PDA

View Full Version : A lesson from Nazi Germany


Please visit our sponsor:
 

AikiWeb Sponsored Links - Place your Aikido link here for only $10!


Tubig
11-07-2005, 07:55 PM
On February 27 1933 the Reichstag (German parliament house) was burnt down in what was claimed as a communist terrorist attack.

The next day Hitler (through President Hindenburg) used the emergency and the public concern to issue a decree, suspending many constitutional guarantees of civil liberties, to fight the communist terrorist threat.

Two weeks later, with a fiery speech to a stressed, pressured, panicking, and confused Reichstag about terrorism crisis, Hitler persuaded it to delegate its powers to him.

On March 23 1933, the Enabling Act was proclaimed. Under this Act the Nazis introduced legal "Protective Custody", which allowed people to be imprisoned without a charge.

New types of political crimes were also introduced such as "Insidious attacks against the government" and set up the "Special Court" to handle them.

The German people, overall, accepted all these restrictions and suspension of civil liberties and rights as necessary to changed world. The German people did not see where they were being led.

Of course Australia is different. But how different are we?

Camille Lore
11-07-2005, 09:23 PM
How different is the US?
The "patriot act" comes to mind....

aikigirl10
11-07-2005, 09:39 PM
wow this thread is....
:straightf :rolleyes: :disgust: :drool: :confused:

... way over my head

Steve Mullen
11-08-2005, 07:17 AM
I'm not sure how much of this has crossed the many ponds between us all but at the moment there is a massive political debate in the UK about how long police can hold terrorist suspects for without charge. the current time is 14days maximum under the new anti-terror laws. however, Tony Blair is planning to try and push through a new law which allows for upto 90days without charge. obviously this has caused outrage amongst the opposition parties. At first i was also opposed to the idea as it seems to contradict article 3 of the human rights act (namely the right to freedom).

However, I have recently learned that this 90 days comes split into 7 day periods after which a judge must agree to a further 7days without charge to allow police to gather more evidence. I think this is totally justified. This is similar to the Enabeling Act but with more controls

N.B. it is also interesting to note that the enabling act in 33 contained a cluase allowing Hitler to give himself any powers he wanted and (in theory) make his word law without the interruption of the Reichstag, crazy huh?!

Hogan
11-08-2005, 09:08 AM
On February 27 1933 the Reichstag (German parliament house) was burnt down in what was claimed as a communist terrorist attack.

The next day Hitler (through President Hindenburg) used the emergency and the public concern to issue a decree, suspending many constitutional guarantees of civil liberties, to fight the communist terrorist threat.

Two weeks later, with a fiery speech to a stressed, pressured, panicking, and confused Reichstag about terrorism crisis, Hitler persuaded it to delegate its powers to him.

On March 23 1933, the Enabling Act was proclaimed. Under this Act the Nazis introduced legal "Protective Custody", which allowed people to be imprisoned without a charge.

New types of political crimes were also introduced such as "Insidious attacks against the government" and set up the "Special Court" to handle them.

The German people, overall, accepted all these restrictions and suspension of civil liberties and rights as necessary to changed world. The German people did not see where they were being led.

Of course Australia is different. But how different are we?

The story happened a ittle differently than you provided. How different ? Well:
http://www.historyplace.com/worldwar2/timeline/enabling.htm

"On March 23, 1933, the newly elected members of the German Parliament (the Reichstag) met in the Kroll Opera House in Berlin to consider passing Hitler's Enabling Act. It was officially called the 'Law for Removing the Distress of the People and the Reich.' If passed, it would effectively mean the end of democracy in Germany and establish the legal dictatorship of Adolf Hitler.

The 'distress' had been secretly caused by the Nazis themselves in order to create a crisis atmosphere that would make the law seem necessary to restore order. On February 27, 1933, they had burned the Reichstag building, seat of the German government, causing panic and outrage. The Nazis successfully blamed the fire on the Communists and claimed it marked the beginning of a widespread uprising.

[DIFFERENCE ONE - US DIDN'T SECRETLY DO THE ATTACKS AND BLAME THE TERRORISTS - THE TERRORISTS DID THEM]


On the day of the vote, Nazi storm troopers gathered in a show of force around the opera house chanting, "Full powers - or else! We want the bill - or fire and murder!!" They also stood inside in the hallways, and even lined the aisles where the vote would take place, glaring menacingly at anyone who might oppose Hitler's will.

[DIFFERENCE TWO - NO US TROOPS OR REPUBLICAN OR DEMOCRATIC PARTY MEMBERS GATHERED IN FRONT OF THE CAPITAL DEMANDING PASSAGE OR MURDER, OR GLARE MENACINGLY]


Just before the vote, Hitler made a speech to the Reichstag in which he pledged to use restraint.

"The government will make use of these powers only insofar as they are essential for carrying out vitally necessary measures...The number of cases in which an internal necessity exists for having recourse to such a law is in itself a limited one." - Hitler told the Reichstag.

He also promised an end to unemployment and pledged to promote peace with France, Great Britain and the Soviet Union. But in order to do all this, Hitler said, he first needed the Enabling Act.

