Fascism In America....Can It Happen?

[69forever]

My politics leaned a lot more left years ago. Certain core values in this grey society still remain though, even for an old perv like me.

My inbox for the last few weeks has had several article's by right and left authors.
The common theme was a sounding alarm that our political will is drifting towards a new Fascism here in America. It scares the beejeezes out of me. Left, Bi, outspoken for freedom and unintimidated to do so. I'd be on the list.

What do you think? Would you stand up and speak out if they came for a neighbor of yours? The thought police.

 

[69forever]

Forwarded from VVAW Military Counselor Ray Parrish to all on VVAWNET:


Here's something on fascism:

A sermon on Fascism by a Unitarian minister in Austin, Texas

Living Under Fascism

Davidson Loehr
7 November 2004

First Unitarian Universalist Church of Austin 4700 Grover Ave.,
Austin, TX 78756 512-452-6168

You may wonder why anyone would try to use the word "fascism" in a
serious discussion of where America is today. It sounds like cheap
name-calling, or melodramatic allusion to a slew of old war
movies.

But I am serious. I don't mean it as name-calling at all. I mean
to
persuade you that the style of governing into which America has
slid
is most accurately described as fascism, and that the necessary
implications of this fact are rightly regarded as terrifying.
That's
what I am about here. And even if I don't persuade you, I hope to
raise the level of your thinking about who and where we are now,
to
add some nuance and perhaps some useful insights.

The word comes from the Latin word "Fasces," denoting a bundle of
sticks tied together. The individual sticks represented citizens,
and the bundle represented the state. The message of this metaphor
was that it was the bundle that was significant, not the
individual
sticks. If it sounds un-American, it's worth knowing that the
Roman
Fasces appear on the wall behind the Speaker's podium in the
chamber
of the US House of Representatives.

Still, it's an unlikely word. When most people hear the word
"fascism" they may think of the racism and anti-Semitism of
Mussolini and Hitler. It is true that the use of force and the
scapegoating of fringe groups are part of every fascism. But there
was also an economic dimension of fascism, known in Europe during
the 1920s and '30s as "corporatism," which was an essential
ingredient of Mussolini's and Hitler's tyrannies.


So-called corporatism was adopted in Italy and Germany during the
1930s and was held up as a model by quite a few intellectuals and
policy makers in the United States and Europe.

Fortune Magazine ran a cover story on Mussolini
in 1934, praising his fascism for its ability to break worker
unions, disempower workers and transfer huge sums of money to
those
who controlled the money rather than those who earned it.

Few Americans are aware of or can recall how so many Americans and
Europeans viewed economic fascism as the wave of the future during
the 1930s. Yet reviewing our past may help shed light on our
present, and point the way to a better future. So I want to begin
by
looking back to the last time fascism posed a serious threat to
America.

In Sinclair Lewis's 1935 novel It Can't Happen Here, a
conservative southern politician is helped to the presidency by a
nationally syndicated radio talk show host. The politician - Buzz
Windrip - runs his campaign on family values, the flag, and
patriotism. Windrip and the talk show host portray advocates of
traditional American democracy - those concerned with individual
rights and freedoms - as anti-American. That was 69 years ago.

One of the most outspoken American fascists from the 1930s was
economist Lawrence Dennis. In his 1936 book, The Coming American
Fascism - a coming which he anticipated and cheered - Dennis
declared that defenders of "18th-century Americanism" were sure to
become "the laughing stock of their own countrymen." The big
stumbling block to the development of economic fascism, Dennis
bemoaned, was "liberal norms of law or constitutional guarantees
of
private rights."

So, it is important for us to recognize that, as an economic
system,
fascism was widely accepted in the 1920s and '30s, and nearly
worshiped by some powerful American industrialists. And fascism
has
always, and explicitly, been opposed to liberalism of all kinds.

Mussolini, who helped create modern fascism, viewed liberal ideas
as
the enemy. "The Fascist Conception of life," he wrote, "stresses
the
importance of the State and accepts the individual only in so far
as
his interests coincide with the State. It is opposed to classical
liberalism [which] denied the State in the name of the individual;
Fascism reasserts the rights of the State as expressing the real
essence of the individual."


Mussolini thought it was unnatural for a government to protect
individual rights: The essence of fascism, he believed, is that
government should be the master, not the servant, of the people.

Still, fascism is a word that is completely foreign to most of us.
We need to know what it is, and how we can know it when we see
it.In
an essay coyly titled "Fascism Anyone?," Dr. Lawrence Britt, a
political scientist, identifies social and political agendas
common
to fascist regimes. His comparisons of Hitler, Mussolini, Franco,
Suharto, and Pinochet yielded this list of 14 "identifying
characteristics of fascism." (The following article is from Free
Inquiry magazine, volume 23, Number 2.

See how familiar they sound:

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 areflag symbols on clothing and in public displays.

2. Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights

Because of fear of enemies and the need for security, the 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.

