The USA would be a great deal better off without any Central Intelligence Agency to start with.

Remember, they start by throwing only the most hated and reviled in jail. Then they go for others. Jails used to be mostly for real criminals that used violence aginst another, now they are for everyone becuase everyone has been turned into a criminal to some degree, often several times a day.

A while back, I posted this on LFS. I think it's quite accurate. This is what America is becoming.

The 14 Defining Characteristics Of Fascism
by Dr. Lawrence Britt

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

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.

( how many flags do you see these days? On highway overpasses? In places you never saw them before 9/11?)

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.

( GITMO. Americans accused of terrorism no longer have Constitutional Rights)

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.

(If you dont see the truth in the above statement, I cant help you. All of the above)

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. Divorce, abortion and homosexuality are suppressed and the state is represented as the ultimate guardian of the family institution.

(How many of you see the Christian Church morality enforced through government law here? I do. How about them GOOD CHRISTIANS down in Alabama holding up the GOD HATES FAGS signs? He hates hypocrites more. )

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

( We have a 96% corporate controlled media. The government favors media consolidation and expansion )

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

( There never has been a more Fascist sounding governmental name than The Office Of Homeland Security. I am waiting for the invarible edict of “all islamic people must be quaranteed for THEIR OWN SAFETY” :D wait for it after the next attack)

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

(The trend for this is growing still larger, as the Republican base seeks to enforce it’s moral code upon the land, having nothing to do with what Jesus actually taught)

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.

( BINGO! This is the truest statement in this list. Yet libertarians continue to eat at the pig’s slophouse of the unconditional worship of all forms of private enterprise without engaging in actually examining WHY THEY SHOULD.)

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.

(This is true to a extent, but I think labor unions killed themselves off in the 1970’s by reaching to far into greed and corruption. Worker’s rights does not mean paying a guy who cant read 35 dollars a hour for threading a nut on a bolt)

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 and letters is openly attacked.

(or education is made obscenely expensive and hard to get through government subsidy designed to improverish the recipient with debt)

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.

( We have several National Police Forces. Lotsa letters scrambled together in every which way)

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.

(This is the Bush Administration described, Clinton was not much better.)

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.

( Florida, anyone? How about throwing “minor parties” off of ballots for not meeting totally arbitrary standards that correspond to no public interest whatsoever?)

1. True
2. True
3. True
4. Well, sort of. Our military doesn't actually have much control over anything.
5. Clearly false. We have a black female secretary of state.
6. Also false. Fascist control of media would mean that sites like this couldn't exist.
7. True
8. Getting there, but not coherently.
9. Corporate conspiracy is an attractive thing to rail against, but I don't think there's a lot of truth to it. Even if the federal government helps corporations, federalism cancels it out.
10. Yeah, labor unions killed themselves.
11. What?
12. True.
13. Very true.
14. Biased, but not fraudulent. A minor semantic difference perhaps, but I dn't think there's any massive election fraud.

Federalism prevents nations from ever becoming totalitarian. If the government doesn't agree with itself, it'll never be able to be completely dominant.

Yeah, our next president will very likely be a woman.

Also, why single out Alabama? As a matter of fact, the guy who runs the website with the phrase you cited, I think he is from Utah or something, not Alabama. We're a good state, probably leaning a lot more towards libertarianism than most. If you want to single out some state, try Arkansas or Mississippi. I kid, I kid.

And I don't see Christian morality enforced through government. I think the government is doing a great job of keeping religion seperate from law and is quite vigilant against it. To use the Alabama example again, our next Gubernatorial election will most likely be between the Lt. Governor Lucy Baxley, a woman, Loretta Nall, a woman, and the religious nut Ten Commandnments "fundamentalist" Judge Roy Moore. And Baxley will probably win by a landslide.

As far as gay rights, our nation is headed heavily in that direction now. Yeah, some people are being dragged kicking and screaming, but undoubtedly we are headed towards sexual equality within a decade or two.

So I disagree with that bullet point.

"To use the Alabama example again, our next Gubernatorial election will most likely be between the Lt. Governor Lucy Baxley, a woman, Loretta Nall, a woman, and the religious nut Ten Commandnments "fundamentalist" Judge Roy Moore. And Baxley will probably win by a landslide."

Riley is ahead of Moore in primary polls and will probably beat whoever the Democrats throw up, whether it's Baxley or Sieg-Heilman (if he stays out of prison). Loretta will unfortunately probably not even be on the ballot. I talked to her about getting her signatures but then Marc Emery got busted up in Canada, there went her funding, and now she can't hire me. I wish her luck though.

Bummer, I really like her style and a lot of the issues she's bringing up.

BTW the "god hates" boys are from kansas, not bama.

Regarding the original point of this blog...the idea of the US government maintaining secret prisons is frightening. When secrecy trumps justice, there is no end to the potential for escalation and corruption. Say 'goodbye' to liberty if/when that end is reached.

also, Hitler wasn't a fascist.

Another person named Paul from Alabama. What are the chances?

And Riley is ahead in the polls? Oh happy day. That restores my faith even more. Not that I like Riley, but just knowing that people see right through Moore warms my heart.

I think Baxley would be likely to beat Riley though, because people are still bitter about Riley trying to pass the biggest tax hike in state history. And that can kill him in ad campaigns. Oddly in Alabama politics, the Democrats tend to be more for smaller government than the Republicans!

But to the matter at hand secret prisons are inexcusable. For security reasons, I might be able to forgive secret locations of prisons, but keeping the prisons themselves a secret is just wrong. The public should know what their elected servants are doing.

“Be it resolved that the state of Vermont peacefully and democratically free itself from the United States of America and return to its natural status as an independent republic as it was between January 15, 1777 and March 4, 1791.”

http://www.arcticbeacon.com/articles/article/1518131/36584.htm

IT IS TIME FOR THE REST OF THE STATE TO FOLLOW

P,

"Another person named Paul from Alabama. What are the chances?"

I think there are tens of thousands, at least.

"And Riley is ahead in the polls? Oh happy day. That restores my faith even more. Not that I like Riley, but just knowing that people see right through Moore warms my heart."

There are a lot of people who like Moore. Just not enough to be governor, at least probably not yet. I think he's a demagogue and potentially very dangerous.

"I think Baxley would be likely to beat Riley though, because people are still bitter about Riley trying to pass the biggest tax hike in state history. And that can kill him in ad campaigns."

Incumbency is a difficult advantage to overcome.

