Incredibly Stupid Moments With Alex Jones & the Loosers
Okay, I had a chance to check a couple minutes at a time from the new Looser Video today, and got a better understanding of what went on in the first 3:30 or so. It gives me renewed disrespect for Alex Jones, who behaves disgustingly in this segment.
You really have to pay attention to what's going on, because much of it will seem irrelevant and disjointed at first, but it all fits together in an odd way.
It starts with the Loosers entering a buffet-style restaurant. At 1:15, we see an aging longhair who says that, "I happen to be an anarcho-syndicalist, slightly to the left of Chomsky." Apparently, he's the proprietor of the restaurant, and he informs Jason Bermas and others that there are members of the New World Order present in his establishment. "FEMA, Marines, NSA--back there, there's like six men and two women--just be nice to them!"
Jason assures the owner, "Oh, yeah, we'll be nice to them." You know where you can take that promise; to the bank of insufficient funds. And indeed the next sequence shows Alex Jones harassing several soldiers at a table. They quite rightly decide to vacate the premises as Jones follows, badgering them.
He has judged that he can do so without any penalty and so he does the usual Denier tactic of talking about arcana (like stating Silverstein "had it pulled," and about physics professors who've concluded it was controlled demolition) that the average soldier/person is just not equipped to deal with. Plus, much as I hate to say it, I am sure that soldiers in New York are not unaccustomed to being harassed by antiwar activists who are not 9-11 Deniers, so they may have just been getting out of an all-too common bad situation.
Jones returns to the restaurant starting at about 3:30. At 3:40 he hands the restaurateur a tip to repay him for any loss of business as a result of the incident, although the guy insists that it's no big deal. Anybody recognize the restaurant?
As Jones returns, he claims something about the military folks being from NORCOM, which according to Alex means they're in charge of Martial Law under FEMA. You know how it is, Jones feels free to make these outrageous claims precisely because FEMA is not ready to clap him in irons and apply the electrodes to the appropriate places. It is, as Noam Chomsky has observed, a fairly low-risk exercise to be a 9-11 Denier; partially because you're considered just a nut instead of dangerous.
posted by Pat @ 10:03 PM
62 comments
62 Comments:
I've got a pretty good idea of what restaurant that is, but I'm not going to say until I'm certain -- the footage confuses me. It looks to me like when Jones hectors the soldiers out of the restaurant they leave, turn north on Broadway and then come to Barclay St. Is that right? If so it augers poorly for my choice.
If anyone can read the street signs and whatnot better than I can I'd appreciate it. Either way I'll cruise up to Broadway and City Hall later today and take a look-see.
That restaurant might need a visit from Abby and her camera crew.
Alex Jones sounds like a textbook schizophrenic, a literally mentally ill person.
That's because he is a schizo.
Why is it such a person can get a website and suddenly gain so much popularity despite the fact that his rantings are not that far removed from any number of homeless bums on the street?
Look no further than his followers for the answer to that. Or, a few words to sum it up - Dylan Avery and Jason Bermas.
Oh yeah, speaking of that. How do guys like Jones and Chris Bollyn and the like support themselves? Do they sell enough books/newspapers/videos to fellow anti-American, anti-people idiots or is Alex, like, secretly a plumber on the side or something?
Ignore my first post above. It's Oliva (Warning: Sound), at 225 Broadway between Vesey and Barclay. The name of the restaurant is visible on the chalkboard at 3:36 of the film, and their logo is on the window at 2:49 as the camera follows the female soldier out of the place.
Not sure that the "proprieter" is really the proprieter, though, so I'll still pay it a visit.
9/11 denial is big business. books, t-shirts, radio shows, dvds. and a highly-motivated core of whack jobs to buy it all up. AJ's got a pretty hefty financial incentive to spread this crap.
What is with the part where he is talking about telling them the "codeword"? Do they have a secret handshake too?
Maybe they have a moosecall -
"WE're JUST ASKING QUESTIONS!"
I missed the obvious Monty Python reference.
King Arthur: Then who is your lord?
Woman: We don't have a lord.
Dennis: I told you, we're an anarco-sydicalist commune. We take it in turns to be a sort of executive officer for the week...
King Arthur: Yes...