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.

4. Supremacy of the Military

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

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.

6. Controlled Mass

Media Sometimes the media are directly controlled by the
government,
but in other cases, the media are indirectly controlled by
government regulation, or sympathetic media spokespeople and
executives. Censorship, especially in war time, is very common.

7. Obsession with National Security

Fear is used as a motivational tool by the government over the
masses.

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.

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.

10. Labor Power is Suppressed

Because the organizing power of labor is the only real threat to a
fascist government, labor unions are either liminated entirely, or
are severely suppressed.

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.

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.

13. Rampant Cronyism and Corruption

Fascist regimes almost always are governed by groups of friends
and
associates who appoint each other to government positions and use
governmental power 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.


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.

This list will be familiar to students of political science. But
it
should be familiar to students of religion as well, for much of it
mirrors the social and political agenda of religious
fundamentalisms
worldwide. It is both accurate and helpful for us to understand
fundamentalism as religious fascism, and fascism as political
fundamentalism. They both come from very primitive parts of us
that
have always been the default setting of our species: amity toward
our in-group, enmity toward out-groups, hierarchical deference to
alpha male figures, a powerful identification with our territory,
and so forth. It is that brutal default setting that all
civilizations have tried to raise us above, but it is always a
fragile thing, civilization, and has to be achieved over and over
and over again.

But, again, this is not America's first encounter with
fascism. In early 1944, the New York Times asked Vice President
Henry Wallace to, as Wallace noted, "write a piece answering the
following questions: What is a fascist? How many fascists have we?
How dangerous are they?"

Vice President Wallace's answer to those questions was published
in
The NewYork Times on April 9, 1944, at the height of the war
against
the Axis powers of Germany and Japan. See how much you think his
statements apply to our society today.

"The really dangerous American fascist," Wallace wrote, "is the
man
who wants to do in the United States, in an American way, what
Hitler did in Germany in a Prussian way. The American
fascist would prefer not to use violence. His method is to poison
the channels of public information. With a fascist the problem is
never how best to present the truth to the public but how best to
use the news to deceive the public into giving the fascist and his
group more money or more power."

In his strongest indictment of the tide of fascism he saw
rising in America, Wallace added, "They claim to be
super-patriots, but they would destroy every liberty
guaranteed by the Constitution. They demand free enterprise,
but are the spokesmen for monopoly and vested interest. Their
final objective toward which all their deceit is directed is
to capture political power so that, using the power of the
state and the power of the market simultaneously, they may
keep the common man in eternal subjection." By these
standards, a few of today's weapons for keeping the common
people in eternal subjection include NAFTA, the World Trade
Organization, union-busting, cutting worker benefits while
increasing CEO pay, elimination of worker benefits, security
and pensions, rapacious credit card interest, and outsourcing
of jobs - not to mention the largest prison system in the
world. The Perfect Storm...

Our current descent into fascism came about through a kind of
"Perfect Storm," a confluence of three unrelated but mutually
supportive schools of thought.

1. The first stream of thought was the imperialistic dream of
The Project for the New American Century. I don't believe
anyone can understand the past four years without reading The
Project for the New American Century, published in September
2000 and authored by many who have been prominent players in
the Bush administrations, including Cheney, Rumsfeld,
Wolfowitz, Richard Perle and Donald Kagan to name only a few.
This report saw the fall of Communism as a call for America to
become the military rulers of the world, to establish a new
worldwide empire. They spelled out the military enhancements
we would need, then noted, sadly, that these wonderful plans
would take a long time, unless there could be a catastrophic
and catalyzing event like a new Pearl Harbor that would let
the leaders turn America into a military and militarist

country. There was no clear interest in religion in this
report, and no clear concern with local economic policies.

2. A second powerful stream must be credited to Pat Robertson
and his Christian Reconstructionists, or Dominionists. Long
dismissed by most of us as a screwball, the Dominionist style
of Christianity which he has been preaching since the early
1980s is now the most powerful religious voice in the Bush
administration.

Katherine Yurica, who transcribed over 1,300 pages of
interviews from PatRobertson's 700 Club shows in the 1980s,
has shown how Robertson and his chosen guests consistently,
openly and passionately argued that America must become a
theocracy under the control of Christian
Dominionists.Robertson is on record saying democracy is a
terrible form of government unless it is run by his kind of
Christians. He also rails constantly against taxing the rich,
against public education, social programs and welfare - and
prefers Deuteronomy 28 over the teachings of Jesus. He is
clear that women must remain homebound as obedient servants of
men, and that abortions, like homosexuals, should not be
allowed. Robertson has also been clear that other kinds of
Christians, including Episcopalians and Presbyterians, are
enemies of Christ.

