Did it apply to the other examples maugorn mentioned?
Let's see:
- Post WWI Italy - Probably had the best outcome from the war but people weren't doing too great there either. Mass immigrations to the US because of poverty and unemployment.
- Post WWI Hungary - A moment of silence please for the Austro-Hungarian empire. They were a little busy trying to reorganize after being dissolved. Plus the Hungarians were completely bulldozed by the Russians in WWI taking over 1 million casualities.
- Post WWI China - They were denied territory after the war which lead to a renewed nationalism movement and the rise of communism. Again, poverty and unemployment were high and there were mass immigrations to the US.
Historians might be pulling facts and doing comparisons but that's like saying this oak tree and that sea kelp both have green leaves so they must be similar. The problems that Germany and other post WWI countries faced are NOT the same as the problems the US faces. There were many, many social and economic conditions that they had that we don't have and will never have. WWI forced Europe to come out of an antiquated 19th century mentality and into a 20th century one. Monarchies were gone, new governments and countries came in. People didn't know what to do. All that they knew is that their old way of life and national identity was violently and quickly taken away from them. Someone came in promising them hope, a return to their old lives, and national identities. It is much different for someone who's family has lived in a region for hundreds of years and associated themselves with one nationality and king/monarchy to suddenly be told that they are no longer said nationality and they have no monarchy. Americans will never go through that. (Well the Native Americans did but they aren't a majority.)
There is NO comparison to America. It's a completely different time, different issues, and different way of life. We've always had security issues, people just don't remember them. Air Marshalls were always present on planes in the 70s. People in government jobs regardless of the position have always been fingerprinted. In the 80s, everyone was afraid of being blown up by the Russians. Inflation and gas prices were much worse in the 70s as well.
Note that folks like me aren't saying that Bush is like Hitler; we're saying that he's on a course similar to that Hitler took to become Hitler, and we shouldn't just hand him all the tools he would need if he's really going to go there.
Again, no. Even if the Republicans stay in power, they are trying to distance themselves from Bush. There will be a regime change. We have enough checks and balances in place that even if things get bad, they can be reversed relatively quickly. Once Hitler was in power, there was no way to get him out. And he was in power way longer than any US president could ever be. There is no comparison other than both men were idiots.
This is gonna have to be a two part reply. I'm sorry. If the Republicans remain in power, it's gonna be "meet the new boss, same as the old boss"
There is a move credible, viable, movement afoot to shift the role of government from leadership to rule and to shift a scary amount of power into the hands of the Executive Branch.
As of the passage of the Military Commissions Act, the President, RIGHT NOW has the power to imprison ANYONE he deems to be an enemy combatant, and the MCA specifically states that no other court has jurisdiction over that act. The imprisonment has no appeal, no review, and no oversight. And Gonzales, the boss of the judiciary tap-danced around this, publicly stating that Habeus Corpus is not a right of the US citizenry. This state of affairs has NEVER existed to this degree in this country, and does not exist in a free society. It exists and has existed in plenty of totalitarian societies, like Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany. And it was not poverty that created those conditions, it was those in power consolidating power and abusing the system and then outright claiming power. Both Germany and Italy, despite their economies had Habeas Corpus rights in their Constitutions, until they were suspended at the order of their Executives and passed with the approval of their Legislatures. THAT is what set the stage for Extreme Executive Power, NOT poverty. Poverty was an enabling factor because it was a distraction, not because it was a cause.
All of the then current candidates for president were asked the same questions recently by the Boston Globe: 1) Does the president have inherent powers under the Constitution to conduct surveillance for national security purposes without warrants, regardless of federal statutes? 2) In what circumstances, if any, would the president have constitutional authority to bomb Iran without seeking a use-of-forc authorization from Congress?(Specifically, what about the strategic bombing of suspected nuclear sites- a situation that does not involve stopping an IMMMINENT threat?) 4) Under what circumstances, if any would you sign a bill into law, but also issue a signing statement reserving a constitutional right to bypass the law? 5) Does the Constitution permit a president to detain US citizens without charge as unlawful enemy combatants? 6) Does executive privilege cover testimony or documents about decision-making within the executive branch not involving confidential advice communicated to the president himself? 7) If congress defines a specific interrogation technique as prohibited under all circumstances, does the president's authority as commander-in-chief ever permit him to instruct his subordinates to employ that technique despite the statute? 8) Under what cirumstances, if any, is the president, when operating as commander-in-chief, free to disregard international human rights treaties that the US Senate has ratified? 9) Do you agree or disagree with the statement made by former Attorney General Gonzales in January 2007 that nothing in the Constitution confers an affirmative right to habeas corpus, separate from any statutory habeas rights Congress might grant or take away? 10) Is there any executive power the Bush administration hs claimed or exercised that you think is unconstitutional? Anything you think is simply a bad idea?