"Oddly in Alabama politics, the Democrats tend to be more for smaller government than the Republicans!"

I don't think Sieg-Heilman is for smaller government. Actually I think they are about the same both in Alabama and nationally. Spending has grown faster since the GOP took over the US Congress in 1994 (effectively 1995), and since Bush became resident in 2000 (effective 2001) even faster still.

"But to the matter at hand secret prisons are inexcusable. For security reasons, I might be able to forgive secret locations of prisons, but keeping the prisons themselves a secret is just wrong. The public should know what their elected servants are doing."

Absolutely. But these scumbags know that their actions are not yet tolerable when given the light of day.

It's kind of ironic that the secret prisons are in Cuba, and several countries in Eastern Europe, where organizations such as the nazi SS, communist KGB and the German Stasi have operated secret prisons and torture camps for decades.

It seems that the neofascists are linking up with the older fascists and learning from them.

It seems this regime is turning America into everything it was supposed to fight against: fascism, totalitarianism, wars of aggression and occupation, torture....through the cold war they have made this country more communistic, and the Germans and Japanese seem to be taking over too...who won WW2 and the Cold War again?

Just as there has gotten to be more drugs and crime because of the "war on drugs" there is now more terrorism because of the war on terror, and America is more like the communist and fascist regimes it supposedly defeated in the 20th century.

Likewise the "war on poverty" has only created more of it. Maybe they should just quit fighting all these wars? Just a thought....

Nigel,

"4. Well, sort of. Our military doesn't actually have much control over anything."

Paul) Several hundred billion a year is not anything? It's as much as the rest of the world spends combined!

"6. Also false. Fascist control of media would mean that sites like this couldn't exist."

Paul) This is not exactly mass media. The major media are definitely controlled and dissent is not shown much, except to dismiss it.

Yes, we still have some freedom of speech, but less all the time.

"8. Getting there, but not coherently."

Paul) It's quite coherent. They are very conscious and organized about what they want to do. Unfortunately, libertarians are not.

"9. Corporate conspiracy is an attractive thing to rail against, but I don't think there's a lot of truth to it. Even if the federal government helps corporations, federalism cancels it out."

Paul) How so? Hello? Halliburton, corporate welfare, limited liability, military contracting, prison labor, war for oil, government institutional investing in corporations, and the whole mass of tax and regulations which make it much easier to be a corporate employee than a small businessman competing against them...government and corporate power is the SAME. Even the people involved are the same people. One year, one of the elite will be a congressman; next year he will be a corporate lobbyist, or a VP of a corporation, and the next a bureaucrat in charge of regulating the same industry.

Then he may become a commentator for a news broadcast owned by corporate media, and then go on to write a book and go making speeches to corporate audiences.

Check out the CAFR reports. Government vs. corporations is a myth just as much as Democrats vs. Republicans. It's just a show to distract, divide and conquer the rest of us.

"11. What?"

Paul) The funding issue is a red herring, but there is clealy an atmosphere of hostility towards free expression in academia and the arts among regimists. Bush and many of his supporters are notoriously anti-intellectual.

Just look at the ridiculous accent he affects, his professed disdain of reading and his fake man of the people persona. Let's get real here; he was brought up in New England prep schools and the Ivy League. Yet people buy it.

Back during the McCarthy era, the refrain was "pointy headed professors" and "eggheads" and little has changed. Many of Bush's supporters are all for censoring education and the arts, and make no secret of it.

"14. Biased, but not fraudulent. A minor semantic difference perhaps, but I dn't think there's any massive election fraud."

Paul) Of course there is. If you are not aware of it, start googling

votescam

black box voting

Diebold (sp?)

....that's a good start.

Did the googling - though lots of things were crazy bearded drunks in their mom's basements, there was some credible stuff on there. Yikes.

Am I the only one who thinks that most of the Constitution exists to protect the rights of all People? Regardless of their country of location or citizenship?

Sure, there are a few things restricted to citizens, but most of the rights are inalienable and endowed by their Creator.

Arguing over which country they're in, or which country they're from, is pointless. The Constitution restricts what our govenment can do to them.

But what do I know? I learned this in government school.

I think its time to do that revoultionary war thing again.

OK, since whoever deleted my comment has my email address from this, do me a favor and email me to tell me why you deleted it.

Oops, wrong thread. Sorry, I look like an idiot now.

Hi Sandra,

While I agtee that the world is covered by the rights defended by the Constitution, and while I agree that the Constitution does give some limited protection to citizens of foreign countries who are staying in the U.S. for even a short period of time, I must regretfully disagree that the Constitution itself protects the rights of non-U.S. citizens around the World. If your government class taught you otherwise, your teacher needs a refresher course on the Constitution.

Start with the Preamble: "...do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." It doesn't say they they ordain and establish this Constitution for the Peoples of the World.

Move to Article I, Section 2: only U.S. citizens for at least seven years can be elected to Congress.

Move to Article I, Section 3: only U.S. citizens for at least nine years can be elected to the Senate.

Move to Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5: "No one other than natural born citizens who have lived in the US at least 14 years can be President."

Now move to the 14th Amendment, Section 1: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

This may be what your teacher is thinking about. But notice that it only extends equal protection of the laws and protection of life, liberty, and property within that state. This applies to foreign nationals as well. However, it does not apply to foreign nationals not living or residing within that state.

Move to the 15th Amendment: "The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude."

Move to the 19th Amendment: "The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex."

Move to the 24th Amendment: "The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any state by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax.

Move to the 26th Amendment: "The right of citizens of the United States, who are 18 years of age or older, to vote, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any state on account of age."

In fact, the only part of the Constitution that makes reference to the rights of non-US citizens is the 6th Amendment, which states: "The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State."

In other words, with two exceptions all of the rights protection specified within the Constitution are specific to U.S. Citizens.

Those 14 bullets points do not seem to me much libertarian. They are more like socialist propaganda aimed at defining fascism as any sort of bad government and preserving thereby the idea that government might be good.

3. Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause -
The list of scapegoat (#3) is very telling: ": racial , ethnic or religious minorities; liberals; communists; socialists, terrorists, etc.". What about entrepreneurs? What about hard-working people? I like them. I like them more then bureaucrats. They are the true victims of today statist madness

4. Supremacy of the Military -
"The military is given a disproportionate amount of government funding, and the domestic agenda is neglected." By that token, libertarians are fascists. Thank you!