3. The third major component of this "Perfect Storm" has been
the desire of very wealthy Americans and corporate CEOs for a
plutocracy that will favor profits by the very rich and
disempowerment of the vast majority of American workers, the
destruction of workers' unions, and the alliance of government
to help achieve these greedy goals. It is a condition some
have called socialism for the rich, capitalism for the
poor, and which others recognize as a reincarnation of Social
Darwinism. This strain of thought has been present throughout
American history. Seventy years ago, they tried to finance a
military coup to replace Franklin Delano Roosevelt and
establish General Smedley Butler as a fascist dictator in 1934.

Fortunately, they picked a general who really was a patriot;
he refused, reported the scheme, and spoke and wrote about it.
As Canadian law professor Joel Bakan wrote in the book and
movie The Corporation, they have now achieved their coup
without firing a shot.

Our plutocrats have had no particular interest in religion.
Their global interests are with an imperialist empire, and
their domestic goals are in undoing all the New Deal reforms
of Franklin Delano Roosevelt that enabled the rise of
America's middle class after WWII.

Another ill wind in this Perfect Storm is more important than
its crudity might suggest: it was President Clinton's sleazy
sex with a young but eager intern in the White House. This
incident, and Clinton's equally sleazy lying about it, focused
the certainties of conservatives on the fact that "liberals"
had neither moral compass nor moral concern, and therefore
represented a dangerous threat to the moral fiber of America.
While the effects of this may be hard to quantify, I think
they were profound.

These "storm" components have no necessary connection, and
come from different groups of thinkers, many of whom wouldn't
even like one another. But together, they form a nearly
complete web of command and control, which has finally gained
control of America and, they hope, of the world. What's coming

When all fascisms exhibit the same social and political
agendas (the 14 points listed by Britt), then it is not hard
to predict where a new fascist uprising will lead. And it is
not hard. The actions of fascists and the social and political
effects of fascism and fundamentalism are clear and sobering.

Here is some of what's coming, what will be happening in our
country in the next few years:

* The theft of all social security funds, to be transferred to
those who control money, and the increasing destitution of all
those dependent on social security and social welfare
programs.

* Rising numbers of uninsured people in this country that
already has the highest percentage of citizens without health
insurance in the developed world.

* Increased loss of funding for public education combined with

increased support for vouchers, urging Americans to entrust
their children's education to Christian schools.

* More restrictions on civil liberties as America is turned
into the police state necessary for fascism to work.

* Withdrawal of virtually all funding for National Public
Radio and the Public Broadcasting System. At their best, these
media sometimes encourage critical questioning, so they are
correctly seen as enemies of the state's official stories.

* The reinstatement of a draft, from which the children of
privileged parents will again be mostly exempt, leaving our
poorest children to fight and die in wars of imperialism and
greed that could never benefit them anyway. (That was my
one-sentence Veterans' Day sermon for this year.)

* More imperialistic invasions: of Iran and others, and the
construction of a huge permanent embassy in Iraq.

* More restrictions on speech, under the flag of national
security.

* Control of the internet to remove or cripple it as an
instrument of free communication that is exempt from
government control. This will be presented as a necessary
anti-terrorist measure.

* Efforts to remove the tax-exempt status of churches like
this one, and to characterize them as anti-American.

* Tighter control of the editorial bias of almost all media,
and demonization of the few media they are unable to control -
the New York Times, for instance.

* Continued outsourcing of jobs, including more white-collar
jobs, to produce greater profits for those who control the
money and direct the society, while simultaneously reducing
America's workers to a more desperate and powerless status.

* Moves in the banking industry to make it impossible for an
increasing number of Americans to own their homes. As they did
in the 1930s, those who control the money know that it is to
their advantage and profit to keep others renting rather than
owning.

* Criminalization of those who protest, as un-American, with
arrests, detentions and harassment increasing. We already have
a higher percentage of our citizens in prison than any other
country in the world. That percentage will increase.

* In the near future, it will be illegal or at least dangerous
to say the things I have said here this morning. In the
fascist story, these things are un-American. In the real
history of a democratic America, they were seen as profoundly
patriotic, as the kind of critical questions that kept the
American spirit alive - the kind of questions, incidentally,
that our media were supposed to be pressing.

Can these schemes work?

I don't think so. I think they are murderous, rapacious and
insane. But I don't know. Maybe they can. Similar schemes have
worked in countries like Chile, where a democracy in which
over 90% voted has been reduced to one in which only about 20%
vote because they say, as Americans are learning to say, that
it no longer matters who you vote for.

Hope

In the meantime, is there any hope, or do we just band
together like lemmings and dive off a cliff? Yes, there is
always hope, though at times it is more hidden, as it is now.
As some critics are now saying, and as I have been preaching
and writing for almost twenty years, America's liberals need
to grow beyond political liberalism, with its often
self-absorbed focus on individual rights to the exclusion of
individual responsibilities to the larger society. Liberals
will have to construct a more complete vision with moral and
religious grounding. That does not mean confessional
Christianity.