Dennis: ...but all the decisions of that officer have to be ratified at a special bi-weekly meeting...
King Arthur: Yes I see...
Dennis: ...by a simple majority in the case of purely internal affairs...
King Arthur: Be quiet!
Dennis: ...but by a two thirds majority in the case of...
King Arthur: Be quiet! I order you to be quiet!
Woman: Order, eh? Who does he think he is?
Alex Jones is a psychopath. If he were not making so much money off 9/11, he'd be in prison by now for trying to harm someone that didn't believe his mantra.
TAM
Alex Jones, while some (of his)claims might be crazy, is actually quite on target about the rise of fascism and nationalism is this country which threaten the very foundation of this countrie's (sic) values and constitution.
I think you're confused about the definition of fascism.
I think you're confused about the definition of fascism.
Most definitely.
Isn't it weird that both the moonbat ultra-lefties AND the whackjob hard right both think the same way? "the government is out to get us, the US is a fascist state"? It's as if once your politics get extreme enough, no matter which part of the spectrum you belong to you end up believing in the same insane ideas.
I just proved to you that effectively, martial law has been declared in the US (at least on paper)
I'm going to presume, and please correct me if I am in error, that you are not posting this from a computer somehow smuggled into an internment camp. If that's so, do you fear that having said that puts you in danger of incarceration? Is there a curfew imposed by the federal government on any place which is not federal property? The twufers went to ground zero and shat upon the victims' graves in front of hundreds of soldiers and thousands of cops. What happened to them?
I think you are delivering a grave insult to the millions of people around the world who have to endure governments which are actually repressive.
No gay marriage is "stringent social controls"? Geez, what would consider liberal social controls, the right to marry your goat?
And gambling is legal practically everywhere, where have you been?
I'm not convinced that Alex Jones is doing this because he's crazy. He may be a megalomaniac. He is definitely a con artist and a compulsive liar, which are actually the same thing. But he is in it for the money, and the reason he wants to get so close to Loose Change and Co is that he is afraid of them eating up his market share.
The guy has a big radio show. His web sites obviously have proper money backing them, and they are carefully designed with lots of teasers to get you to but a subscription. He is a media savvy person that gets celebrities on his show and gets his own face on all kinds of TV shows. On every appearance he gets, he makes sure to repeat his website addresses slowly and clearly several times.
There's a sucker born every minute and AJ is going to make money off of every one of them that he can. I don't think either he or Loose change and Co need to admit to each other that it is all a giant con - a wink wink will do. This is all about money.
You need to recognize precidents. If we all waited until the people were being incarcerated, it would be too late.
And you need to recognize paranoia. Besides, they'll stop right after you.
I am concerned about wiretapping and monitoring of the internet. Someday, it could be used to crush dissent.
I'm concerned that there are foreign agents in the United States planning to vaporize my office building. Someday, that could be used to crush my right to dissent. How come no one wants to defend my right to not get blown to smithereens?
I am much, much more concerned with the potential or real misuse of collected information than the mere collection of it. So far, the threat to me of misuse of collected information is far greater from my credit card company than my government.
I talking about Internet gambling.
Wow, the fact that the government makes you get your lazy butt off the couch and actually drive to a casino or a 7/11 to buy a lottery ticket is a sure sign of impending fascism.
No you're not. You are, frankly, not that important.
You are comparing the regulation of commerce, a function carried out by every government in the history of the world, with beating women if they don't cover their face?
I have you considered treatment for your borderline personality?
The most important point that you seem to miss about “Loose Change” is that if even a sliver of it is true, we are all screwed.
Guess we don't have anything to worry about, then.
Uhh, abortion is legal. In every state.
So after nearly 6 years of Bush being president, the best he can come up with is a "plan" to make "some types" of abortion illegal.
Wow, that is some slow moving fascism.
Centraization of Authority: AUMF, strip courts of jurisdiction, use devious means (threaten to be called a 'terrorist coddler') to get laws passed by congress, wants control of national guard ...
-and yet does not have control of National Guard
-Does not have to threaten anything to get laws passed because his party controls both chambers of congress.