[DIFFERENCE THREE - US PREZ DID NOT PROMISE TO END UNEMPLOYMENT & PLEDGE TO PROMOTE PEACE WITH POTENTIAL ENEMIES WHILE URGING PASSAGE OF THE PATRIOT ACT]

A two thirds majority was needed, since the law would actually alter the German constitution. Hitler needed 31 non-Nazi votes to pass it. He got those votes from the Center Party after making a false promise to restore some basic rights already taken away by decree.

However, one man arose amid the overwhelming might. Otto Wells, leader of the Social Democrats stood up and spoke quietly to Hitler.

"We German Social Democrats pledge ourselves solemnly in this historic hour to the principles of humanity and justice, of freedom and socialism. No enabling act can give you power to destroy ideas which are eternal and indestructible."

This enraged Hitler and he jumped up to respond.

"You are no longer needed! - The star of Germany will rise and yours will sink! Your death knell has sounded!"

[DIFFERENCE FOUR - DID I MISS BUSH DOING THIS ?]

The vote was taken - 441 for, only 84, the Social Democrats, against. The Nazis leapt to their feet clapping, stamping and shouting, then broke into the Nazi anthem, the Hörst Wessel song.

They achieved what Hitler had wanted for years - to tear down the German Democratic Republic legally and end democracy, thus paving the way for a complete Nazi takeover of Germany.

From this day on, the Reichstag would be just a sounding board, a cheering section for Hitler's pronouncements."

[DIFFERENCE FIVE - YES, THAT DAMN CONGRESS - NOTHING BUT A SOUNDING BOARD FOR BUSH NOWADAYS]...

mj
11-09-2005, 01:09 PM
He wasn't saying that they were exactly the same - he was pointing out the similarities of using a fear driven political movement to force through laws which remove rights from people and give them to an (as much as) unaccountable head of state.

Didn't Bush's grand-daddy have dealings with Hitler?

Neil Mick
11-09-2005, 04:41 PM
He wasn't saying that they were exactly the same - he was pointing out the similarities of using a fear driven political movement to force through laws which remove rights from people and give them to an (as much as) unaccountable head of state.

An (apparently) unaccountable head of state who lied about his intentions to go to war; who repeatedly tied Al Qaeda to Iraq; whose Admin thinks it perfectly OK to justify going after foreign dictators who use torture and chemical weapons on his victims, all the while setting up networks of torture chambers themselves, and using chemical weapons on Fallujan's,,,er, sorry: I meant "enemy combatants." According to the Army: there WERE no "innocent people" shot as casualties during the assaults.

Now, of course: we're engaging in "Operation Steel Curtain:" making Iraq free from the incursions of the foreign insurgents (who, by the DoD's estimate, only comprise about 10% of the total insurgency, tops), all the while submitting yet another city to that special brand of collective punishment...er, I mean "nation-building." :disgust:

And now, Bush says "we don't DO torture;" even as that gasbag Cheney tries to get the green light for the CIA to DO torture!! :yuck:

Yep! We may not be Nazi-Germany: but we're DEFINITELY waist-deep in "1984" turf. War is Peace; Black is White; and Big W is your Friend.

http://www.bushflash.com/jpg/sub_01.jpg

Rod McLaughlin
11-09-2005, 10:04 PM
An (apparently) unaccountable head of state who lied about his intentions to go to war; who repeatedly tied Al Qaeda to Iraq; whose Admin thinks it perfectly OK to justify going after foreign dictators who use torture and chemical weapons on his victims, all the while setting up networks of torture chambers themselves, and using chemical weapons on Fallujan's,,,er, sorry: I meant "enemy combatants." According to the Army: there WERE no "innocent people" shot as casualties during the assaults.

Now, of course: we're engaging in "Operation Steel Curtain:" making Iraq free from the incursions of the foreign insurgents (who, by the DoD's estimate, only comprise about 10% of the total insurgency, tops), all the while submitting yet another city to that special brand of collective punishment...er, I mean "nation-building." :disgust:

And now, Bush says "we don't DO torture;" even as that gasbag Cheney tries to get the green light for the CIA to DO torture!! :yuck:

Yep! We may not be Nazi-Germany: but we're DEFINITELY waist-deep in "1984" turf. War is Peace; Black is White; and Big W is your Friend.

http://www.bushflash.com/jpg/sub_01.jpg



I respect your views and even agree with many of them. But I must mention that my Neighbor is from Iraq and he is very happy the US went in, and even with the insurgents he still feels Iraq is better off without Sadam. I believe many people living in Iraq feel this way.

Many people have nothing but negative opinions on Bush and the US but very few offer reasonable alternatives to the problems the US faces. (saying they created these problems is true but it is not a solution.) I personally don't agree with most of Bush's decisions but I do not have a nation to protect so I will not judge to harshly.

The US is like the Wolf they will tell you they are going to eat you then they will eat you. France is like the Fox he will tell you he is a vegetarian and when you turn your back he will eat you.

My thoughts.

Hogan
11-10-2005, 08:53 AM
He wasn't saying that they were exactly the same - he was pointing out the similarities of using a fear driven political movement to force through laws which remove rights from people and give them to an (as much as) unaccountable head of state.