So all of the Democratic candidates answered, and they tend to agree with what I would hope a responsible president would do. You can check out the answers at Boston.com. (I'll go back and fetch the specific website if you wish, I just don't have it on hand) The point is this: McCain is somewhat sensible but a very hawkish about these answers. He *might* be okay. But he declined to answer Question 10, his answer for 9 is "depends on what the Supreme Court says", and his answer to number 5 is right in line with the current trend. Romney is squarely in the current Right Wing Fascist mode. His answers commit him to staying ont the current course. However: Giuliani and Huckabee both declined to answer ANY of these questions. NONE. Thompson didn't either, but he's been eliminated.
Of the current Republican contenders, ONLY McCain shows any promise of supporting the restoration of our basic rights, but only where it suits him. And Giuliani's and Huckabee's silence on these counts is tells volumes. Another Republican administration would be IMHO, be a serious blow to Democracy in this country.
Go to your local bookstore, and just browse thru Wolf's The End Of America. You don't have to buy it or spend your money. Just a little bit of your time. That's all I ask.
Don't say "It can't happen here". It's happened, and it's happening now. I happen to agree with Wolf's assessment that we're much farther down that bad road than we've been before. The empowerment of the Executive (the President) to suspend habeas corpus, and imprison anybody based on the Executive labelling you an "enemy" combatant, and to then imprison you without access to counsel in a place that's beyond jurisdiction, where torture is an acceptable interrogation technique, is just a little more Nazi than Democratic, don't you think. We're not *there* yet, but neither was Germany, and yes, our economic incongruities do give us alot of leverage, we're right now, at a tipping point where our similarities could rapidly degrade until economy is NOT a factor.
There is TOO much power in the executive branch RIGHT NOW, and it sure don't look to me like the Republicans are ready to relinquish it without a fight and without a LOT of pressure from US.
(no subject)
Let's see:
- Post WWI Italy - Probably had the best outcome from the war but people weren't doing too great there either. Mass immigrations to the US because of poverty and unemployment.
- Post WWI Hungary - A moment of silence please for the Austro-Hungarian empire. They were a little busy trying to reorganize after being dissolved. Plus the Hungarians were completely bulldozed by the Russians in WWI taking over 1 million casualities.
- Post WWI China - They were denied territory after the war which lead to a renewed nationalism movement and the rise of communism. Again, poverty and unemployment were high and there were mass immigrations to the US.
Historians might be pulling facts and doing comparisons but that's like saying this oak tree and that sea kelp both have green leaves so they must be similar. The problems that Germany and other post WWI countries faced are NOT the same as the problems the US faces. There were many, many social and economic conditions that they had that we don't have and will never have. WWI forced Europe to come out of an antiquated 19th century mentality and into a 20th century one. Monarchies were gone, new governments and countries came in. People didn't know what to do. All that they knew is that their old way of life and national identity was violently and quickly taken away from them. Someone came in promising them hope, a return to their old lives, and national identities. It is much different for someone who's family has lived in a region for hundreds of years and associated themselves with one nationality and king/monarchy to suddenly be told that they are no longer said nationality and they have no monarchy. Americans will never go through that. (Well the Native Americans did but they aren't a majority.)
There is NO comparison to America. It's a completely different time, different issues, and different way of life. We've always had security issues, people just don't remember them. Air Marshalls were always present on planes in the 70s. People in government jobs regardless of the position have always been fingerprinted. In the 80s, everyone was afraid of being blown up by the Russians. Inflation and gas prices were much worse in the 70s as well.
Note that folks like me aren't saying that Bush is like Hitler; we're saying that he's on a course similar to that Hitler took to become Hitler, and we shouldn't just hand him all the tools he would need if he's really going to go there.
Again, no. Even if the Republicans stay in power, they are trying to distance themselves from Bush. There will be a regime change. We have enough checks and balances in place that even if things get bad, they can be reversed relatively quickly. Once Hitler was in power, there was no way to get him out. And he was in power way longer than any US president could ever be. There is no comparison other than both men were idiots.