-Has been openly and successfully defied by the Supreme Court and both chambers of congress. (see: torture issue, indefinite detentions, Bolton nomination, Patriot Act renewal)
Stringent Socio Economic (sic) controls:
no gambling, no abortion, no gay marriage
Urg. How can you argue against ignorance? Look up Roe v. Wade, re: abortion. See Las Vegas, and any Indian reservation, re: gambling. Yeah, it sucks that gays can't get married. But it's not like we're outlawing homosexual relationships, they're just not legally recognized.
If you want to see real "stringent socioeconomic controls", go to Iran.
Belligerent nationalism: is bombing considered 'belligerent' to you ... or maybe only a nuke qualifies ...
Yes, we have declared war on two countries, which means we have bombed them. So if we go to war for any reason we are fascists. If you want to argue pacifism there are better ways to go about it.
Racism: Use of 'IslamoFascim' wants to propage hatred to arabs and islam, rather than just focusing on terrorist aspects.
Islam is not a race, it's a religion. You should be able to criticize someone for something they choose to believe, and the way they behave. Which is irrelevant because he isn't using the term to smear Islam. If he meant to smear Islam he'd just say "Islam" instead of "Islamofascism."
He uses the term 'Islamo-fascism' to differentiate between Islam the religion and extremist Islam the government. Take a look at countries with Islamic governments and you will find that they are, in fact, fascists; and do, in fact, support terrorism.
I find it hard to believe that 911 mysteries actually believes anything he's posting. It is so far out of touch with reality, it becomes entirely illogical.
I bet he's just "demonstrating absurdity by being absurd". And I must concede he's doing a damn fine job of it.
i'm from Austin. i've seen alex jones go from "crazy late night cable guy" to "crazy being interviewed on cnn guy".
my favorite Alex Jones story: a friend of mine was going down to one of the creeks around town to hang out. as he got closer to the creek, he could hear someone shouting. when he got to the creek he could see that it was Alex Jones ranting about the New World Order sitting in the middle of the creek in his bathing suit.
i think AJ believes the stuff he rants about, but i think his belief that he's right about it gets stronger the more money he makes at it.
it'd be interesting to see some tax records on exactly how much he and the LC guys are pulling in with this scam.
We still have many freedoms. But many have been compromised.
I can't take shampoo on the airplane. Fascism!
No, if you go to war based on a reason you know to be untrue then you are a fascist.
Just say what you mean when you make the argument the first time. If you want to argue against the war in Iraq or Afghanistan just say so. I agree we never should have gone to Iraq, at least. I don't think that makes the people who disagree with me "fascists", though.
Just admit it, that's what this is about. You just want to twist every policy you disagree with into some nefarious fascist cabal because it's easier than arguing based on the evidence.
Why argue over the quality of the evidence leading to the war in Iraq? Or the merits of extraordinary methods to catch terrorists? Or the balance that should be struck between security and civil liberties? It's so much easier to just call it fascist - even though you don't even know what fascism really is.
There's plenty of examples of strict socio-economic controls in the US! Look:
Social:
I can't walk around throwing feces at people I don't like.
I can't take a shit in the middle of times square.
I can't walk into a deli and piss on the cheese.
Economic:
I can't walk into a bank and help myself to the cash.
I can't roll old ladies for their dough.
911 Mysteries can't make much money without at least a middle-school education.
SEE! IT'S A FASCISM!
Oh and it also proves termites brought down the WTC.
I rest my case.
US Citizens can be declared enemy combatants
Yes, they can, they always could have been. This is not new by any stretch.
The thing is, the whole enemy combatant/military tribunal bill only affects ALIEN Enemy combatants.
American citizen enemy combatants can and do have full access to the US civilian judicial system.
See Lindh and Padilla for reference.
Same as it ever was.
/why bother?
Thanks for the letters, too bad they're all wrong. Read the damn bill. It doesn't apply to "anyone". US citizens still have all the same rights - habeas corpus can only be suspended for non-citizens. So their basic premise is flawed, and from that initial mistake they draw all sorts of paranoid conclusions.
damn you juji, you beat me to it AGAIN.
Actually, the right comes from the Authorization of Military Force.
Wrong again.
Unlawful enemy combatant designation comes from the Geneva Conventions. The fact that thse captured after the AUMF have been designated UEC's is just you misunderstanding, well, just about everything.