Didn't Bush's grand-daddy have dealings with Hitler?

Ahhh, but there's the difference, my boy; Bush IS accountable.

And re Bushie Grandpapa.... nothing but an urban legend. You Brits always believe what you read in the Sun ?


http://www.adl.org/Internet_Rumors/prescott.htm
Grandpa Bush "...had some early financial dealings with Nazi industrialist named Fritz Thyssen (who was arrested by the Nazi regime in 1938 and imprisoned during the war); [he] was neither a Nazi nor a Nazi sympathizer."

Neil Mick
11-10-2005, 12:24 PM
I respect your views and even agree with many of them. But I must mention that my Neighbor is from Iraq and he is very happy the US went in, and even with the insurgents he still feels Iraq is better off without Sadam. I believe many people living in Iraq feel this way.

I am guessing that your neighbor is not from either Fallujah or the area currently hosting Operation Steel Curtain. But even if he were: sure, there will always be folks in every country who support an invasion by the US. It does not make the choice to invade the right one, or even the best choice, however.

Many people have nothing but negative opinions on Bush and the US but very few offer reasonable alternatives to the problems the US faces. (saying they created these problems is true but it is not a solution.)

With respect, I disagree. Regarding Iraq: the UN weapons inspectors were reporting progress, The tab we were paying for this program? $81M/year.

The "Bush Plan" costs $4B a MONTH, results in far more civilian fatalities, and encourages (rather than discourages) a buildup of weapons and violence in Iraq (not to mention the recent bombings in Jordan).

If Bush did NOTHING about Hussein (a tinpot dictator whose back was broken before we engaged in this invasion folly), it would have been an improvement.

I personally don't agree with most of Bush's decisions but I do not have a nation to protect so I will not judge to harshly.

I do. I judge violaters of international law and human rights very harshly. I reserve my worst scorn for those leaders and Admin's who state that the Geneva Conventions do not apply.

The US is like the Wolf they will tell you they are going to eat you then they will eat you. France is like the Fox he will tell you he is a vegetarian and when you turn your back he will eat you.

My thoughts.

I'd compare the US more to a drunken, alcoholic, abusive father obsessed with "tough love," than a wolf. One year it's slapping Saddam on the back, trading with him and turning a blind eye to his injustices: the next year bombing his country, and imposing genocidal Sanctions.

How France got into the discussion, I have no idea.

Adam Alexander
11-10-2005, 12:39 PM
But I must mention that my Neighbor is from Iraq and he is very happy the US went in, and even with the insurgents he still feels Iraq is better off without Sadam. I believe many people living in Iraq feel this way.

Suppose someone is stepping on your big toes. I walk up, push them off and step on one of your big toes. Are you better off that only one toe is being stepped on? Yes. Is it right that I'm stepping on your toe? No.

Just because some people are "better off" doesn't make the imperialism right.

bogglefreak20
11-10-2005, 01:25 PM
Ao someone once said: "The only thing man ever learnt from history is that a man never learns anything from history."

The cycle of political elites deliberately manipulating people into giving them even a shread of legitimacy which they then so readily abuse to the benefit of themselves has turned many times. Too many times. People forget, people die. And the wheel turns once more.

Hogan
11-10-2005, 02:19 PM
Suppose someone is stepping on your big toes. I walk up, push them off and step on one of your big toes. Are you better off that only one toe is being stepped on? Yes. Is it right that I'm stepping on your toe? No.

Just because some people are "better off" doesn't make the imperialism right.

Let me ask you something, putting aside the debate about whether this war is a war of imperialism in the classical sense - if you lived your whole life under a dictator, experienced death in your family caused by said dictator, had no freedom, no future, and then, all of the sudden, that same dictator is out of power and you are now free, would you care about the philisophical argumets of whether imperialism is right or wrong ?

Neil Mick
11-10-2005, 05:02 PM
Let me ask you something, putting aside the debate about whether this war is a war of imperialism in the classical sense - if you lived your whole life under a dictator, experienced death in your family caused by said dictator, had no freedom, no future, and then, all of the sudden, that same dictator is out of power and you are now free, would you care about the philisophical argumets of whether imperialism is right or wrong ?

Understanding, of course: that John has some very fast and loose notions of "free (as we've discovered, in previous threads)."

Apparently, "free" means being subject to having the indignity of voting for a constitution (courtesy of the US), being subjected to an indefinite occupation and torture (thanks, again: to the US); of living in near-daily fear of being blown to bits; of having inadequate medical facilities and infrastructure; no free press; and no recompense, should said occupiers bust in your house, kill your kids, damage your property.

Ah yes: the "joys: of "freedom..." :rolleyes:

Steve Mullen
11-11-2005, 04:57 AM
I read the last post as this

being subjected to an indefinite occupation and torture (thanks, again: to Sadam); of living in near-daily fear of being blown to bits (thanks to Sadam); of having inadequate medical facilities and infrastructure (thanks to Sadam); no free press; and no recompense, should Sadam bust in your house, kill your kids, damage your property.

That's exactly what was happening before, did the previous poster feel the need to condem Sadam on a public forum. and as for

'Apparently, "free" means being subject to having the indignity of voting for a constitution (courtesy of the US)'

Isn't that what every democracy does, how is this an indignity, the only way around voting for a constitution is comunism or totalitarionism.