It means the legitimate heir to Christianity. Such a
legitimate heir need not be a religion, though it must have
clear moral power, and be able to attract the minds and hearts
of a voting majority of Americans.

And the new liberal vision must be larger than that of the
conservative religious vision that will be appointing judges,
writing laws and bending the cultural norms toward hatred and
exclusion for the foreseeable future. The conservatives
deserve a lot of admiration. They have spent the last thirty
years studying American politics, forming their vision and
learning how to gain control in the political system. And it

worked; they have won.

Even if liberals can develop a bigger vision, they still have
all that time-consuming work to do. It won't be fast. It isn't
even clear that liberals will be willing to do it; they may
instead prefer to go down with the ship they're used to.

One man who has been tireless in his investigations and
critiques of America's slide into fascism is Michael C.
Ruppert, whose postings usually read as though he is wound way
too tight. But he offers four pieces of advice about what we
can do now, and they seem reality-based enough to pass on to
you. This is America; they're all about money:

* First, he says you should get out of debt.

* Second is to spend your money and time on things that give
you energy and provide you with useful information.

* Third is to stop spending a penny with major banks, news
media and corporations that feed you lies and leave you angry
and exhausted.

* And fourth is to learn how money works and use it like a
(political) weapon - as he predicts the rest of the world will
be doing against us.

---

That's advice written this week. Another bit of advice comes
from sixty years ago, from Roosevelt's Vice President, Henry
Wallace. Wallace said,"Democracy, to crush fascism internally,
must...develop the ability to keep people fully employed and
at the same time balance the budget. It must put human beings
first and dollars second. It must appeal to reason and decency
and not to violence and deceit. We must not tolerate
oppressive government or industrial oligarchy in the form of
monopolies and cartels."

Still another way to understand fascism is as a kind of
colonization. A simple definition of "colonization" is that it
takes people's stories away, and assigns them supportive roles
in stories that empower others at their expense. When you are
taxed to support a government that uses you as a means to
serve the ends of others, you are ironically - in a state of
taxation without representation.

That's where this country started, and it's where we are now.

I don't know the next step. I'm not a political activist; I'm
only a preacher. But whatever you do, whatever we do, I hope
that we can remember some very basic things that I think of as
eternally true.

One is that the vast majority of people are good decent people
who mean and do as well as they know how. Very few people are
evil, though some are. But we all live in families where some
of our blood relatives support things we hate. I believe they
mean well, and the way to rebuild broken bridges is through
greater understanding, compassion, and a reality-based story
that is more inclusive and empowering for the vast majority of
us.

Those who want to live in a reality-based story rather than as
serfs in an ideology designed to transfer power, possibility
and hope to a small ruling elite have much long and hard work
to do, individually and collectively.

It will not be either easy or quick.

But we will do it. We will go forward in hope and in courage.
Let us seek that better path, and find the courage to take it
- step, by step, by step.

* * * * *

About Our Minister, Davidson Loehr, Ph.D.

His academic credentials include a doctoral degree from the
University of Chicago in theology, philosophy of religion and
philosophy of science, a master's degree from the same
university in methods for studying religions, and a bachelor's
degree in music theory from the University of Michigan.

Dr. Loehr is a regular contributor to the Austin
American-Statesman. Before becoming a Unitarian Universalist
minister, Dr. Loehr was a combat photographer in Vietnam and a
professional
musician, playing clarinet and saxophone in road bands and
combos. His office is lined with astounding photographs of
places he has visited and people he has known.

 

[Missingmeds]

My politics leaned a lot more left years ago. Certain core values in this grey society still remain though, even for an old perv like me.

My inbox for the last few weeks has had several article's by right and left authors.
The common theme was a sounding alarm that our political will is drifting towards a new Fascism here in America. It scares the beejeezes out of me. Left, Bi, outspoken for freedom and unintimidated to do so. I'd be on the list.

What do you think? Would you stand up and speak out if they came for a neighbor of yours? The thought police.

Have done it before and will do it again if the need arises.

 

[69forever]

Have done it before and will do it again if the need arises.

It's a scary proposition. Not saying we're there yet, but the ground work has been laid for it. Being from Milwaukee, WI....I'm especially vigilant. The Bund was strong here. As was the Socialist movement. Labor has seen fights here that resonated across the country. We have an open and vocal LGBT community.

Another link....think and judge the danger for yourself.


http://www.oldamericancentury.org/14pts.htm

 

[Bad_Bad_LB]

It isn't like the GOP/White House is planting disinformationist in the White House Press Corps under the guise of reporters or anything is it?

Oh, wait, yes it is.

No Iraqui 9/11 Terrorist.

http://www.oldamericancentury.com/FASCISM_NOT_US.jpg

 

[69forever]

It isn't like the GOP/White House is planting disinformationist in the White House Press Corps under the guise of reporters or anything is it?

Oh, wait, yes it is.