What about immigrants and permanent residents?
What about them? If they are not citizens, and are captured on the battlefield taking up arms against the US, they are UEC's. The fact they have lived in the US doesn't give them immunity from UEC status.
As it should be.
damn you juji, you beat me to it AGAIN.
Too fast for them, sir! :)
Actually, the right comes from the Authorization of Military Force.
Eh? So before that, a US citizen who attacked the US was considered....what? A friendly combatant?
What about immigrants and permanent residents?
What about them? When you use the term "anyone" you mean ANYONE. If you didn't mean "anyone" you should have said "a small percentage of the population". But that wouldn't really work as evidence of fascism, so, ofcourse, you had to lie.
Also, US Citizens can be detained indefinately without charge.
But have the right of habeas corpus meaning they WON'T be held "indefinately(sic) without charge" unless a judge agrees that there's a damn good reason.
And they cannot sue of they are tortured.
Says who?
To sum it all up (in legal terms) the only reason Bush gets these rights is his war powers.
You do ofcourse realize that every president for the last 30 years has had "war powers", right? In fact, if I remember correctly Bush was supposed to be the first one WITHOUT war powers, until 9/11 happened. Ofcourse, to you that's just another indication that 9/11 was "an inside job", right? Heads you win, tails I lose.
Can anyone name 5 U.S. citizens who have been subject to Bush's supposed fascist imposition of martial law?
In the unlikely event someone can, how many were not directly involved
in terrorist activities?
Eh, paranoia never needs any real evidence, nor even a reason. That's why it's paranoia.
The real reason (IMO) is they don't have sufficient evidence in many cases.
Well that's the first thing you've gotten right. Now what's your point? You're right, that's exactly why we need to be able to suspend habeas corpus sometimes. And it's also one of the reasons that the new law applies only to non-citizens. It does nothing to explain why you think we the government shouldn't have that power though.
(2) After 9/11 hundreds of people were rounded up and held without charge for months. I am not sure of the legal basis of their detention, however, IMO if you don't have evidence enough to charge, more than a month's dentention is unwarranted.
The only ones I am aware of were held on immigration violations. The INS has been able to do this for decades, this is not a new thing. If you don't want to be detained, don't come here illegally.
"Dude, examples of Americans being tortured?"
Americans who were tortured.
I'm curious what proof Jones had that these servicemembers were assigned to NORCOM. It seems unlikely they were though since NORCOM is headquatered in Colorado. I couldn't make out the unit patch on the Soldiers since the camera doesn't look at the patches for more than a split second.
There is one Soldier in BDUs. Although BDUs are authorized for wear until about 2008 most Soldiers on active duty wear ACUs now. So if forced to guess I'd say that they were a couple of Reserve or National Guard Soldiers from Ft. Totten or another center just having lunch.
However there was a Marine with them as well, so maybe they're from a local recruiting center and, again, just trying to have lunch when they were harassed by the "Truth" movement.
I'm curious how it would play out if one were to go up to one of those "truth" guys while they're sitting at lunch, not Jones or the LC guys, but just one of their minions in the background, and start asking them accusatory questions with a camera rolling. I wonder if they're mature and professional enough to just get up and walk away.
I'll bet that would make for some interesting YouTube fodder.
For me personally , I have issue with:
- potential of wiretapping
- police with machine guns and steel helmets at protest rallies (pure intimidation, you don't need machine guns)
- i am less confident about protesting openly due to the general political climate
I'd say those are legitimate concerns. Are they well-founded, though?
-The wire-tapping program has been ruled illegal and (presumably) suspended.
-The police intimidation doesn't seem to discourage protests.
Look at the recent immigration rallies. Tens of thousands of admitted lawbreakers protested openly without fear of retribution.
Bush definitely took a few steps over the line with some of his responses after 9/11. I can't say that I blame him. The important thing is that we're sorting out which policies work and which go too far.
Oh, so that is Alex Jones.
Pardon me for a moment.
This is a piece of shit, piece of crap, motherfucker, asshole, scumbag, douchebag, son of a bitch, scumsucking dickward asslicker son of a mound of excrement cocksucking asshole.
Whew! Thanks for letting me get that out about this piece of subhuman refuse!
