (prompting goverenment take-over). Under what circumstances could this occur in the U.S.? One problem: two many corporations. Another: history of Government-control leading to failure. Yet another: private sector out-performs gov. (USPS vs. UPS/FedEx). Still more: participation of international companies in the U.S. market (long history of this, even during the Isolationist period in U.S. history). I could go on; these examples fit England and Australia, for the most part (particulary the latter). England has it's own unique history; I would be shocked if anyone even suggested that it might one day turn towards fascism.

Bye for now,

Rob :)

[mommie4a]

I learned in college that types of government don't exist on a linear continuum but rather flow in a circle, meaning that the close you get to the high noon position, as you go around, the closer you're getting to where you may have started in the first place and meaning that the more things change, the more they start to look like they were before the changes.

Just tossing that out.

[DaveKuzminski]

It might be interesting to note that some dictators in the past were assisted into their positions by corporations wanting to make more money. In the case of Hitler, he was assisted by a German corporation that wanted to get back into full arms production so they could make the kinds of profits they made before Germany lost the first World War after the treaty ending that war prohibited them and other German corporations from making those kinds of arms. I'm sure that if you do a close, detailed inspection of the rise of many other dictators, business interests will show up as well.

[mommie4a]

Interesting point, Dave. Likewise, the U.S. presence in many countries that one would think shouldn't exist is driven by similar corporate/industrialization dreams.

[robeiae]

Bump...ba-bump.

Where is that new board, anyway?

[English Dave]

I am especially chagrined at my jab at Canadians. It was both uncalled for and unfair. I've read many articles by Canadians in support of the US and its policies. But if you are Canadian and you were insulted, perhaps you can understand how it feels to have your country unfairly characterized.

EDIT: In looking back now, I can't find the jab at Canadians I mentioned above. I'm almost certain I made one. Perhaps I cancelled it before I sent it. If so, it was more restraint than I thought I had. I won't repeat it. Use your imagination. :)

And now I'm going to retire from this thread. It has morphed from a discussion of the pros and cons of the Patriot Act into a discussion of the pros and cons of America. While I can discuss the former dispassionately, the latter, I cannot.

a] Why do you hate Canada?

b] As someone who feels the pros and cons of the patriot act are synonomous with the pros and cons of America I don't blame you for being passionate.

[English Dave]

Do you think he still hates Canada? I don't know. Alot's happened since June, 2005. Thing's change. I mean, maybe he's sleeping better.

LOL!

Sorry, Dave. I think Rob's desperate to save a few especially poignant threads. Sentimental sot. . . . LOL!

I'm going back to 2005?

He makes me feel so young.
He makes me feel like Spring has sprung.