No Iraqui 9/11 Terrorist.

http://www.oldamericancentury.com/FASCISM_NOT_US.jpg

Yeah, but how many of our friendly Saudi's were there? And why were Osama Bin Ladens relatives flown out of the country in secret when our airspace was frozen?

It makes the JFK assasination pale for conspiracy.

 

[69forever]

Lies being told us???

NEWS: Scott Ritter says US attack on Iran planned for June
Written by Mark Jensen
Saturday, 19 February 2005

On Friday evening in Olympia, former UNSCOM weapons inspector Scott
Ritter
appeared with journalist Dahr Jamail. -- Ritter made two shocking
claims:
George W. Bush has "signed off" on plans to bomb Iran in June 2005, and
the
U.S. manipulated the results of the Jan. 30 elections in Iraq....

SCOTT RITTER SAYS U.S. PLANS JUNE ATTACK ON IRAN, OECOOKED¹ JAN. 30
IRAQI
ELECTION RESULTS
By Mark Jensen

United for Peace of Pierce County (WA)
February 19, 2005

Scott Ritter, appearing with journalist Dahr Jamail yesterday in
Washington
State, dropped two shocking bombshells in a talk delivered to a packed
house
in Olympia¹s Capitol Theater. The ex-Marine turned UNSCOM weapons
inspector
said that George W. Bush has "signed off" on plans to bomb Iran in June
2005, and claimed the U.S. manipulated the results of the recent Jan.
30
elections in Iraq.

Olympians like to call the Capitol Theater "historic," but it's
doubtful
whether the eighty-year-old edifice has ever been the scene of more
portentous revelations.

The principal theme of Scott Ritter's talk was Americans¹ duty to
protect
the U.S. Constitution by taking action to bring an end to the illegal
war in
Iraq. But in passing, the former UNSCOM weapons inspector stunned his
listeners with two pronouncements. Ritter said plans for a June attack
on
Iran have been submitted to President George W. Bush, and that the
president
has approved them. He also asserted that knowledgeable sources say U.S.
officials "cooked" the results of the Jan. 30 elections in Iraq.

On Iran, Ritter said that President George W. Bush has received and
signed
off on orders for an aerial attack on Iran planned for June 2005. Its
purported goal is the destruction of Iran¹s alleged program to develop
nuclear weapons, but Ritter said neoconservatives in the administration
also
expected that the attack would set in motion a chain of events leading
to
regime change in the oil-rich nation of 70 million -- a possibility
Ritter
regards with the greatest skepticism.

The former Marine also said that the Jan. 30 elections, which George W.
Bush
has called "a turning point in the history of Iraq, a milestone in the
advance of freedom," were not so free after all. Ritter said that U.S.
authorities in Iraq had manipulated the results in order to reduce the
percentage of the vote received by the United Iraqi Alliance from 56%
to
48%.

Asked by UFPPC's Ted Nation about this shocker, Ritter said an official
involved in the manipulation was the source, and that this would soon
be
reported by a Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist in a major metropolitan
magazine -- an obvious allusion to New Yorker reporter Seymour M.
Hersh.

On Jan. 17, the New Yorker posted an article by Hersh entitled The
Coming
Wars (New Yorker, January 24-31, 2005). In it, the well-known
investigative
journalist claimed that for the Bush administration, "The next
strategic
target [is] Iran." Hersh also reported that "The Administration has
been
conducting secret reconnaissance missions inside Iran at least since
last
summer." According to Hersh, "Defense Department civilians, under the
leadership of Douglas Feith, have been working with Israeli planners
and
consultants to develop and refine potential nuclear, chemical-weapons,
and
missile targets inside Iran. . . . Strategists at the headquarters of
the
U.S. Central Command, in Tampa, Florida, have been asked to revise the
military¹s war plan, providing for a maximum ground and air invasion of
Iran. . . . The hawks in the Administration believe that it will soon
become
clear that the Europeans¹ negotiated approach [to Iran] cannot succeed,
and
that at that time the Administration will act."

Scott Ritter said that although the peace movement failed to stop the
war in
Iraq, it had a chance to stop the expansion of the war to other nations
like
Iran and Syria. He held up the specter of a day when the Iraq war might
be
remembered as a relatively minor event that preceded an even greater
conflagration.

Scott Ritter's talk was the culmination of a long evening devoted to
discussion of Iraq and U.S. foreign policy. Before Ritter spoke, Dahr
Jamail
narrated a slide show on Iraq focusing on Fallujah. He showed more than
a
hundred vivid photographs taken in Iraq, mostly by himself. Many of
them
showed the horrific slaughter of civilians.

Dahr Jamail argued that U.S. mainstream media sources are complicit in
the
war and help sustain support for it by deliberately downplaying the
truth
about the devastation and death it is causing.

Jamail was, until recently, one of the few unembedded journalists in
Iraq
and one of the only independent ones. His reports have gained a
substantial
following and are available online at dahrjamailiraq.com.