Ask any Muslim whether they get treated better here than, say France, the UK or Pakistan, and I am sure the vast majority would say the US.
Does it really matter if they are american or not, in this matter?
Ok, then list an example of ANYONE being tortured. And I really hope you're not dumb enough to list Abu Gharib as an example.
My point is, if they have not got evidence in 5 years, they probably aren't gonna get it. There's no way you can justify holding them without evidence.
Who's been held for 5 years without charges? Got any names?
police with machine guns and steel helmets at protest rallies (pure intimidation, you don't need machine guns)
Police don't even HAVE machineguns, and pretty much nobody uses steel helmets any more.
They were held for months and some were beaten badly.
Example? Names?
Lets get back to the point. The fact that you have some criticisms about some aspects of law enforecement, the WOT, etc, civil liberties, does not prove we are a fascist state or even moving towards one. Any normal free democratic society will have these debates - they are in fact a sign of a democratic and free society. What country in the world, at what point in its history, had no issues whatsoever about civil liberties? Who says none of us have issues with policies Bush has implemented at home?
Every single paranoid point you make eventually gets watered down to some gripe about "well I don't think Police should wear helmets at rallies" or "illegal immigrants shouldn't be detained for being illegal". Are we supposed to believe that for the first time in the history of America, there are contentious civil liberties issues?
slightly to the left of Chomsky
You've done way too many drugs if you think anything left of Chomsky is a viable political philosophy.
I love 20/20 hindsight. The fact is the vast majority of americans, right after 9/11, had no problem with the "rounding up" of terror suspects and detaining them. I am not saying that it is right, and certainly any severe or inhuman torcher methods that followed, were not right, but the collection and detention of terror suspects after 9/11 was given the blessing of the people at that time, no doubt about it.
It is only now, now that people are pissed off with Bush, that they want to lay every thing on him. I can tell you that any person in the white house, following 9/11, Clinton, Kerry, Gore, Carter, would have done the same thing, and americans would have applauded them for it.
I personally am no fan of BUSH, but crapping on him for some of the things done to ensure security of the nation, to protect the vast majority of truthers themselves, is simply wrong.
The torcher aspects, if not complying with Geneva, fair game to go on the attack with who ever authorized it. If that was BUSH, than BUSH BASH away, on that point.
TAM
The torcher aspects, if not complying with Geneva, fair game to go on the attack with who ever authorized it.
"Torcher"? Hitting the sauce a little early, huh TAM? :)
Anyway, the Geneva Contentions don't deal with the torture of non-uniformed combatants, nor civilians. It says enemy combatants who are found out of uniform may be executed without a trial, but it doesn't say wether torturing them is kosher or not.
And no, the "torture" being conducted by US personnel is not forbidden under any other international agreements either. Those who insist that sleep depravation is a form of torture are right the fuck out of 'er. Using that same logic you could easily argue that incarceration is in and of itself a form of torture, and that therefore no person should ever be held in confinement. Which is just plain dumb.
Those who insist that sleep depravation is a form of torture are right the fuck out of 'er.
Yeah, I'm not losing any sleep over that one (haha). The waterboarding thing bothers me, though. Hopefully they save that for the very worst of the black hats.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
alex:
If I had a smilie for flipping the bird, I'd...I'd...
Torcher = Canadian spelling for "torture"
lol
TAM
If a kangaroo court is used, doubts will linger.
Like hey man, I mean kangaroo's did it?
Wow, wait until I put that in the Next edition of Loose Change.
Torcher = Canadian spelling for "torture"
Now, if only I weren't also Canadian, I might actually buy that :)
Which reminds me, check out what the CBC's up to:
The CBC has quietly ordered eight episodes of a promising -- but potentially politically controversial -- new sitcom, Little Mosque on the Prairie, about a fictional Muslim family living in rural Saskatchewan. But instead of hoisting pitchforks, rolling down hills and selling eggs at Oleson's General store like Michael Landon's Ingalls family, this transplanted clan will be trying to interact with the denizens of a little Prairie town in a post Sept. 11 world.
I don't know whether to laugh or cry....
If a kangaroo court is used, doubts will linger.
I'm pretty damned happy with the Nuremberg trials.
Also, any trials they have are a favor. Either they're POWs and we can't put them on trial or they're unlawful combatants and they have no protection under international law.