Nothing has changed yet, but we have given them a chance by taking out a dictator who, far from being at the end of his power, had an iron grip on a country which had no choice. War doesn't accomplish much, but sometimes it is necessary, people say why did we get involved (yes Britain is involved too) is because the people had no choice, they couldn't act even if they wanted to.

mj
11-11-2005, 08:01 AM
Steve..no offence but we went in for WMD, remember? 45 minutes from doom?

We said Saddam could stay in power. Didn't we?

We certainly never went in to free anyone - so please don't start saying we did.

And as far as I can see no Iraqis were getting blown up before we went in. As to torture - they got that before and after, lucky them.

Oh - and no-one asked us to get involved (aka stick our noses in) either.

As for freedom - I don't see any of that either.

Hogan
11-11-2005, 08:10 AM
...Ah yes: the "joys: of "freedom..." :rolleyes:

*sniff*... 'tis a beautiful thing....

Neil Mick
11-11-2005, 02:13 PM
I read the last post as this

I've heard of "reading between the lines," but this is ridiculous.

being subjected to an indefinite occupation and torture (thanks, again: to Sadam);

but if you insist--let's put that other show COMPLETELY on the other foot, shall we?

(thanks, again: to Saddam)

who was well aided by his best buddy, the US, all through the '70's and '80's, who was soundly ignored when he gassed the Kurds (until, of course: he bucked the oil corporations)...

but more to the point--sorry, but this notion of "we HAD to break international law and bust up the legal procedure of weapons inspections: he MADE us do it!" has about the same amount of moral sense as blaming the rape victim for dressing seductively.

The US broke the law.

of living in near-daily fear of being blown to bits (thanks to Sadam);

which makes no sense at all. Suicide bombers are reacting to the OCCUPATION: not Hussein.

Might as well blame 9-11 on the US bombing of Lebanese cities (oh wait: OBL DID that already... :freaky: )

of having inadequate medical facilities and infrastructure (thanks to Sadam);

Hello? We are talking Present-Day, right? Hussein, as Bush so (rarely) eloquently put it when they put on that canned show, toppling his statue..."Hussein is relegated to the dustbin of history."

WE are responsible for Iraqi's having inadequate medical facilities.

WE are responsible for the sorry state of Iraq's infrastructure, in more ways than one: in 1991, we knowingly bombed civilian infrastructure (in violation of int'l law) in order to force Hussein to the table (I can document this).

To blame everything wrong in Iraq on Hussein is simple "Bush-it" revisionism.

no free press; and no recompense, should Sadam bust in your house, kill your kids, damage your property.

Historical blinders on? Nose carefully to the ground? Good: the ignoring of reality in contemporary Iraq may now commence...

That's exactly what was happening before, did the previous poster feel the need to condem Sadam on a public forum.

I'm sorry, but the last time I checked: the need to condemn known human rights violators out of power seems a little redundant, don't you think? Do I also need to roundly criticize all former mass-murderers as well, for balance? Maybe make up a song castigating all mass-murdering ex-leaders, before I am allowed to talk about what's going on TODAY, even as I type??

Hussein is in no position to hurt anyone, at the moment. This is a far, far cry from BushCo, sad to say. What he did in the '80's needs to be addressed, but his crimes make ours no less important, or significant.

and as for

'Apparently, "free" means being subject to having the indignity of voting for a constitution (courtesy of the US)'

Isn't that what every democracy does, how is this an indignity, the only way around voting for a constitution is comunism or totalitarionism.

Few (objective) people consider voting for a constitution written by an occupying power AS THEY ARE OCCUPIED, in the midst of a violent resurgency, as "democracy."

Consider an alternative history: France during the US Revolutionary War, decides that the colonists are too primitive and disorganized to fight the British.

They invade the colonies, kick out Britain, silence the press, imprison and torture, refuse to allow workers to organize, and decide that America needs a "democracy," but they cannot be permitted to write their own constitution.

So, some extremist French lawmakers get together and write a constitution that is so heinous to burgeoning American nationalism and sovereignty that the Continental Congress takes 8 months to even ratify the thing.

Now, YOU might call this "democracy:" but I guarantee you that the America that emerges from this "alternate history" will be a far cry from what we have today, or even what we might call "democratic."

Nothing has changed yet, but we have given them a chance by taking out a dictator who, far from being at the end of his power, had an iron grip on a country which had no choice.

With respect: propagandistic nonsense. We went in because Bush hyped the threat of wmd's. Now that we are stuck in Iraq: we need to have some "compelling reason" to "stay the course."

Otherwise, American families would see this senseless slaughter for what it is: a cynical attempt at US expansionism, and greed.

War doesn't accomplish much, but sometimes it is necessary, people say why did we get involved (yes Britain is involved too) is because the people had no choice,they couldn't act even if they wanted to.

And the propaganda-tap just keeps on flowing. If this were so and we are such a "freedom-loving" people: then how come we did not help the Shia'n revolt after Bush I called for it, in '92?