6. Controlled Mass Media -
Here the author complains that "We have a 96% corporate controlled media. The government favors media consolidation and expansion". My understanding is that libertarians would like 100% corporate control. Concerning the role of government in favoring such media, I can only agree and regret government intervention in business life.

9. Corporate Power is Protected -
I would not say "protected" but "attacked" by taxes and regulation, sometimes for the benefit of the corporations supporting such regulations. And to make things explicit, the author adds:"..libertarians continue to eat at the pig’s slophouse of the unconditional worship of all forms of private enterprise without engaging in actually examining WHY THEY SHOULD.)"

10. Labor Power is Suppressed -
There should be no law on that topic, that would be such a fascist way to organize society

11. Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts -
Very funny. On a different website
http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/fasci14chars.html
the same bullet point ends with "Free expression in the arts is openly attacked, and governments often refuse to fund the arts." Now that might be less popular to a libertarian crowd but that is more consistent with the ideology of the writer.

It is not because I like the conclusion that I am going to agree with the argument. I am always appalled at people who denounce the excess of government and then suggest more government. I am much more confortable with the approach of the Mises Institute. Great work there to analyze fascism.

From an article....
Your Car May NOT Be Your Friend!

Speaking of a lack of privacy, consider that, according to the Dec. 11, 2003 News Max, court records have revealed that law enforcement agencies have already been using GM's "OnStar" in-car communications system to surreptitiously listen in to conversations in the car during a non-terrorist criminal investigation! And OnStar is built-in to most new GM cars.

Although the FBI lost this particular court challenge to using OnStar, it wasn't because the court was concerned with the invasion of privacy issue, but only because the,

"...OnStar passive listening feature disables the emergency signal, the very life-saving call for help that the advertisements tout as the main reason to purchase the system."

So presumably, once they figure out how to listen-in without disabling OnStar's emergency functionality, they'd be free to do so again.

By the way, are you SURE that such functionality isn't buried deep within your cell phone?

I am looking into how one might deal with this on say, H3's.

Nigel, actually they have deleted post in these blogs before.

LTV,

Where voting and "representation" does not apply to non-citizens, Due Process does--it applies to *anybody* being prosecuted by the National Government. I think this is what Sandra was implying.

Article [IV.]
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Article [V.]
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

LTV, Lee got it right. The only restriction to citizens has to do with voting and running for office.

The foundation of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution is the claim that "we" the People (all of us) have certain fundamental rights, and the Constitution clearly claims these rights for everyone, and limits the U.S. government's ability to abuse them.

We aren't granted these rights by our government. We claim them as a human birthright.

P.S. And we can't stop other governments from abusing them, but we can stop ours, and do, or try to, in our Constitution.

There's nothing that says our government is allowed to apply a double standard.

Maybe a little offtopic here but... I am not sure why so many libertarians like so much the US Constitution. The Constitution has been instrumental in developing the current gigantic government. That Kelo lost to New London in the US Supreme Court proves the failure of the US Constitution.
I understand that the it is more difficult to jail someone who opposes government in the name of the Constitution than it is to jail someone opposes government in his/her own name.
The "Welfare Clause" beggs for socialists and fascists to act upon. The Constitution should clearly limit the scope of government and any kind of economic and social engineerings. It should state that charity is people's business not government's, that education is people's responsibilites not bureaucrats'... Importantly, laws should be about real/violent crimes and should be approved by the legislative body.

I am as anarchocapitalistic as it gets--I, too, don't care much for the Constitution. But you work with what you have. :)

http://www.nhgazette.com/cgi-bin/NHGstore.cgi?user_action=detail&catalogno=NN_Bush_Nazi_Link

John Christopher

The U.S. Constitution, unique in world history contains what you ask for. For the first time in history, it specifically enumerated the powers granted to government with all un specified powers remaining with the governed.

It is likely that any informed citizen would, if they were empowered to do so, make major changes in our government. What we have now is a result of competing ideologies in a democratic system tugging different directions while accepting compromises along the way. The size of our government can be associated with population size, its concentration and the promotion of the economic interests of those that directly benifit from tax revenues.

If you want an indepth understanding of the documents may I suggest, "The Constitution, A Documentary and Narrative History, by Page Smith" ISBN 0-688-08349-8

Reading all this, I can't help but think how much I'm going to miss you all when Patriot Act II comes out. Maybe we'll run into each other at "Camp Freedom".
This is off topic, but I read today that Ann Coulter is trying to associate herself with the libertarian party. I found this unsettling. It occurs to me that she shares parts of our philosophy, but for all the wrong reasons. I'm sick of people who like to ruin things for everyone else, so I was wondering if there's any possibility of getting some kind of resolution from the LNC that says she can't ever join the party or associate herself with it. If not, we should at least make her take some LSD first.

The problem with our government system is that it falls apart the moment somebody realises they can vote to take away someone else's money or liberty and give it to themselves.

Am I really hearing libertarians rip on the constitution? Come on, seriously guys. If we had stuck to the constitution, we wouldn't be in this mess. The constitution is there to keep the government out of most of our business, and list the stuff that we have the implicit right to rebel against. It's just suffered a lot of abuse. It's a good social contract, and it keeps stupid politicians from coming up with their own ideas all willy nilly. Would you rather live in a country where the president can just do whatever he wants, or in one like ours where the vice president runs the show and has to do a lot of covert paperwork to circumvent the constitution to do what he wants? At least the latter takes longer. All I know is, I don't want George W. Bush thinking for himself, because we'd all be dead in a week.

We have all heard that outing identify of an undercover operative may compromise their mission and or place lives in jeopardy. So why is outing the identity of a captured espionage agent, (Jehadist) not have the same effect?

Granted oversight reporting to another command (Police & IA) and clear rules of conduct are needed but there is a real and legitimate need to secretly hold some guys, until their missions are disrupted and they have been cleaned of information.

The question can't quite get my mind around is why do some expect U.S. laws travel along with its citizens to apply to citizens of another. When traveling internationally, U.S. cotizens are subject to the laws of the host country, not the U.S. Constitution. In other words a nations laws apply in a nations borders without regard to citizenship.

There is a story behind: Will the CIA agents leaks to the Post, be investigated like Plane matter or will some the CIA continue to use similar methods to influence administration policy like sending Wilson a Democrat to Niger.

Sandra

The U. S. Constitution still exists as law of the land only because its people confronted its opponents before they were powerful enough to force their own system.