If the word from the top is anything goes, then anything really does go. If torture were really limited to "less than 5" as they claim it would be ok. The problem is the guards are out of control and no one is there to reign them in.
You don't even realize that you went from "The USA is a fascist country" to "Senior Pentagon officials fail to appreciate the lessons of the Stanford Prison Experiment" in just a few posts, do you? And tomorrow you'll be back to "The USA is a fascist country," won't you?
"I just proved to you that effectively, martial law has been declared in the US (at least on paper)"
No, you haven't. You've written out a list of unsourced allegations and your own interpretations of them. That's hardly proof.
"There is NOTHING more dictatorial (and hence fascist)..."
With that statement, you obviously don't know the definition of fascist. Here's an exercises: Explain the role of the corporate (the concept of "corporativismo") in a fascist government. Then, explain exactly how our government here in the US has instituted corporate rule.
Also: When was Martial Law instituted? Can you give a date? I don't remember seeing soldiers in the street, or any announcements of suspension of civil law.
"The ability to suspend habeas corpus is often equated with martial law. Article 1, Section 9 of the U.S. Constitution states, "The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it." [but we just did]"
We just did? When? Both the Hamdan and Hamdi court cases show the exact opposite: Habeas was granted for both those individuals.
"the Supreme Court of the United States held that martial law could not be instituted within the United States when its civilian courts are in operation."
You state the obvious counter to your argument as if it supports it. Did you blindly cut and paste from somewhere? The standard has been to only suspend Habeas in cases where civil courts are dysfunctional, such as invasion. No member of the administration has tried to claim that civil courts are dysfunctional. No one anywhere has tried to claim that.
You have not proven a thing. You have not cited any source saying that martial law has been declared. You have constructed a sloppy argument, and made the laughable sin of actually using an argument counter to yours as part of a paragraph attempting to support it. You have also ignored real world events in constructing your assertations (the post doesn't deserve the label "argument", because nothing was argued). That is very, very sloppy writing, sloppy logic, and sloppy thinking.
"This is not paranoia ... these are HARD FACTS"
What hard facts? You haven't stated any!! You've only made allegations! When was martial law declared??
"guess you didn't hear about Bush's plan to make some types of abortions illegal
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/medicalnews.php?newsid=53101 "
Oh, for the love of God, why did I read your stuff...
Okay: How exactly is the Executive signing a law that has gone through the legislative process dictatorial? That's been considered by elected officials, and debated publicly? What exactly is dictatorial about the public process of democratically elected representatives passing laws? And, how exactly is your linked example dictatorial when that story is talking about a court case to hear the constitutionality of it, thus proving that the Executive does not have absolute power? This is the system working, and it shows that Bush isn't an absolute ruler!
Jesus H!... you very seriously need to travel to a foreign country and see what real repression, real dictatorships are like. You have zero idea what you're talking about. You're only putting together disparate points, totally ignoring context, and jumping to conclusions about what they mean! That is NOT critical thinking. That's barely even thinking!
You need to get informed. You are suffering from a serious lack of information, and you are unable to process what little you get. And the sad part is that you don't even realize it. You act as though you see the real truth, and you're not even close to it.
Take it from someone who's a naturalized citizen, and not born here in the states: You have NO idea what real repression is. None. Zero. My family is here because of a dictator - Marcos - and to be blunt, he was no where near as bad as Chavez, Castro, Saddam Hussein... Kim Il Jong... the list goes on. You do not recognize the difference between a leader you don't like who's still subject to the laws of a nation (Bush) and an honest-to-God despot who disregards - not argues with but still ultimately respects, not attempts to influence but ultimately follows, but disregards - law and the will of the people like Hussein, or Robert Mugabe. You simply don't know what you're talking about.
You have no idea what real fascism is, you have no idea what a real dictatorship is, and you have no idea how to critically process information. You're arguments are weakly supported when they're supported at all. Please... please get informed! It's embarrasing to read your stuff and think "a fellow citizen actually thinks this". Please... educate yourself. Then you'll be a worthy debate opponent.
------
Christ... I actually feel dirty now for responding to him. Given his logic and argumentative ability, it feels like I just beat on a baby...