How come we censored the intel from Kamal Hussein, Saddam's brother-in-law and head of Iraqi weapons programs, when he defected in '95 and told the CIA that there wre no wmd's?

If we so abhor violence upon the innocent: then how come we're such buddies with the Sudanese gov't? Whatever happened to those cries of genocide in Darfur?

If we love democracy and freedom so much: how come we participated in kidnapping Haiti's only democratically elected President? Why is this Administration so close to human-rights violating nations such as Uzbekistan and Saudi Arabia, while the democratically-elected President of Venezuala is decried (by Condi Rice) as "a gathering concern," whose ouster we attempted to facilitate by supporting a coup?

If we hate terrorists so much: why have we ignored calls for extradition of Luis Posada Carreles (the Cuban Cabana Bomber) by Venezuala and Cuba?

Neil Mick
11-11-2005, 02:21 PM
*sniff*... 'tis a beautiful thing....

So is cocaine (or, so the druggie's tell me): it alters your view of reality, TOO: as well as giving you the sniffle's... :p

Rod McLaughlin
11-11-2005, 10:27 PM
Neil,
No disrespect, but when Saddam was in power torturing people and killing the Kurds did you condemn his actions. Do you write equally about the Sudanese refugees and the Mass murders in Africa and the corruption and poverty in the Caribbean. Bush is bad but in a global sense there are people who are worse. You can not only condemn Bush. If you are going to take this stand you must take on injustice throughout the world or you are just another person on the bash Bush band wagon.

Rod McLaughlin
11-11-2005, 10:53 PM
My Neighbor was a student but he and his brother were forced to Fight for Saddam in the first Gulf War. Fight or your family dies. Like many he surrendered at the first opportunity. His brother did not. But after the war soldiers came and took his brother away. His mother later received word that he was dead but she should not worry as they will pay for the burial. It was this incident that allowed him to come to Canada as a refugee.

In regards to the UN inspectors. I do not have a lot of faith in the UN. Too many with Veto Power. But worse than that the UN has failed to act to protect Africans and has refused to use the word genocide even when it is clear. What good is the UN if they do not act?

mj
11-12-2005, 06:30 PM
We are the UN.

Taliesin
11-13-2005, 09:34 AM
Steven wrote that there were concerns in the UK because proposed legislation breached Article 3 of the Human Rights Act. Actually the concern was that the proposed legislation breach Article 3 of the European Convention of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms in that it breached Article 3 - Prohibition against Torture or Degrading Treatment, Article 5 right to liberty and security, Article 7 no punishment without lawful authority, And Article 6 The right to a fair hearing.

In addition to this there are very real fears that had they got 90 detention (instead they got 28 days - still way to wrong) Police would have used it to arrest anyone 'who seems the type' and detain them, rather than actually investigate and provide evidence. That this philosophy would alienate the Muslim community in the UK and inspire more terrorists in the same way internment acted as a recruiting Sergeant for the IRA.

Plus the concerns that people arrested will be coerced into false confessions - again our experience with the IRA was that once someone was locked up that was the end of it even if they learned that the people in prison were innocent (Guildford 4 anyone).

As far the reasons for invasion they were .

1. Saddam's support for Al'Quieda
2. Weapons of mass destruction

And only after those collapsed and we had actually invaded was it human rights.

The question of whether things are better or worse now than under Saddam, well lets look at the evidence.

Under Saddam people said to be plotting against the regime were arrest and tortured. So no change there (Abu Grade anyone)

Under Saddam chemical weapons were used on a community said to be fermenting rebellion. So no change there (Falluja anyone?)

Before there was one dictator and the infrastructure was intact.

After you have no law whatsoever, terrorists, tribal leaders all trying to fill the vacuum and all committing atrocities to do so.

But at least the Oil Companies got cheap oil!!!

dan guthrie
11-13-2005, 11:13 AM
http://www.theotheriraq.com/

Neil Mick
11-13-2005, 03:25 PM
Neil,
No disrespect, but when Saddam was in power torturing people and killing the Kurds did you condemn his actions. Do you write equally about the Sudanese refugees and the Mass murders in Africa and the corruption and poverty in the Caribbean.

When Saddam was in power torturing people and killing the Kurds, it was around the mid-late '80's. I was active in the Greens movement (we weren't a political party yet: that all came later); and my main interest at the time was getting the US's interfering hands out of Nicaragua, where they were funnelling money to murderers who killed and tortured schoolteachers, civil leaders and engineers.

The Bush I Admin was doing shifty deals with Iran and the Contra's: ensuring with the very latest in US technologies that Iran would be well-stocked in weapons, and that Los Angeles would be well-stocked in the latest drug-craze: crack cocaine (you can read all about this in Gary Webb's well-documented book: "Dark Alliance.")

I might have been interested in Hussein's crimes at the time, but this was also the time that the US mainstream media started to toss in the towel on speaking truth to power (certain laws, such as the law plaguing Libby and Rove over Plamegate were also enacted at this time, limiting the ability of the more daring reporters to write about the events in Nicaragua, as they would have to "out" CIA operative's engaging in otherwise illegal and immoral actions). But, hindsight is 20/20: at the time, I was ill-informed of the events going on.