Friday evening's event in Olympia was sponsored by South Puget Sound
Community College's Student Activities Board, Veterans for Peace, 100
Thousand and Counting, Olympia Movement for Justice & Peace, and United
for
Peace of Pierce County.

 

[69forever]

Too much for even conservatives?

Subject: Some Conservatives joining with A.C.L.U.in opposing Pat. Act


WASHINGTON - A closed-door vote by the Senate Intelligence Committee
last week to expand law enforcement powers under the USA Patriot Act
is prompting sharp criticism from some conservative leaders who are
otherwise among the most vocal allies of President Bush and the
Republican leadership in Congress.

The conservative leaders - who have formed a coalition with critics on
the left, including the American Civil Liberties Union - vowed to
press their concerns in coming days with public statements, rallies
and radio advertisements in key congressional districts. The
conservatives, including former U.S. Rep. Bob Barr (R-Ga.) and
political activists who have been long-standing critics of the
anti-terrorism law, lashed out with particular force last week against
the White House, members of Congress and Atty. Gen. Alberto R.
Gonzales. They said they had expected a more open review of the
Patriot Act in which lawmakers considered some limits in order to
safeguard civil liberties.

The conservatives complained that the Senate panel had moved in secret
to expand the act. They are particularly upset about proposed
"administrative subpoenas" that would let the FBI obtain a person's
medical, financial and other records in terrorism cases without
seeking a judge's approval.

Their criticism gathered force as Bush devoted two public events last
week to pressing Congress to renew parts of the act due to expire at
the end of this year.

The White House and the congressional leadership generally enjoy
enthusiastic support from conservative activist organizations, though
the Republican base has experienced profound disagreements over the
decision to add a prescription drug benefit to Medicare and over the
general expansion of government under President Bush.

But now, said conservative activist Grover Norquist, every major
conservative grass-roots organization has expressed concern about
expanding the Patriot Act. He emphasized that his concern was directed
not at the White House but at Congress. Other conservative leaders,
however, are aiming their criticism at both ends of Pennsylvania
Avenue.

"It is a slap in the face to the Constitution," said Barr, who leads a
bipartisan coalition calling for limits on the act.

Passed six weeks after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, the Patriot Act
was intended to give law enforcement more power to fight terrorism.
But Barr and other critics say the law goes too far and gives federal
investigators unbridled power that endangers civil rights. The
proposed "administrative subpoenas" approved by the intelligence panel
last week would "wipe away the 4th Amendment" protection against
unreasonable searches, Barr said.

Barr also accused the president of giving "the back of his hand" to
concerns about constitutional protections "that so many have fought
and died for."

The head of the American Conservative Union, David Keene, said he was
upset that the administration appeared to be encouraging the Patriot
Act provisions' renewal through the more secretive Senate Intelligence
Committee, despite pledges of openness and of a willingness to
consider compromise. The Senate Judiciary Committee also has
jurisdiction over renewing the act, but it has not begun
deliberations, which are generally open to the public.

Keene is particularly upset with Atty. Gen. Gonzales, who has agreed
in recent meetings with conservative activists, participants said, to
the principle of open discussion and careful review of the Patriot Act
before 16 of its most important provisions are renewed. The
Intelligence Committee's decision to proceed on the Patriot Act was
made without objection from the White House or from Gonzales.

"I find it disquieting that he talks like he is a reasonable guy and
then, when it comes down to it, acts like he is not," Keene said. "We
need to know: Who is the real Gonzales?"

Although Barr, Keene and a handful of other well-known conservatives
are working with groups on the political left to limit the Patriot
Act, Keene rejected arguments from the left that "there is a
Republican plot to deprive of us of our rights. The fact is, this is
what governments do," regardless of who is in power, particularly in
time of war.

Supporters of the Patriot Act (an acronym for Providing Appropriate
Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism) say the law fixes
some of the intelligence and law enforcement problems that allowed the
Sept. 11 terrorists to enter the country and proceed without detection.

Among other things, the massive, quickly approved measure permits
"roving wiretaps" that allow officials to tap multiple phones used by
a targeted person. It also encourages information sharing among law
enforcement and intelligence agencies and permits investigators to
subpoena library records.

Barr voted for the bill when he was in Congress and, like Keene, he
insists he wants most of the 16 expiring sections renewed. In
testimony on Capitol Hill, Barr said his coalition sought modest
modifications of the law, such as limiting the length of time and
number of targets covered by a roving wiretap.

The White House said it wants all 16 sections renewed. Bush also has
supported the idea of allowing FBI agents to obtain certain records
without a judge's signature, though he has never advocated its
inclusion in the Patriot Act.

White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said Saturday that administrative
subpoenas were already allowed in certain criminal and civil
investigations, so the Senate panel's proposal "would simply allow a
long-standing constitutional tool to be used in terrorism
investigations."