The Constitution is not transportable to others. While some nations that have used our system as a general model they recognised their unique historical, cultural and religious differences to end up with a workable system. The Republic of the Philippines come to mind.

Chance,

As we know, The Constitution authorizes a centralized, federal form of government that exists for a small handful purposes--all items that could (arguably) be considered "too messy" for the Several States to deal with as 50 individuals, and need to be mediated by a Republican form of government.

These bonds were broken some time ago--probably Lincoln--and it is clear that the Constituion was not effective enough in getting our message across. 51 beats the 49, Consitution or no Constitution. No matter what the contract or document, the 51 will find a loophole, or it will make one.

The nature of *any* governing body.

I still find it odd that Libertarians enjoy referring to the US Constitution when it is the very text that Republicans and Democrats use on a daily basis to grow their powers and do whatever they want.
I am afraid that every time one supports the US Constitution, even to say that politicians and their social/corporate associates betray it, one is really helping the growth of government. My point is that the Constitution is not Libertarians' friend any more!
I like Lee Brenn's wisdom that he doesn't care much for the Constitution but that "you work with what you have. :)".

I find it very strange that with Bush at an all time low, and so much hatered for other countries, that are not people getting a clue for everything that has happened, that he needs to be impeached. There are going to be more damage yet if he is not.

If you think about the original Constitution plus the first 10 amendments, they're pretty nice. Most of the rest of it isn't so great.

Perhaps the number one problem with the U.S. Constitution is the mass acceptance of it as the law of the land for the people, when it is not -- it is the law of the land for the government. Deciding WHO it applies to -- citizens or aliens or children or small animals -- is a non sequitur. This argument is happily and loudly examined and debated by authoritarians who prefer that people are bound by the limits of a constitution rather than government -- it is classic misdirection.

Even the so-called Bill of Rights was worded as prohibitions to government, so as not to give the idea the Constitution was granting that which it had no authority to grant.

John Christopher,

"racial , ethnic or religious minorities; liberals; communists; socialists, terrorists, etc.". What about entrepreneurs? What about hard-working people?"

Paul) Are racial, ethnic and religious minorities deemed to be people different from entrepreneurs and hard working people? Some of them are the same people, you know. As for (state) socialists and communists, they do have a right to hold their views, even though they are wrong. And some socialists and communists are not statists, just voluntary communalists, which is not incompatible with libertarianism. Many are even hard working people and/or entrepreneurs .... none of these people should be suppressed or scapegoated based on their background or views, only on their actions if they violate the rights of others.

"4. Supremacy of the Military -
"The military is given a disproportionate amount of government funding, and the domestic agenda is neglected." By that token, libertarians are fascists. Thank you!"

Paul) No, we're not. Libertarians are not for bloated military budgets. Many of us oppose all military spending, while some believe in a bare-bones military (a fraction of today's military budget) solely for the defense of the country, not for wars of aggression and posting American troops in almsot every country in the world.

"6. Controlled Mass Media -
Here the author complains that "We have a 96% corporate controlled media. The government favors media consolidation and expansion". My understanding is that libertarians would like 100% corporate control."

Paul) Your understanding is wrong. First of all, limited liability corporations are created by the government and as such should not exist. The vast majority of today's large corporations would
not survive without limited liability, as well as numerous other government favors such as corporate welfare, eminent domain, regulatory favoritism and various measures to control and discourage small, independent competition.

There is nothing unlibertarian about non-profit organizations, unincorporated businesses, and private individuals from operating any venture or expressing themselves - and this includes media and broadcasting.

"9. Corporate Power is Protected -
I would not say "protected" but "attacked" by taxes and regulation, sometimes for the benefit of the corporations supporting such regulations."

Paul) I don't understand your point. That's exactly what protected means.

"And to make things explicit, the author adds:"..libertarians continue to eat at the pig’s slophouse of the unconditional worship of all forms of private enterprise without engaging in actually examining WHY THEY SHOULD.)"

Paul) I believe that was an additional comment by the poster, not part of the article. Also, when it comes to some (alleged) libertarians, it's true. A lot of nominally private enterprise is intertwined with the state.

"11. Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts -
Very funny."

Paul) Why is that funny?

With so much talk about the constitution and bill of rights it is only natural that one would ask:

What do we as citizens do when the united states government finally throws caution to the wind and destroys the last bit of constitutional freedoms that we have in this country just as hitler did?

At it's present rate of decline, we may be without any freedoms what so ever in five to ten years.
Do we as a nation come together and revolt against our government? Do we take certain states under libertarian control and try to cesseed? Do we humbly bow to defeat? Do we allow king george to imprison americans without trial if he considers those americans to be terrorists? Do we get pissed off and fight this socialist government? Do we allow marshall law to exist in our new socialist democracy?

What is the libertarian plan when all else fails as may very well happen? What is the plan if our government continues to slide into socialism and the slide can not be stopped?

Just curious.

Lee Brown and Sandra: If you truly believe that the rights guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution apply to everyone in the world, then you must also believe that voting is not a right. After all, as the Declaration of Independence stated, rights are unalienable, meaning that they can't be given up or separated from the person. Further, the 9th Amendment guarantees rights (to citizens) that are not identified in the Constitution. Thus, the government cannot rightfully pick and choose which rights can be protected and which cannot. Since you claim that the Constitution protects everyone's rights everywhere, you cannot also claim that the Constitution can deny people their rights unless you believe that voting is not a right. If it's not a right, what is it? A privilege?

Further, if all people around the world are protected by the Constitution, why aren't they required to pay a head tax, as the Constitution empowers the government to collect? Indeed, why don't they have to pay anything directly to the U.S. Government in return for their Constitutional protection at all?

Remember, there's a distinction between rights in general and rights guaranteed under the Constitution. I don't think you've made a sufficient case to show that anyone other than citizens are protected by the Constitution, except if they're visitors living or staying within our borders (as I said before). The two articles cited by Lee Brown are protections of "people" or "perons." The term "people" is defined in the Preamble, which begins "We The People of the United States...." While this doesn't necessarily and absolutely limit all possible definitions of the term, it certain informs a restrictive interpretation of it.