(no subject)
If the Republicans remain in power, it's gonna be "meet the new boss, same as the old boss"
There is a move credible, viable, movement afoot to shift the role of government from leadership to rule and to shift a scary amount of power into the hands of the Executive Branch.
As of the passage of the Military Commissions Act, the President, RIGHT NOW has the power to imprison ANYONE he deems to be an enemy combatant, and the MCA specifically states that no other court has jurisdiction over that act.
The imprisonment has no appeal, no review, and no oversight. And Gonzales, the boss of the judiciary tap-danced around this, publicly stating that Habeus Corpus is not a right of the US citizenry.
This state of affairs has NEVER existed to this degree in this country, and does not exist in a free society. It exists and has existed in plenty of totalitarian societies, like Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany. And it was not poverty that created those conditions, it was those in power consolidating power and abusing the system and then outright claiming power. Both Germany and Italy, despite their economies had Habeas Corpus rights in their Constitutions, until they were suspended at the order of their Executives and passed with the approval of their Legislatures. THAT is what set the stage for Extreme Executive Power, NOT poverty. Poverty was an enabling factor because it was a distraction, not because it was a cause.
(no subject)
1) Does the president have inherent powers under the Constitution to conduct surveillance for national security purposes without warrants, regardless of federal statutes?
2) In what circumstances, if any, would the president have constitutional authority to bomb Iran without seeking a use-of-forc authorization from Congress?(Specifically, what about the strategic bombing of suspected nuclear sites- a situation that does not involve stopping an IMMMINENT threat?)
4) Under what circumstances, if any would you sign a bill into law, but also issue a signing statement reserving a constitutional right to bypass the law?
5) Does the Constitution permit a president to detain US citizens without charge as unlawful enemy combatants?
6) Does executive privilege cover testimony or documents about decision-making within the executive branch not involving confidential advice communicated to the president himself?
7) If congress defines a specific interrogation technique as prohibited under all circumstances, does the president's authority as commander-in-chief ever permit him to instruct his subordinates to employ that technique despite the statute?
8) Under what cirumstances, if any, is the president, when operating as commander-in-chief, free to disregard international human rights treaties that the US Senate has ratified?
9) Do you agree or disagree with the statement made by former Attorney General Gonzales in January 2007 that nothing in the Constitution confers an affirmative right to habeas corpus, separate from any statutory habeas rights Congress might grant or take away?
10) Is there any executive power the Bush administration hs claimed or exercised that you think is unconstitutional? Anything you think is simply a bad idea?
So all of the Democratic candidates answered, and they tend to agree with what I would hope a responsible president would do. You can check out the answers at Boston.com. (I'll go back and fetch the specific website if you wish, I just don't have it on hand) The point is this:
McCain is somewhat sensible but a very hawkish about these answers. He *might* be okay. But he declined to answer Question 10, his answer for 9 is "depends on what the Supreme Court says", and his answer to number 5 is right in line with the current trend.
Romney is squarely in the current Right Wing Fascist mode. His answers commit him to staying ont the current course.
However:
Giuliani and Huckabee both declined to answer ANY of these questions. NONE.
Thompson didn't either, but he's been eliminated.
Of the current Republican contenders, ONLY McCain shows any promise of supporting the restoration of our basic rights, but only where it suits him.
And Giuliani's and Huckabee's silence on these counts is tells volumes.
Another Republican administration would be IMHO, be a serious blow to Democracy in this country.
Go to your local bookstore, and just browse thru Wolf's The End Of America. You don't have to buy it or spend your money. Just a little bit of your time. That's all I ask.
Don't say "It can't happen here". It's happened, and it's happening now.
I happen to agree with Wolf's assessment that we're much farther down that bad road than we've been before. The empowerment of the Executive (the President) to suspend habeas corpus, and imprison anybody based on the Executive labelling you an "enemy" combatant, and to then imprison you without access to counsel in a place that's beyond jurisdiction, where torture is an acceptable interrogation technique, is just a little more Nazi than Democratic, don't you think. We're not *there* yet, but neither was Germany, and yes, our economic incongruities do give us alot of leverage, we're right now, at a tipping point where our similarities could rapidly degrade until economy is NOT a factor.
There is TOO much power in the executive branch RIGHT NOW, and it sure don't look to me like the Republicans are ready to relinquish it without a fight and without a LOT of pressure from US.