Technically, Chavez isn't a dictator - but pretty much everything the world claims of Bush is true of Chavez.
"[The Geneva Convention] says enemy combatants who are found out of uniform may be executed without a trial"
Where does it say that?
So much to correct here...
"The fascism right now affects a very small minority of people. Hence it is not apparent to the average Joe."
Assertion not based on fact. There is no fascism. Again, you do not know the proper definition of it. And it is not affecting anyone right now. This is not a fascist country. You still haven't explained how Bush has instituted corporate government.
You are mistakenly assuming "Fascist" equals "Dictatorship" based on a definition pulled off a web. You do not know anything about Fascism.
"So, for all practical purposes, they assumed they were above the law and had martial law like powers effective in the continental US. These are dictatorial and fascist tendencies. Until those interpretations were struck down, they effectviely had free reign to do whatever they wanted."
Ignoring the fallacious argument that "they effectively had free reign to do whatever they wanted" - contradicted by the fact that the Executive's stance was constructed only after agreement from various parties and clearance from the Attorney General plus the various JAG officers weighing in - you yourself admit that the court system worked, and that the Executive is subject to it's dicates. That is very much an indicator that your worldview of a government "with fascist tendencies" is incorrect.
"Actually, Bush broke many laws, including the War Crimes laws, wiretapping laws, and illegal detention. He then tried to fix it after the fact."
Which ones has he broken? I'm only familiar with the illegal detention issue right now, and in the Hamdi and Hamdan cases, the Executive's authority to detain illegal combatants was not questioned or challenged. It was the process of trial that was. And as far as "fixing it after the fact": That was exactly what the courts ruling suggested, that he clarify his authority for tribunals with Congress. In other words, working without Congress to establish tribunals is a no-no, but working with them is acceptible. He was supposed to go fix it.
You really need to read up on those cases to understand the detention issue.
"The fact that Hitler managed to pass the Enabling Act, is PROOF POSITIVE that a legislature is not an effective deterrent against a wanna-be dictator who knows how to manipulate it."
That's a red herring argument: The Ermächtigungsgesetz had ridiculously broad language that upended the balance between the branches of government. Equating that with point issues about wiretapping and detention of non-citizens is to severely overinflate the effect of Bush's actions. No law has been passed which gives Bush permission to "deviate from the constitution as long as they do not affect the institutions" (quote from Wikipedia article). No law has been passed that allows Bush to enable treaties without the approval of the legislature.
If you're going to bring up the Enabling Act, you need to do more than assert a strawman argument that because it happened there, it can happen here. '20's and '30's Germany was a far different climate than 21st Century America is.
"Also you might want to know about Continuity of Government which Bush invoked after 9/11:"
I think you need to realize that the only aspects invoked were regarding the evacuation of leaders and the attempt to keep current leaders alive. Your own quoted source says that:
"For the first time in history, all nonemergency civilian aircraft in the United States were grounded, stranding tens of thousands of passengers across the country. Contingency plans for the continuity of government and the evacuation of leaders had been implemented"
That's hardly suspending the constitution or shipping people off to concentration camps.
And, it's one thing to use Wikipedia for the exact verbiage of an existing document, as I did up above. It's a whole other thing to allow it to do your thinking for you. CoS is not intended to "suspend parts of the Constitution"; on the contrary, the primary concept of CoS is to maintain the ability of elected officials to function in the case of catastrophic loss. Remember, that plan was first drawn up during the Cold War, when nuclear attack was a possibility.
Invoking awareness of CoS, and implementing the evacuation and protection aspects - Vice President, secure location anyone?? - is not the same thing as invoking the whole process. You're blinded by thinking that Wikipedia is an authoritative source. Read the original CoS plans, and what they do, and how they're to be invoked. And then, critically analyze the Wiki document. What constitutional safeguards are supposedly suspended? What process is required to house citizens in detention camps. And, how do those thresholds apply today? I think that, if you actually apply thought to what you're writing, you'll see how hyperbolic it is.