Those 14-defining-characteristics of fascism miss the decisive and fundamental feature fascism: massive government intervention. Also, the argument do not recognize why the United States cannot be seriously branded as fascist today: Bush can still lose elections and the rule of law still applies. A true fascist regime cannot be toppled democratically while I believe we all agree that we can change quite a lot in America if we can convince voters that freedom and individual responsibilites are better principles. You did not have libertarian candidates under Mussolini.
I would rather argue that the United States has joined (and well before Bush), the ugly family of political regimes whose aim it to put tabs on free-enterprise and to put statist and so-called collective interests above individuals'. That family includes socialism (also used as its generic name), nazism, fascism, bolchevism... I am not sure which word-ism would be approriate for the US breed. Libertarians are among the very few in politics who have nothing to do with this family because the core of their values is individual freedom.
The rethoric of the argument makes me unconfortable because it associates the fourteen symptoms with fascism and not with massive government intervention. Thereby, it protects the reputation of government and hints that the solution to fascism can be found in more and better government.

3. Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause. Excluding entrepreneurs from the list of the usual suscpects is not innocent. Especially when fascism aims at stifling the economic activity of those not in line with the State vision.

4. "...the military is given a disproportionate amount of government funding, and the domestic agenda is neglected". If "domestic agenda" only means local police, non-agressive military and justice, I happily withdraw my comments. However, am I the only one to see that the sentence implies that government should invest in education or fight against poverty instead of waging wars and that anybody opposing those "generous" policies is actually a fascist? Government should not be involved in education, charity and wars and should focus on the defense of private property. Being against social and economic engineering does not make you a fascist. Quite the contrary. It is critical to fight the common idea that fascism is the ultimate form of capitalism and that capitalism leads to fascism.

6. 9. We probably agree more than it looks like. To me "100% corporate control" is equivalent to "0% government control". "Corporate" includes non-profit organizations, unincorporated businesses, private individuals... The 14-point argument equals fascism and protection of corporate power; the opposite is true. The 14-point argument ignores government intervention... whereas it is really a critical feature. My contention is that the bias of the 14-point pseudo analysis is best explained by the fact that the author is probably in favor of bigger government to defeat fascism... The art of getting sober with more booze.

11. 'Funny" because on http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/fasci14chars.html, the very same points continues with "... attacked, and governments often refuse to fund the arts". To me that's really what the author thinks and actually it is perfectly consistent with his line of reasoning. What's wrong with disdaining the intellectuals and the arts, especially when they sell socialism? What a fascist attitude is is to be willing to use government violence to prod people into culture. The idea of using tax payer money for the arts is so anti-humanist.

The argument transforms a rigorous economical/political concept into a mere political insult ready to be slung at any opponent. The argument also embraces nearly systematically the typical socialist rethoric on fascism. The last point on fradulent elections is certainly interesting but in no way specific to fascism. To me, it shows that the purpose of the this pseudo analysis is not to investigate seriously fascism but just bash a little more Bush and its fellow republicans. As much as I dislike the statist, it is not enough for me to buy into that crap. For good stuff, may I recommend google on "Mises on fascism"? Great work on that critical topic. Sorry to have been so long.

GOP Leaders to Bush: 'Your Presidency is Effectively Over'
By DOUG THOMPSON
Nov 4, 2005, 08:13
Email this article
Printer friendly page

A growing number of Republican leaders, party strategists and political professional now privately tell President George W. Bush that his presidency "is effectively over" unless he fires embattled White House advisor Karl Rove, apologizes to the American people for misleading the country into war and revamps his administration from top to bottom.

"The only show of unity we have now in the Republican Party is the belief that the President has failed the party, the American people and the presidency," says a longtime, and angry, GOP strategist.

With the public face of support for Bush eroding daily from even diehard Republicans, the President faces mounting anger from within his party over the path that may well lead to loss of control of Congress in the 2006 midterm elections and the White House in 2008.

"This presidency is in trouble," says a senior White House aide. "Even worse, I don't know if there is a way out of the trouble."

Congressional leaders journeyed to the White House before Bush left on his South American tour this week to tell the President that his legislative agenda on the Hill is dead, his latest Supreme Court nominee faces a tough confirmation fight in the Senate and he is facing open revolt within party ranks.

"The Speaker is having an increasingly difficult time holding his troops in line," says a source within the office of House Speaker Dennis J. Hastert. "Anger at the President grows exponentially with each passing day."

At a recent White House strategy session, internal party pollsters told the President that his approval rating with Americans continues to slide and may be irreversible, citing his failed Iraq war, the failed Supreme Court nomination of Harriet Miers and his failure to deal decisively on a number of fronts, including Hurricane Katrina, the economy and the Valerie Plame scandal.

In meetings, leaders and strategists have suggested a number of things that Bush must do to try and save his presidency and GOP prospects in upcoming elections, including:

* Apologize to the American people, Congress and our allies for misleading them on the reasons for invading Iraq;
* Revamp the White House staff from top to bottom;
* Fire Rove.

You can tell that the memo was made by a Democrat because the main reason the conservative base is angry with Bush is missing. Spending! Spending! Spending!

JC,

"Bush can still lose elections and the rule of law still applies."

Paul) Can he? He was never elected in the first place nor was he legitimately be re-elected. Both elections were stolen. As for the rule of law, fascists have always been big on the formalities of the rule of law while ignoring them in practice. We now have secret prisons, people held indefinitely without trial or even charges and without access to lawyers or outside communication. We have cops getting away with beating, macing and shooting people to death who were not threatening them. We have 7 million people either incarcerated or on parole/probation, mostly for bogus victimless crimes, or real crimes commited to either support a drug habit or having to do with the violence of the black market in drugs. We could go on for a long time here but the bottom line is: what rule of law?

"A true fascist regime cannot be toppled democratically while I believe we all agree that we can change quite a lot in America if we can convince voters that freedom and individual responsibilites are better principles."

Paul) Not really the case when votes are not tabulated honestly, and when the regime stages terrorist acts like OKC and 911 to demonize and scapegoat various groups it doesn't like and terrorize the people into giving it more powers at the expense of our freedom.

"I am not sure which word-ism would be approriate for the US breed."

Paul) I think fascism is the appropriate term.

6. 9. We probably agree more than it looks like. To me "100% corporate control" is equivalent to "0% government control". "Corporate" includes non-profit organizations, unincorporated businesses, private individuals...

Paul) That's an unusual definition of corporate. I think the traditional definition of corporate is what the article was referring to, which is far from 0% government control; actually, the big corporations which control the vast majority of mass media are very closely tied in with the government. They depend on the government for many things, such as their broadcast licenses and "expert" commentary, and their other corporate tentacles are intertwined with government in many other ways - for example, GE, which owns NBC and other media, is a major military contractor.