Even if I WERE informed: I have far more ability to stop the murderous activities of MY gov't, than I do (or did) of Saddam Hussein, or some other foreign leader.

Bush is bad but in a global sense there are people who are worse. You can not only condemn Bush. If you are going to take this stand you must take on injustice throughout the world or you are just another person on the bash Bush band wagon.

What part of this bit from my last post did you miss?

I'm sorry, but the last time I checked: the need to condemn known human rights violators out of power seems a little redundant, don't you think? Do I also need to roundly criticize all former mass-murderers as well, for balance? Maybe make up a song castigating all mass-murdering ex-leaders, before I am allowed to talk about what's going on TODAY, even as I type??

Hussein is in no position to hurt anyone, at the moment. This is a far, far cry from BushCo, sad to say. What he did in the '80's needs to be addressed, but his crimes make ours no less important, or significant.

In the past, I have railed not only against Bush: but against Putin, the Taliban; Qadafy (over the Bulgarian nurse fiasco); Blair; the puppet US-UN-installed gov't in Haiti; Sharon; suicide bombers; and yes, even Hussein. Bush is certainly not the only bad-guy in the world, but he's the one I can help stop, most effectively.

And, while he's not a mass-murderer (insofar as I know): I have railed against Kerry, for supporting the war and for cowardly quitting so early, without demanding a recount.

What good is the UN if they do not act?

As mj so eloquently put it: we ARE the UN. If they fail to act, it is we who are responsible. But, BushCo has signalled in so many ways how little they regard the UN...the appointment of John Bolton ("If the top 10 stories of the UN building were destroyed, it wouldn't make a bit of difference") is merely the underscoring of this sentiment.

But more to the point, the inspectors WERE doing their job. We know that now. They were very close to finishing their inspections; and BushCo could not have that. They needed this invasion to carry out their prosaic and shortsighted plans for MidEast expansion.

If BushCo really wanted to oust Hussein to create a free and democratic Iraq: It would have been a very simple plan. Invade, make plans for supplying a people who've been starved and bombed for 13 years, and then get out within a year.

If they did that, tho: it would have meant no Iraqi bases, no control of oil, no foisting sham constitutions on an Iraqi populace, troubled by daily bombings. It would have meant giving up control of Iraq; and this the Bush Admin could not do.

Bush's policy in Iraq is winding up to be the biggest US foreign policy disaster ever, in US history. Our grandchildren, who will be paying this war-debt, will ask those of us still alive: "What did you do to end the Iraqi War?"

I feel the most pity for those whose honest answer would be, "Well, son: I put flag stickers on my Hummer, voted for the 'Savior of New Orleans,' and screamed 'PROUD TO BE 'MERICAN!' at the faces of protestors." When the wake-up call finally hits THESE folks: it will be a very rude awakening, indeed.

Joe Bowen
11-14-2005, 12:02 AM
Nice to see all of the "experts" that have never set foot on the ground in Iraq offering their opinions... :rolleyes:

Back to the original post, you are right to be concerned when there is a move in your government to change the standing of your civil liberties. I just thank my lucky stars that we have not really crossed that bridge, for if we had I would not be able to read many of the posts that are in this thread.... :freaky:

Kevin Leavitt
11-14-2005, 01:31 PM
My thoughts too Joe as I read through these post. The big difference is we still do have a voice and have freedoms that did not exsist in Nazi Germany. Although we should not forget the lessons learned!

Neil Mick
11-14-2005, 01:44 PM
Nice to see all of the "experts" that have never set foot on the ground in Iraq offering their opinions... :rolleyes:

Ah yes: the typical disempowering tactic of "you-weren't-there-so-what-do-you-know," raises its ugly head, yet again. Sad, really: what do these ppl offering these sorts of arguments have so much to worry about?

It's as if we "had" to be in New Orleans, or we lack the authority to claim that something went very, very wrong, in the disaster prevention "effort."

I suppose we could say the same thing for the battalions of Limbaugh's, O'Reilly's, Malkin's and Coulter's who so mindlessly supported this war...well, you aren't there, so what do you know? But that logic wouldn't work for you, would it, Joe? They agreed with you, so they don't count. :rolleyes:

Back to the original post, you are right to be concerned when there is a move in your government to change the standing of your civil liberties.

B-I-I-I-G newsflash, Joe...you ready? OK, sit down: this may come as a shock...

WRITINGS ON THE INTERNET does not = the state or nature of civil liberties, in this country.

Hello? Access to the internet barely constitutes only one aspect of freedom to speech. Some of the most repressive countries in the world often do supply access to the internet.

I just thank my lucky stars that we have not really crossed that bridge, for if we had I would not be able to read many of the posts that are in this thread.... :freaky:

For someone who claims to be some sort of "authority" on our country's policies: your posts suggest an amazing (or willful) ignorance on the subject.

Let's see, where to begin?