Also: Where's your context? You keep separating things from the context in which they're intended to be analyzed, and do so in order to throw them in the worst possible light. For example: The quite sensible task of building temporary housing - think the stranded and homeless Katrina victims - is obviously not a "fascist and dictatorial" gesture when taken within the context of those victims needing a place to stay. Yet, you cut & paste the wiki article and include the portion about FEMA housing/detention, damning the suggestion and making the sensible disaster planning look like schemes for concentration camps. Tell me: Is the temp housing for stranded victims of that hurricane an act of facism?
I said above that you do not understand facism, and you have no idea how dictators really work. That is still true. Read. Study real ones. You'll see that their machinations are not so complex. Read about Mugabe. Read about Chavez (yes, shawn, you're correct, technically he's a democratically elected leader. But my point in bringing it up is exactly yours as well: Chavez is the one who's suspended legislative safeguards, effectively browbeat those same legislatures into rubber stamping his laws, and is attempting to militarize and radicalize his society). Understand the differences between real dictators and oligarchs, and how big the gap really, truly is between them and any president of the United States. To be blunt, for all your hyperventillating about Bush and assumption of excess powers, former Presidents - FDR and Lincoln come immediately to mind - have excercised far greater power and control than Bush ever has. Lincoln actually did suspend habeas. FDR allowed internment; anyone remember the Japanese camps in the West?
You need to be better informed, avoid so many leaps to conclusions, and not use strawman argument so much. I'll give you this, though: You're actually attempting to construct an argument now. That's an improvement.
Dangit 9M, you were really starting to sound reasonable yesterday. Now you're saying what? A super-secret fascist shadow government really controls everything? But it's so super-secret no on can prove it exists and it has no effect on our lives whatsoever. They don't make super-secret fascist shadow governments like they use to, I guess.
Relax, guy. Bush will be gone in less than 2 years. And hopefully the democrats can do better than freaking John Kerry this time or I'm voting for myself again.
Did you notice the big fat disclaimer over the Wikipedia article: "The factual accuracy of this article is disputed?"
That wikipedia page is a total mess, btw. It's based almost exclusively off a 1987 article from the Miami Herald.
(all emphases mine)
first it says:
"It also allows for power in the US to be centralized to the White House and "appointment of military commanders to run state and local governments and declaration of martial law" (based on a quote from a Miami Herald Article from 1987)
then it says:
"After 9/11, The Washington Post reported that President Bush had set up a shadow government of about 100 senior civilian managers to live and work outside Washington on a rotating basis to ensure the continuity of national security. Since then, a program once focused on presidential succession and civilian control of U.S. nuclear weapons has been expanded to encompass the entire government." (quoted by the wiki from the WP article out of context)
So would the provisional government be military, like the 1987 article claims, or civilian, like Bush claims?
I don't see anywhere that Bush actually invoked CoS, just that he set it up in case we needed to. Pretty smart move, if you ask me. Nobody knew what was happening on 9/11, I'm glad someone was taking all possibilities into account.
The first paragraph of the WaPo article even talks about a recent CoS drill. Why would he be running drills if the CoS "shadow government" was currently running things?
The Wikipedia article then goes on to claim: "It appears the US is still in the Continuity of Government status invoked as a result of 9/11." O Rly? It doesn't even have a citation. Maybe you should edit it and add the citation, "Directly out of my ass."
Also read the CBS news report:
"A government official who spoke to The Associated Press said President Bush does not foresee ever needing to turn over government functions to the secret operation, but believed it was prudent to implement the long-standing plan in light of the war on terrorism and persistent threats of future attacks."
According to whoever wrote the Wikipedia article:
" The main points of such a plan in the United States are to suspend certain parts of the US Constitution"
I think (he doesn't cite any source again) he gets that from the Herald article:
"Lt. Col. Oliver North, for example, helped draw up a controversial plan to suspend the Constitution in the event of a national crisis"
Compare that to the more recent directive from Pres. Clinton:
"President Bill Clinton signed Presidential Decision Directive 67, 'Enduring Constitutional Government and Continuity of Government Operations.'"
My favorite line from the Wiki:
"Historically many governments and leaders, from Adolf Hitler to George W Bush, have used a disaster or attack as an excuse to assume illegal and draconian powers."
How's that for NPOV?
All citizens should know the governments plan for ensuring continuity of government in case of attack?
Uhhh....
Whatever you're smoking....don't be a hog, man!
Post a Comment
<< Home