"The 14-point argument equals fascism and protection of corporate power; the opposite is true."

Paul) Fascist regimes are typically characterized by intertwined government and corporate power, which is exactly what we have.

"What's wrong with disdaining the intellectuals and the arts, especially when they sell socialism? "

Paul) In what way does the propensity of *some* intellectuals and artists for socialism justify disdaining intellectuals and the arts as a class?

"For good stuff, may I recommend google on "Mises on fascism"? Great work on that critical topic. "

Paul) Good idea. I searched for fascism at lewrockwell.com. There were 358 results; here are the first four;

The Reality of Red-State Fascism by Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr.The Reality of Red-State Fascism. by Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr. ... of a third way that rejects the socialism of the left and the fascism of the right. ...
www.lewrockwell.com/rockwell/red-state-fascism.html

Economic Fascism by Thomas DiLorenzoBut there was also an economic policy component of fascism, ... A version of economic fascism was in fact adopted in the United States in the 1930s and ...
www.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo85.html

The Coming US Fascism"The test of fascism is not one’s rage against the Italian and German war lords. The test is – how many of the essential principles of fascism do you accept ...
www.lewrockwell.com/orig2/fascism.html - 12k

Roads to Fascism: Sixty Years Later by Roderick T. LongProgressive-minded folks saw fascism as "right-wing," as market capitalism taken to its ... Flynn traces the rise of fascism in Italy and Nazism in Germany, ...
www.lewrockwell.com/long/long7.html

Good to read solid arguments that don't "forget" to link fascism with massive government and remind readers that capitalism is the opposite of fascism. After reading such articles, nobody wants to vote Bush and nobody wants to vote Kerry or Clinton either. Those articles are powerful arguments for a third and libertarian way. Actually, I would love for Rockwell to run for President. He speaks pretty well too, which does not hurt in politics. Those articles lead to a different conclusion than the 14-points that, instead, gently and ominuously keep the reader on the statist road. Arguing that the US is fascist without denouncing big-government is a joke and a sure way to get America quicker to full-fledged fascim.
On the question of whether the US is fascist today, I maintain that the US has more developped its own breed of socialism or collectivism. Certainly closer to Italian fascism than to Russsian bolchevism, but not quite the same. I am not sure they really disagree with me on that one but I don't want to speak for them. "Red-State fascism" as Rockwell writes? Why not? Except that Democrats are responsible too and big time. What about Purple-State fascism. Give FDR some appreciation for his hard work! I also recognize here Rockewell's tendency to hammer harder conservatives than liberals; fine with me since he targets primarily the state. Personnaly, I am more egalitarian on that issue, if I may... Can the US become a true fascist country? The last article, http://www.lewrockwell.com/long/long7.html, ends with: "... In the present political climate, when the U.S. government is making ever-bolder strides toward fascism while mouthing slogans of freedom, their message is more worth pondering than ever." I am very much confortable with that.

You know, with all the crooked who are problematic that is comming out in the open. I would not be surprised that he was illegally put in office. Bush and his followers should be thrown out.

You know, with all the crooked who are problematic that is comming out in the open. I would not be surprised that he was illegally put in office. Bush and his followers should be thrown out.

Posted by: at November 7, 2005 12:04 PM

To: Posted no name

Ok, so imagine President George W. Bush and all that work for him do not come to work tomorrow.

Then imagine what would happen as a result!

If Bush and all that work for him do not come to work tomorrow? That's a huge tax-payer money saving!
By the way, Bush followers include those who work for government whatever their political opinions might be. Whoever works for the federal government, including as soldier in the military, is really supporting Bush and his grandiose collectivist plans. A bureaucrat who opposes Bush is no different from an executioner who administers death penalty because it's his job but still opposes death peanlty on moral grounds.

It's so nice when someone with an agenda hi-jacks a topic. The topic is supposed to be "Should the CIA be using secret prisons to detain al Qaeda suspects?", so how about we gravitate back to it.

Should the CIA use "secret prisons", well if we know about them how can they be secret?
Yes, they should have facilities that can not be accessed by every Tom, Dick, or Harry with a cause or threatening investigation.
They should however abide to the Geneva Convention on the treatment and interregation of prisoners.
If they are holding Americans there should they be protected by the Constitution/Bill of Rights? No, when you sign on to destroy your home, you no longer have a home.

A great book on the subject of the United States long slip into fascism is "The Ominous Parallels" by Leonard Peikoff. The book compares philosophical parallels between the Weimar Republic, the government in power right before the rise of Hitler, and US's current political and philosophical position. The interesting thing is that Dr. Peikoff takes a different view on the funding of arts.He points to the fact the funding of the arts is one of the signs of a fascist government(or socialist) because ,by funding, the state is deciding what is art.

John S-
That's right John S, if an American is picked up by the CIA that means we should assume that they are guilty and they should have no rights. The way your mind works it's no wonder why you can't make the connection why fascism is directly linked to the original topic. I hope you or one of your loved ones is never picked up on vacation accused of terrorism, because under your approach they could simply disappear with no proof ever needed of actual guilt.

Secret prison for secret crimes? Secrecy defeats the purpose of Law and Justice. It is essential for society to be aware that such action is a crime and has been punished as such. I don't see any reason reason for Libertarians to accept the idea of secret prisons.

The simple fact that existence and or location of a government prison by the Washington Post or New York Times is unknown is a non issue. As for security, if a reporter can find out, security was breeched and all must assume the opposition can do the same.

Without assigning motive, if a CIA employee leaked that information, that appears to be a breach of national security and should be investigated with the same vigor of Valerie Wilson matter.

When a terrorists and I use that term unless and until a accepted one comes along, is apprehended prior to, in the process of, or preparing for, an attack, it does not seem unreasonable for that individual to be held incognito until such time as they have been completely debriefed.

It also seems that opportunity of success for law enforcement is vastly increased if the other cells did not know those members were apprehended and under interrogation.

It seems that if the apprehension was a direct result of an agent still undercover, publishing identities could compromise the undercover, terminate the mission before it was complete and put the agent in serious danger.

While one could, from emotion or ideology rush to a judgment, in order to make a reasoned approach best separate the issues and address each one individually. For instance there is a difference between U.S. citizens, protected by the U.S. Constitution, and non citizens not protected by same. The nation where they were apprehended is relevant because only that nations laws apply. The nationality of the person that apprehended the suspect is relevant as their nationality establishes their rules of conduct. If they are a foreign national both may apply.