Justice Department spokeswoman Tasia Scolinos said the attorney
general backed administrative subpoenas as "a helpful tool, but the
reauthorization of the Patriot Act remains the No. 1 priority." She
added that Gonzales had been committed to "open dialogue, based on
facts, explaining to the public that there are no verified civil
liberties claims against the Patriot Act." Keene and Barr's alliance
plans to send letters to Capitol Hill this week calling for rejection
of the administrative subpoenas and urging a more careful review of
the act itself.

In addition, Barr said, radio ads are being readied for key
congressional districts, paid for by Patriots to Restore Checks and
Balances, a coalition of that includes the American Conservative
Union, Americans for Tax Reform, the American Civil Liberties Union,
gun rights advocates, the Libertarian Party and some left-of-center
groups.

Activists also plan to rally next weekend in Harrisburg, Pa., in the
home state of Republican Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Sen.
Arlen Specter.

Specter must decide how his committee will proceed on the legislation.
Senate aides said he could choose to try to modify the Intelligence
Committee's proposal or could send a competing package to the Senate
floor. Specter has told reporters that the Patriot Act pits
"fundamental questions of security of our country with basic
constitutional rights."

The coalition critical of the Patriot Act prefers alternative
legislation that limits some of the most controversial measures but
does not repeal any of them. That legislation, sponsored by Sens.
Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.) and Larry E. Craig (R-Idaho), would limit
roving wiretaps and require earlier notification of subjects of "sneak
and peak" searches, in which people are not immediately told their
property has been searched. Keene, who had recently praised Gonzales
for his outreach efforts, said Friday that the administration
commitment to openness and review "appears to me to be just spin, a
public relations effort, not a real willingness" to consider "whether
the new powers government wants to assert are justified."

Perino said that the White House welcomed the Senate Intelligence
Committee's taking the lead on renewing the Patriot Act but that it
had no position on which committee should work on the legislation.
Those decisions are determined by Senate rules and procedures, she
said.
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationw...iot12jun12,0,47470.story?coll==la-home-nation



*************************************************************
Copyright material is distributed without profit or
payment for research and educational purposes only,
in accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107.
Reference: <http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml>.
*************************************************************

We've got MUCH more to worry about than just posting porn pics. Our liberties are under attack across the board.

 

[69forever]

As the evidence mounts....when will someone stand and be counted?

The National Campaign to Impeach President George W. Bush

by Professor Francis A. Boyle

Since the U.S. Supreme Court's installation of George W. Bush as
President in January of 2001, the peoples of the world have witnessed a
government in the United States of America that demonstrates little if
any respect for fundamental considerations of international law,
international organizations, and human rights, let alone appreciation
of
the requirements for maintaining international peace and security. What
the world has watched instead is a comprehensive and malicious assault
upon the integrity of the international legal order by a group of men
and women who are thoroughly Machiavellian in their perception of
international relations and in their conduct of both foreign policy and
domestic affairs. This is not simply a question of giving or
withholding
the benefit of the doubt when it comes to complicated matters of
foreign
affairs and defense policies to a U.S. government charged with the
security of both its own citizens and those of its allies in Europe,
the
Western Hemisphere, and the Pacific. Rather, the Bush Jr.
administration's foreign policies represent a gross deviation from
those
basic rules of international deportment and civilized behavior that the
United States government had traditionally played the pioneer role in
promoting for the entire world community. Even more seriously, in many
instances specific components of the Bush Jr. administration's foreign
policies constitute ongoing criminal activity under well-recognized
principles of both international law and U.S. domestic law, and in
particular the Nuremberg Charter, the Nuremberg Judgment, and the
Nuremberg Principles.

Depending upon the substantive issues involved, those international
crimes typically include but are not limited to the Nuremberg offenses
of crimes against peace, crimes against humanity and war crimes, as
well
as grave breaches of the Four Geneva Conventions of 1949 and the 1907
Hague Regulations on land warfare, torture, disappearances, and
assassinations. In addition, various members of the Bush Jr.
administration committed numerous inchoate crimes incidental to these
substantive offenses that under the Nuremberg Charter, Judgment, and
Principles were international crimes in their own right: viz.,
planning,
preparation, solicitation, incitement, conspiracy, complicity, attempt,
aiding and abetting, etc. Of course the great irony of today's
situation
is that six decades ago at Nuremberg, representatives of the U.S.
government participated in the prosecution, punishment and execution of
Nazi government officials for committing some of the same types of
heinous international crimes that members of the Bush Jr.
administration
currently inflict upon people all around the world. To be sure, I
personally oppose the imposition of capital punishment upon any person
for any reason no matter how monstrous their crimes: Bush Jr., Tony
Blair, Saddam Hussein, Slobodan Milosevic, Vladimir Putin, Ariel
Sharon,
my former client John Wayne Gacy, etc.

