KaskadskyjKozak Posted November 9, 2004 Share Posted November 9, 2004 The foundation of every totalitarian state was built upon a foundation of economic collectivism - with the state seizing all of the society's productive assets in the people's name. I defy anyone to show me an example where this hasn't been true - yet this factor seems to be absent from every analysis of the phenomenon that emerges from the mind of anyone who's politics run left of center. Wonder why? Because redistribution of wealth and increased state-control of corporations are central tenets in the political ideology of our friends on the political left. Every time you hear about "working Americans" and "the rich" from a liberal's mouth, just substitude "proletariat" and "bourgeois", respectively, and you'll find the resemblance to the text of the Communist Mafifesto to be uncanny. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EWolfe Posted November 9, 2004 Share Posted November 9, 2004 "I thought we were an autonomous collective!" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Distel32 Posted November 9, 2004 Share Posted November 9, 2004 In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense. I believe Klenke meant specific instances of constitutional violations. You merely restated the 6th Amendment. if you can't think of it then you are completely and utterly stubborn, or in denial. waste of time Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cj001f Posted November 9, 2004 Share Posted November 9, 2004 In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense. I believe Klenke meant specific instances of constitutional violations. You merely restated the 6th Amendment. :cough: Gitmo :cough: Saw a funny cartoon from 1943 (Disney) talking about how "your taxes are helping beat the Axis". Couldn't help but laugh. "beat Bin Ladin but cutting taxes" doesn't have the same ring. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skeezix Posted November 9, 2004 Share Posted November 9, 2004 :cough: Gitmo :cough: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snafflehunter Posted November 9, 2004 Share Posted November 9, 2004 In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense. I believe Klenke meant specific instances of constitutional violations. You merely restated the 6th Amendment. if you can't think of it then you are completely and utterly stubborn, or in denial. waste of time If it's such a waste of time to explain your opinion, why are you sitting here wasting your time posting nothing? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gripped Posted November 9, 2004 Share Posted November 9, 2004 No Soup For You! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Distel32 Posted November 9, 2004 Share Posted November 9, 2004 In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense. I believe Klenke meant specific instances of constitutional violations. You merely restated the 6th Amendment. if you can't think of it then you are completely and utterly stubborn, or in denial. waste of time If it's such a waste of time to explain your opinion, why are you sitting here wasting your time posting nothing? rrriiggghhhttttt........grow up man Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
klenke Posted November 9, 2004 Share Posted November 9, 2004 I'm sorry, Luke, but you're losing credibility with me. First you say the, "the Constitution was already violated in the last four years, just pointing that out, thats all." But then when I ask for an example you choose to turn the issue around, into a waste of time and that I'm ignorant. Kind of insulting, don't you think? I wasn't necessarily going to disagree with you. I just wanted you to give an example. One example. If you can't do that, then it will be easy to relegate your opinions to the level of bullshit in general. I don't want to do that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Posted November 9, 2004 Share Posted November 9, 2004 We've met, and I respect you - and I have read every page of Shirers book, and thousands upon thousands more on the history of just about all of the totalitarian states that blighted the past century - and I have to say that I think that the comparison that you are making is not only false, but profoundly disrespectful to the memory of all of those who were slaughtered within them. The foundation of every totalitarian state was built upon a foundation of economic collectivism - with the state seizing all of the society's productive assets in the people's name. I defy anyone to show me an example where this hasn't been true - yet this factor seems to be absent from every analysis of the phenomenon that emerges from the mind of anyone who's politics run left of center. Wonder why? Would have to agree with the general tenets in this statement but I think it also ignores realities of the economics currently at work. True, we are a country based on capitalism not collectivism, which is a good thing. But extremes at either end are not. Ignoring measures of social health for sake of economics, IMO, can be bent to the extreme. The dispropiate distribution of wealth, the power of corporations, the lack of health care for instance are not some natural outfall of all capitalistic societies. It is a direct result of the economic and political construct and trends over the past 50 years or so. In that time power and wealth have been increasingly concentrated in the US. Facist tactics however, do appear to be part and parcel of the recent republican movement. A severe constraining of informaton flow out of the white house, the with-us-or against-us political retoric (internally and internationally), nationalist flag-waving, labeling those with alternative views as traitors, and a strong fundamentalist religious fervor. Any objective observer cannot but help see the similarities of the brown shirt movement. And of course scaring the public to advance a militaristic agenda is classic. My stance has always been the same. If the agenda was so good, why do you have to lie and exagerate to move people over to your column. Apparantly it has worked, by a slim 3% margin. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cj001f Posted November 9, 2004 Share Posted November 9, 2004 Gitmo not good enough for you Klenke? How about Jose Padilla? Brandon Mayfield - the Oregon lawyer they arrested & imprisoned "by mistake"? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
klenke Posted November 9, 2004 Share Posted November 9, 2004 Thanks. That's all I asked for, even if it wasn't from Distel. Now is that so hard? What's "Gitmo?" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TeleRoss Posted November 9, 2004 Share Posted November 9, 2004 Guantanamo Bay, where the US Government imprisions "enemy combatants" without charging them with a crime, without allowing access to a lawyer, without even acknolwedging that that person is being held there. Pretty much withholding every protection that the US Constitution affords anyone under legal prosecution. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
catbirdseat Posted November 9, 2004 Author Share Posted November 9, 2004 The "enemy combatants" are not citizens accused of crimes under US laws. They were classified as not being prisoners of war, either, so International Law and treaties could not apply. No law applies. They are people with no due process and no recourse. Jay is wrong about Nazi Germany. Unlike Communist Russia where industry was taken over by the State, in Germany, Industry took over the State. US corporations were complicit, which helps to explain why the US stayed out of the war for so long. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
klenke Posted November 9, 2004 Share Posted November 9, 2004 Aren't they called "illegal combatants?" Enemy combatants would cover both legal and illegal. Illegal combatants are those not associated directly with any government, who are not an organized military, people like terrorists. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cj001f Posted November 9, 2004 Share Posted November 9, 2004 Jay is wrong about Nazi Germany. Unlike Communist Russia where industry was taken over by the State, in Germany, Industry took over the State. US corporations were complicit, which helps to explain why the US stayed out of the war for so long. It was even called "corporatism" at the time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Norman_Clyde Posted November 9, 2004 Share Posted November 9, 2004 Bush is a long way from being Hitler. However, the USA is not such an extremely long way from being a fascist state. I used the word extremely , meaning that I don't believe the country has dropped its ice axe and is now accelerating down the slippery slope. The US constitution has functioned very well as a political ice axe in the past 220-something years. I am very proud of the American constitution and the way it has held up abuses of power: this seems to be what the Constitution does best. And we are mighty lucky to have it, because-- here is my main point-- Americans are no more immune to the temptations of fascism than the citizens of Germany were in the 1930's. Saber-rattling, militaristic nationalism is dangerous, no matter who is doing the rattling. I see very little psychological difference between those who felt a swelling national pride when Bush "kicked ass" in Iraq, and those who felt a swelling national pride when Hitler sent troops across the Rhine into demilitarized territory to restore German honor. I am deeply thankful that the constitution prevents Bush from a third term. I believe that he and a lot of other leaders like him-- and not just Republicans-- are so power hungry that only the bedrock solidity of the constitution, and the rule of law, in this country keeps them under control. I also believe that the Founding Fathers would be appalled to see how the powers of the executive have increased over the years. This country was not supposed to go to war without a declaration signed by congress. The military says we haven't been to "war" since WWII, but that every military action from Korea onward has been a "conflict". I could go on about how much Jefferson cared about religious freedom and separation of church and state, but we can save that for later. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gripped Posted November 9, 2004 Share Posted November 9, 2004 Gitmo not good enough for you Klenke? How about Jose Padilla? Brandon Mayfield - the Oregon lawyer they arrested & imprisoned "by mistake"? Gitmo is not an example. The US constitution is for the protection of US citizens. They are not citizens. Imprisoning someone "by mistake" is very unfortunate... but it's not unconstitutional. From CNN: Since Padilla has been classified an "enemy combatant," he may be detained indefinitely without being charged, as long as the war against terrorism continues, a constitutional law expert told CNN. Hmmmmm, a constitutional law expert says this is NOT a violation of the constitution. But then cj and distel may have some sort of training beyond that of the experts??? Still waiting for a SINGLE example where the constitution was violated. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gripped Posted November 9, 2004 Share Posted November 9, 2004 I also believe that the Founding Fathers would be appalled to see how the powers of the executive have increased over the years. Damn Straight! They'd also be pretty shook up about the lack of state's rights... Unfortunately, let's not forget: They'd be really upset about women voting too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sexual_chocolate Posted November 9, 2004 Share Posted November 9, 2004 Jay is wrong about Nazi Germany. Unlike Communist Russia where industry was taken over by the State, in Germany, Industry took over the State. US corporations were complicit, which helps to explain why the US stayed out of the war for so long. It was even called "corporatism" at the time. I think it was Mussolini who used "Corporatism" interchangably with "Fascism", proposing the former as the proper term at one point? Anyway, fascist tendencies exist in every individual, so of course they exist in every state. And the trend of our present political course to me seems much more indicative of a fascist tendency than that of say liberalism. State power has increased. Corporate power has increased. Individual liberties have been curtailed. Labor unions have the lowest representation in the work force since the turn of the century. (Walmart just advertised on NPR (can you believe this?), telling us how they offer people so many benefits and give them a lift in life!) While I don't think Fascism has become codified in any formal sense in this country, the tendencies are pretty clear, I think. And instead of referring only to past examples of Fascism as definitional reference points, perhaps we can look to them as loose guidelines for delineating current trends, and propose new terms. Under this framework, I would propose "Democratic Fascism" as a more accurate label for our current political reality. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
catbirdseat Posted November 9, 2004 Author Share Posted November 9, 2004 I think that the differences between the current regime and the earlier ones to which it has been compared are quantitative rather than qualitative. We are a long ways from Nazi Germany to be sure, but we are straining in that direction. The administration has run smack up against the Constitution and is pushing hard. Now it wants to change the Constitution by amendment or by interpretation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sexual_chocolate Posted November 9, 2004 Share Posted November 9, 2004 Sure. There isn't a single person in this administration who strikes me as an ardent supporter of either the text or the spirit of our Constitution. To them, the Constitution is to be played for political gain when to their advantage, and ignored or rewritten or reinterpreted when curtailing their ambitions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gripped Posted November 9, 2004 Share Posted November 9, 2004 This thread reminds me of the Young Ones Fascist Pig Bully Boys! MIKE: Look, I don't want to be a wet blanket or anything, but if this house is a bottle, I'm the one with a message. NEIL: What do you mean, Mike? MIKE: Simple, London has flooded. NEIL: Oh well. well, we'll all probably get drowned or eaten by octopuses, then. RICK: WHAT? Phone the police! NEIL: But they're fascists! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HappyCamper Posted November 9, 2004 Share Posted November 9, 2004 Not to get too technical here, but the US Constitution is probably violated every day. When someone files an appeal in federal or state court odds are that they are citing some example of a violation of such things as right to speedy trial, unreasonable search and seizure, free speech etc. Perhaps the better question is not whether the constitution is violated, but whether or not the alleged violation can be argued before a court. A number of Gitmo prisoners are trying to argue that they should just have a day in court. The fear is that the "enemy combatant" rule will be stretched to include US citizens (if it hasn't already - ex. Padilla). I think if prosecutors are allowed to make that application then you do have to worry that the ice axe has been removed and we face a risk of a fall. For example, what does the term "enemy combatant" mean? If a US citizen plans to commit a crime against a federal institution and perhaps belong to a foreign-based organization, should they be seized without due process? Keep in mind that my last sentence could be broadly applied to even minute violations. Is it unlikely? Yes. But that does not mean that you do stop maintaining vigilance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
catbirdseat Posted November 9, 2004 Author Share Posted November 9, 2004 If you care about your own liberty then you should care about the liberty of others. I have no love for the Taliban. I am sure that, to a man, they'd love nothing better than to kill me. But among them are poor suckers who got swept up with the others and who are relatively innocent. Let an impartial judge decide if there is cause to detain these men. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.