What we are missing in this instance is an agreed upon and brand new rule set and a method of confidently insuring compliance. Rules that addresses the, arrest, interrogation, prosecution, and sentencing of the stateless, uninformed combatants, that attack with unconventional methods against civilian targets.

It seems likely we will organize some system of secret prisions, operating under rules of conduct, with oversight by some independent organization reporting to Congress. No matter how much we might want that rule set, as long as the debate is incomplete and there is no consensus, legislation cannot be written to manage the matter.

The CIA's secret prisons (in foreign countries, mind you) simply take to the extreme the concept that "the Constitution does not follow the flag" - which I believe to be wholly fallacious. Thus they're unconstitutional (keep in mind that the territory which they are on is owned by the US government, so it technically isn't a foriegn country. Just like the United Nations building isn't in the United States.)

"Should the CIA use "secret prisons", well if we know about them how can they be secret?"

Beacuse the secret came out....

from LRC blog,

The Cold War Victory
Posted by Anthony Gregory at 04:01 PM
Butler, I used to share your apparent confusion. But the U.S. won the Cold War fair and square, and now the state-capitalist empire is doing so many of the things the state-socialist empire did. What else was the war for? Liberty and self-determination everywhere? Hah. The Cold War was much like the other world wars: displacing one kind of global imperialism and tyranny for another. This is not to say that the U.S. is as bad in all ways as Stalin's empire was, especially back in its worst days, right before it was a U.S. ally. But the American corporate state is a parasite just as the Soviet state was, though not quite as deadly to the host population. State capitalism, unlike state socialism, allows for enough of the market to function so as not to strangle it, which in the long term means the parasitic state survives longer and presents a longer-term threat to the world.

The Cold War Revisited
Posted by Butler Shaffer at 02:55 PM
My sense of history seems a bit confused right now. Perhaps others can help me untangle my thinking. As best I can recall, Americans were engaged in a protracted "Cold War" against a Soviet regime that had been labeled the "Evil Empire" because it: (1) maintained an all-intrusive domestic police-state; (2) held people in prisons without trials; (3) had expansionist ambitions over other countries; (4) invaded and occupied Afghanistan; and (5) tortured people in isolated "gulags." Now I am told that the United States is doing these same things; that the CIA is even making use of former Soviet "gulags" as places to engage in the torture of people. How can any of this be? Didn't "we" win the Cold War? Maybe Bill O'Reilly or John Gibson over at Fox Snooze can explain all of this to me!

state-capitalist empire= fascism,not to be confused with freemarket capitalism.

Nigel,

Just don't think you are on track with the, "The U.S. Constitution followes the flag, thing. Should you be arrested in Singapore, India or Japan and claim your rights under the U.S. constitution you will be disappointed.

Just how did the CIA prisons, in unnamed countries become U.S. territory. I don't recall reading that the host countries suspended their laws and replaced them with ours.

Other than, "Status of Forces Agreements", we negoiate about control of U.S. military bases and its personell, my experiance indicates the only ground where our constitution, follows the flag, within the embassy security fence.

The U.S. Military serve under the U.C.M.J. where ever they are sent. The CIA, an acronym for civilian intellegence agency, employees some that don't like their assignments or we wouldn't know about this. But unless there is a specific exemption, such as diplomatic status, CIA employees are subject to the host nations laws.

John S

Yup!

There is a (no name) that refuses to take an identity but makes drive-by comments but seldom has anything to contribute to the discussions. Resembles a pre-puberty shouting obscenities for attention. He is not a pre-teen and that annoys me. Others seem to respectful of one another and do well in exchanging thoughts and ideas.

John Christopher

Whaaaaaaaaaaat! Your comments are so broad, I have absolutely idea of how one could respond your comments about our government. ?????

Is there a better way to protect our rights?

Wow...got this link of Fark today....comments? If the source can be verified seems like a massive abuse of government powers.

http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/article_7625.shtml

Stockman that is your opinion however small that it is. It doesn't matter whether one has a name or not. Made up or not, of course you can't look at the big picture, sorry I cannot help you.

Secret prisons are not required to defend our rights. I am not confortable with the idea that some crimes, committed by some people, judged by some other people, and which penalties are served in some secret prisons could be hidden from us. As I said, I believe it is important that we know when crimes are committed and how they have been punished.
Once government people are allowed to run secret prisons, they can do whatever they want. By definition, we could not even know what's going on there since whoever would denounce real practice should be first indicted for leaking... A shadow bureau of the CIA checking for us the activity... Anyone interested?

"Nigel,

Just don't think you are on track with the, "The U.S. Constitution followes the flag, thing. Should you be arrested in Singapore, India or Japan and claim your rights under the U.S. constitution you will be disappointed."

Stockman

If I was in a foreign country and tried to claim my rights as a US citizen, I would be a moron. That much is obvious. But you're ignoring my point, that is, territory owned by the US government is US territory, just as the United Nations building is international property.

http://praxeology.net/unblog.htm

Better Killing Through Chemistry

Good news for the Bush claque – WMDs have finally been located in Iraq!

The bad news is, they’re being used by US troops.

From today’s Independent:

Powerful new evidence emerged yesterday that the United States dropped massive quantities of white phosphorus on the Iraqi city of Fallujah during the attack on the city in November 2004, killing insurgents and civilians with the appalling burns that are the signature of this weapon.
Read the rest of the story here.

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/article325560.ece

The US complained about Saddam Hussein’s rape rooms – then created its own rape rooms at Abu Ghraib. The US complained about Hussein’s use of chemical weapons – now it’s using them itself. For Christ’s sake, how long will it take for people to get it?

“The State is the coldest of all cold monsters ... whatever it saith it lieth; and whatever it hath it hath stolen.”

It is my opinion that a democrat leaked the secret prisons story to the washington post. He will copy what Irv Libby and Karl Rove are doing and follow every move. Libby and Rove (if it ever comes, but won't) won't have any charge stick. They are so skilled at lying that there is no way they will get pinned. It will all be lost in the gray.

This leak will play out the same. Then this mode of operation will accelerate which may end up being a good thing.
just my thought...

Look like there are other people who think Stockman doesn't see things straight.

Someone made a comment to someone about a 9.95 book regarding the WMD, well now someone else posted an article finding the WMD.