1. The gov't's plans for indefinite detention of Abu Ghraib prisoners, with no trial, no representation: heck, not even any charges;

2. The continued (and still missing) detention and indefinite detention of Arab's and Arab-American's (who, according to testimony by Ashcroft, number about 150,000);

3. The ability for the DoJ to access your library and personal records; along with other increased powers of the Patriot-Act;

4. The use of "Free Speech Zones" by the police, hampering and limiting protestors' ability to freely assemble (outside of a cage, which is essentially what a "free speech zone" really is...this tactic was used by both Repub's and Dem's, BTW), along with other "special ordinances" seemingly sprung up overnight in response to planned (and often approved) protests;

5. The institution of a "No Fly List," limiting the movement of passengers with suspicious names or Progressive ties to travel in this country (the case of Yusuf Islam, aka Cat Stevens, comes to mind, He was denied entry into this country...with only the Islamic connotations of his name, given as a reason);

6. Selective, heavy-handed prosecutions and frivilous lawsuits against people this Administration does not like. The civil rights attorney Lynn Stewart, the jailing and detention of Mike Howash, the charges against the Muslim chaplain at Gitmo (all later dropped); the threats against All Souls Church by the IRS, who are threatening to pull their nonprofit status for railing against the Iraqi War 2 days before the '04 election; the continued detention of the "Dirty Bomber," still with no charges pressed; etc.

7. The use of private commercial jets to ferry passengers to countries to engage in torture;

8. The increased use of "executive privilege" by BushCo to shut out not only Congressional investigating committee's trying to do their job, but shutting out anyone who doesn't drink the BushCo kool-aid;

9. The Admin's continued attempts to achieve full, unfettered power with no checks or balances, specifically: BushCo's desire to have torture as a tool in questioning terror suspects; etc, etc.

There, Joe: that's just a starter. I know, I know: this ignorant "expert" probably knows much less about the world than you, but hey: we can't all possess such arrogant omniscience.

We all have to climb down from our own, personal Mt. Olympus'es, SOME of the time... :freaky:

Neil Mick
11-14-2005, 01:52 PM
My thoughts too Joe as I read through these post. The big difference is we still do have a voice and have freedoms that did not exsist in Nazi Germany. Although we should not forget the lessons learned!

Since this country separated from England, the US has experienced six major periods of repression (including the current one, which by no means is the worst...yet).

In each instance, we looked back and deemed these efforts to be a mistake. Legislation was later introduced rolling back these repressive laws and policies; and ppl tended to look back to these times with a measure of shame (no one, for instance: will be putting up monuments to the Dies Committee or the Japanese internment camps anytime soon).

The notion of cheering because "we're better than Nazi Germany" is prosaic to me. We are in a dark time in the history of civil liberties, and tho we are certainly better than Nazi Germany, we should by no means be congratulating ourselves on that fact.

We still have a long, long way to go: and right now we're going in the wrong direction, IMO.

Joe Bowen
11-14-2005, 08:45 PM
this ignorant "expert" probably knows much less about the world than you

Neil, you are as predictable as the sun rise. I knew that what I posted would elicit such a response from you, the only thing that surprised me is that someone got a post in before you did.

But, the truth is this: you don't know, and I don't know because neither of us has been there. Are the Iraqi people better off without Saddam? I don't know. I don't know any Iraqi people to even ask if the Iraqi people are better off. I do know several soldiers that have served in Iraq and Afghanistan who are of the opinion that they are better off. But, you would probably just assume all soldiers who say something contrary to your opinion are lying.

Your assumption that I'm a fan of Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly is also false. I'm not the conservative you think I am. And to quote the bad guy in Under Siege 2, "Assumption is the mother of all.."

I do know what I know and what I don't know. And while there is a whole lot of very interesting information about the things you have mentioned, I also know that just by reading about I, I don't really know it. You chose to believe it without doubting it, fine. It fits your "rage against the machine" personality.

But anybody, and I mean anybody, that preaches propaganda, whether it is liberal or conservative, as gospel truth had better have been on the ground walking if they want to carry any shred of credibility.

But if you want to know, and you care enough about the plight of the Iraqi people to know, you can go. You don't even have to be in the military or part of the military-industrial complex to go. There are multiple Non-governmental Organizations out there that are operating in Iraq. Both the Red Cross and Red Crescent are there. Go there, talk to the folks on the ground, and while your there talk to a few of the soldiers there as well. Then, when you rant or rave about the injustice done to the Iraqi people, I'll listen.

Until then, I'll just continue to scan your posts for amusement.... :D

Rod McLaughlin
11-14-2005, 10:59 PM
Neil,

I am happy to read that other global issues offend you and that you have spoken out against them. I meet way too many people who have a hatred for Bush and his policies with no basis for these beliefs. They just hate bush because it is the popular thing to do. I personally believe Bush's arrogance and short sightedness are what led the US into Iraq, I just don't believe he is the wost kid on the block. It frustrates me to see so many people putting so much effort into Bush and Iraq when there are more people suffering and dying in other parts of the world.
I do not believe we are the UN, how could we be when the average person does not have a say in the decisions that are made or not made. If we are the UN then we should be ashamed that Women in Sudan are raped for sport while the international community does nothing.

I enjoy this debate and I thank you for sharing your opinions. I hope this thread will help to peek interest and others will learn more about Bush, Iraq and other global issues and form an opinion for themselves.