Furthermore, according to basic principles of international criminal
law, all high-level civilian officials and military officers in the
U.S.
government who either knew or should have known that soldiers or
civilians under their control committed or were about to commit
international crimes, and failed to take the measures necessary to stop
them, or to punish them, or both, are likewise personally responsible
for the commission of international crimes. This category of
officialdom
who actually knew or at least should have known of the commission of
such substantive or inchoate international crimes under their
jurisdiction and failed to do anything about it typically includes the
Secretary of Defense, Secretary of State, Director of Central
Intelligence, the National Security Adviser, the Attorney General, the
Pentagon's Joint Chiefs of Staff and regional CINCs, and presumably the
President and Vice President. These U.S. government officials and their
immediate subordinates, among others, were personally responsible for
the commission or at least complicity in the commission of crimes
against peace, crimes against humanity, and war crimes as specified by
the Nuremberg Charter, Judgment, and Principles - at a minimum. In
international legal terms, the Bush Jr. administration itself should be
viewed as constituting an ongoing criminal conspiracy under
international criminal law.

Consequently, on Tuesday 11 March 2003, with the Bush Jr.
administration's war of aggression against Iraq staring the American
People, Congress and Republic in their face, Congressman John Conyers
of
Michigan, the Ranking Member of the House Judiciary Committee (which
has
jurisdiction over Bills of Impeachment), convened an emergency meeting
of forty or more of his top advisors, most of whom were lawyers. The
purpose of the meeting was to discuss and debate immediately putting
into the U.S. House of Representatives Bills of Impeachment against
President Bush Jr., Vice President Dick Cheney, Secretary of Defense
Donald Rumsfeld, and then Attorney General John Ashcroft in order to
head off the impending war. Congressman Conyers kindly requested that
Ramsey Clark and I come to the meeting in order to argue the case for
impeachment.

This impeachment debate lasted for two hours. It was presided over by
Congressman Conyers, who quite correctly did not tip his hand one way
or
the other on the merits of impeachment. He simply moderated the debate
between Clark and I, on the one side, favoring immediately filing Bills
of Impeachment against Bush Jr. et al. to stop the threatened war, and
almost everyone else there who were against impeachment for partisan
political reasons. Obviously no point would be served here by
attempting to digest a two-hour-long vigorous debate among a group of
well-trained lawyers on such a controversial matter at this critical
moment in American history. But at the time I was struck by the fact
that this momentous debate was conducted at a private office right down
the street from the White House on the eve of war.

Suffice it to say that most of the "experts" there opposed impeachment
not on the basis of enforcing the Constitution and the Rule of Law,
whether international or domestic, but on the political grounds that it
might hurt the Democratic Party effort to get their presidential
candidate elected in the year 2004. As a political independent, I did
not argue that point. Rather, I argued the merits of impeaching Bush
Jr., Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Ashcroft under the United States
Constitution, U.S. federal laws, U.S. treaties and other international
agreements to which the United States is a party, etc. Article VI of
the U.S. Constitution provides that treaties "shall be the supreme Law
of the Land." This so-called Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution
also applies to international executive agreements concluded under the
auspices of the U.S. President such as the 1945 Nuremberg Charter.

Congressman Conyers was so kind as to allow me the closing argument in
the debate. Briefly put, the concluding point I chose to make was
historical: The Athenians lost their democracy. The Romans lost their
Republic. And if we Americans did not act now we could lose our
Republic! The United States of America is not immune to the laws of
history!

After two hours of most vigorous debate among those in attendance, the
meeting adjourned with second revised draft Bills of Impeachment
sitting
on the table.

Certainly, if the U.S. House of Representatives can impeach President
Clinton for sex and lying about sex, then a fortiori the House can,
should, and must impeach President Bush Jr. for war, lying about war,
and threatening more wars. All that is needed is for one Member of
Congress with courage, integrity, principles and a safe seat to file
these currently amended draft Bills of Impeachment against Bush Jr.,
Cheney, Rumsfeld, and now Attorney General Albert Gonzales, who bears
personal criminal responsibility for the Bush Jr. administration
torture
scandal. Failing this, the alternative is likely to be an American
Empire abroad, a U.S. police state at home, and continuing wars of
aggression to sustain both-along the lines of George Orwell's classic
novel 1984. Despite all of the serious flaws demonstrated by successive
United States governments that this author has amply documented
elsewhere during the past quarter century as a Professor of Law, the
truth of the matter is that America is still the oldest Republic in the
world today. "We the People of the United States" must fight to keep it
that way!

[Francis A. Boyle is a Professor of International Law and a human
rights
attorney. He is the author of "Destroying World Order" (2004, Clarity
Press).]

 

[GRC]

Guess that child molester Ritter was wrong about bombing Iran in June wasn't he.

 

[69forever]

Well, first off. If you have proof Ritter is a child molester, post it.

Second, and more importantly I beleive Bush had every intention of doing just that, and was reigned in by others....especially some EU allies. Unilaterally opening up another front in the Mid-east would have been suicide.