But I disagree about the bad news of the military using the WMD. I am glad they found it. I hope they use it where it richly deserved to be used on this horrible terrorist, starting with Saddem.

Interesting....

"libertarians" (?) ***in favor*** of torture, secret prisons in former communist dictatorships, and use of chemical weapons. If these things are ok, why is any regime that does the same things bad? After all they can just call their opposition terrorists.

Who is the terrorist, the invaders and occupiers or those who defend their country from such?

If you are looking for terrorist regimes to change, start with the USSA, the Bush Crime Family and the NSGOP/NSDP duopoly....

Nigel,

Maybe you are assumeing something that is not supported by the news story. Just don't recall anything that even suggests the subject prisons are owned by the U.S. The Post story said they are operated by the US CIA.

The U.S. rents land for military bases as other nations seldom allow other governments to buy their land.

A more recent news story said the information was leaked by a elected official authorized to have such information not a CIA employee. And an investigtion into the leak is being called for.

I really dont understand why america is even discussing these secret prisons. Our presdident, (King george bush) and his war criminal buddies,(Cheney, rumsfeld, the pentagon and most of congress and senate) are war criminals and should be tried at the hague for war crimes and be given the ultimate sentence. There should be no discussion.

John S wrote:
If they are holding Americans there should they be protected by the Constitution/Bill of Rights? No, when you sign on to destroy your home, you no longer have a home.

I guess in johns world you are guilty until proven innocent. The problem is john, when king george bush brands you to be a terrorist, you are rushed away to a secret prison and given a mandatory life sentence of torture and are never brought to trial. As a matter of fact, nobody is ever told that you were kidnapped by the bush regime and the united states government.

Paul wrote:
Who is the terrorist, the invaders and occupiers or those who defend their country from such?

If you are looking for terrorist regimes to change, start with the USSA, the Bush Crime Family and the NSGOP/NSDP duopoly....

Paul you hit the nail on the head. Bush is the leader of america's criminal terrorist government regime. The terrorists are the occupiers in this case and america is the occupier. Bush needs to appologize to world for slaughtering so many innocent human beings, then he needs to turn himself over to the hague to be tried as a war criminal.

I would also like to know why bush hasn't turned saddamn over to the war crimes tribunal at the hague? Is he afraid that saddamn will be given a fair trial and allowed to defend himself, thereby exposing the united states government to decades of similar warcrimes that they are accusing others of committing? Why are they controlling his trial with the intention of keeping him silent? Let the scumbag talk, he probably has a lot to say.

Pasy

I could be wrong. Where?

I'm having a hard time getting upset about these secret prisons. After all, top Al Qaeda leaders plotting our destruction are a bit much to simply be put in the local county jail and set up with a public defender, don't you think?

When does due process ideology run amok and infringe on public safety?

Doesn't the government have an obligation to protect us by getting information out of the incarcerated terrorists? If they can't hold them secretly for maximum interrogative efficiency, then what's the alternative?

I'm all ears, but I'm not hearing much of substance from the hardcore due process ideologues.

The writers of the U.S. Constitution could NEVER have dreamed of such a situation. This is unprecedented and the constitution sadly is not really equipped to provide much guidance into where the line should be drawn between due process and national/public security.

Until we figure it out, I say hold those terrorists. We can't take any chances simply for the sake of ideology. Otherwise, we could possibly have a major U.S. city vaporized.

I'm having a hard time getting upset about these secret prisons. After all, top Al Qaeda leaders plotting our destruction are a bit much to simply be put in the local county jail and set up with a public defender, don't you think?

When does due process ideology run amok and infringe on public safety?

Doesn't the government have an obligation to protect us by getting information out of the incarcerated terrorists? If they can't hold them secretly for maximum interrogative efficiency, then what's the alternative? To get any kind of edge up on the terrorists, they certainly should not know who in their ranks is captured and where they are being held.

I'm all ears, but I'm not hearing much of substance from the hardcore due process ideologues.

The writers of the U.S. Constitution could NEVER have dreamed of such a situation. This is unprecedented and the constitution sadly is not really equipped to provide much guidance into where the line should be drawn between due process and national/public security.

Until we figure it out, I say hold those terrorists. We can't take any chances simply for the sake of ideology. Otherwise, we could possibly have a major U.S. city vaporized.

"I'm having a hard time getting upset about these secret prisons."

p) You would have fit in well in the Soviet Union or Nazi Germany then.

"After all, top Al Qaeda leaders plotting our destruction are a bit much to simply be put in the local county jail and set up with a public defender, don't you think?"

p) No.

http://www.911truth.org/index.php

http://reopen911.org

http://www.prisonplanet.com/911.html

"When does due process ideology run amok and infringe on public safety?"

p)When does public safety ideology run amok and infringe on due process?

"They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security" - Benjamin Franklin

"Doesn't the government have an obligation to protect us by getting information out of the incarcerated terrorists?"

p) ALLEGED terrorists.

Ed Meese (the famous constitutional scholar who once opined that "if you've been arrested, you must be guilty")

The real terrorists stages the 911 Reichstag Fire to trick the unwitting into giving up their liberty willing. Thus the sheep line up to be sheared and the fish swallow the bait hook line and sinker.

This isn't the first time...

http://www.unknownnews.net/tqp053102.html

"If they can't hold them secretly for maximum interrogative efficiency, then what's the alternative?"

Impeach the real terrorists, then put them on trial for war crimes.

"The writers of the U.S. Constitution could NEVER have dreamed of such a situation. This is unprecedented and the constitution sadly is not really equipped to provide much guidance into where the line should be drawn between due process and national/public security."

p) Oh really? It's not like they had any security problems. After all, there war no casualties in the American War of Independence and no "threats to national security" in the decades immediately thereafter; the Brits did not invade and burn the White House in the war of 1812. What would those quaint Amewricans know about living in terror?

"Until we figure it out, I say hold those terrorists. We can't take any chances simply for the sake of ideology. Otherwise, we could possibly have a major U.S. city vaporized."

p) After all it won't happen if only the USSA regime engages in torture, rape, mass murder, secret prisons, chemical warfare, and other measures for the preservation of freedom and democracy.

"War is Peace.
Freedom is Slavery.
Ignorance is Strength."

George Orwell, _1984_

"First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out--
because I was not a communist;
Then they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out--
because I was not a socialist;
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out--
because I was not a trade unionist;
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out--
because I was not a Jew;
Then they came for me--
and there was no one left to speak out for me."

-Martin Niemoeller