I

Steve Mullen
11-15-2005, 06:52 AM
Steven wrote that there were concerns in the UK because proposed legislation breached Article 3 of the Human Rights Act. Actually the concern was that the proposed legislation breach Article 3 of the European Convention of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms in that it breached Article 3 - Prohibition against Torture or Degrading Treatment, Article 5 right to liberty and security, Article 7 no punishment without lawful authority, And Article 6 The right to a fair hearing

Hi Dave, this is basicly the same act, the human rights act 1998 was intended to 'ratify' the Convention, to make it good law in the UK, i'm just so used to reffering to the Human Right's Act for my law essays as that's what they prefer,

Sorry for any confusion.
Steve

Taliesin
11-15-2005, 11:08 AM
Steve

Yes the Human Rights Act was passed to ratify the ECHR - however when talking about those Rights lawyers tend to use the term ECHR articles - mostly 2 -14 plus protocol 6 (1), the problem is as an enabling act it incorporated the bulk of the text. (at Schedule 1 of the Act)

Anyway my point wasn't that exactly it was that there were far more reasons that the one you gave.

Sorry for being pedantic.

Neil Mick
11-15-2005, 01:40 PM
Neil, you are as predictable as the sun rise. I knew that what I posted would elicit such a response from you, the only thing that surprised me is that someone got a post in before you did.

The battle-cry of the terminally arrogant: "You are SO predictable." :rolleyes:

I'd say that this comment is equally predictable, but then I'd be in danger of recursion, so I'll pass with a quiet snigger. :p

But, the truth is this: you don't know, and I don't know because neither of us has been there. Are the Iraqi people better off without Saddam? I don't know. I don't know any Iraqi people to even ask if the Iraqi people are better off.

But the truth is: I don't NEED to be there, to know that things are going horribly wrong. Substitute "New Orleans" for "Iraq" in your last statement. Do I really need to BE in New Orleans to know that things aren't going so well?

Please.

I do know several soldiers that have served in Iraq and Afghanistan who are of the opinion that they are better off. But, you would probably just assume all soldiers who say something contrary to your opinion are lying.

Wrong. You see where arrogance gets you? You automatically assume my response because I am too trivial/stupid/whatever to bother considering, at length. Sad, really.

No, I think that Iraq is a big place. The "several soldiers" that you know might be talking from their specific viewpoints. Or, they might be lying. Or, they might be passing on the propaganda-line.

But I also have my sources. Most of them have been in Iraq; a few do not even agree with my perspectives. If even half of what they say is true: things are going very South indeed, in Iraq.

If you were stationed here in the US instead of Korea, you'd know that the majority of American's already know this. It seems that only Bush and a few of his supporters state the contrary.

Your assumption that I'm a fan of Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly is also false. I'm not the conservative you think I am.

Never said that you were. Read my post again.

And to quote the bad guy in Under Siege 2, "Assumption is the mother of all.."

Yeah, exactly. Practice what you preach.

I do know what I know and what I don't know.

Regarding the media, there's a lot more to this equation. You know what you're told; and you deduce right from wrong, based upon whom youy trust (or do not).

This is true for all of us,

And while there is a whole lot of very interesting information about the things you have mentioned, I also know that just by reading about I, I don't really know it. You chose to believe it without doubting it, fine.

Hey, believe me; don't believe me...it's not my concern. What I would LIKE, in my perfect world: is for you (or other readers) NOT to take me at my word, but to find out how true my words really are. Find out for yourself.

It fits your "rage against the machine" personality.

Yeah, well: we all have our roles to fill. :freaky:

But anybody, and I mean anybody, that preaches propaganda, whether it is liberal or conservative, as gospel truth had better have been on the ground walking if they want to carry any shred of credibility.

It's not propaganda. Propaganda is mixing truth and lie to solicit an emotional response. I expect an emotional response (at first): but when the ire dies down, I hope doubters will look up these factoids themselves...you know, try to prove or disprove my claims.

I HAVE been wrong in the past, I'm not ashamed to admit. And, when someone correctly points out an error, I acknowledge the mistake.

Now, what was that useful information about "assuming" that you were trying to tell me, as short while ago? Was there something in there about "practicing what you preach?"

But if you want to know, and you care enough about the plight of the Iraqi people to know, you can go.

Ah yes: the typical battle-cry of the Conservatively hindered: "If YOU don't like it here/want to help, why don't you go to __________?" Tsk.

Well, FYI: in case you have not noticed, it's a little dangerous for American's over there right now, thanks to our "glorious" little intervention. I have made several trips to the MidEast attempting to do just that, and I am currently involved in getting more Aikido to Middle Eastern's. You can read about it on my blog, right here on aikiweb.

You don't even have to be in the military or part of the military-industrial complex to go. There are multiple Non-governmental Organizations out there that are operating in Iraq. Both the Red Cross and Red Crescent are there. Go there, talk to the folks on the ground, and while your there talk to a few of the soldiers there as well. Then, when you rant or rave about the injustice done to the Iraqi people, I'll listen.

It doesn't take much to get you to listen, does it?? Just go over to a warzone; risk kidnapping or worse; and THEN (halleliuh!!) you'll deign to listen.

Whoah.

So, to get you to even CONSIDER my views, I need to put myself in bodily risk. That's some ideological firewall you've put up for yourself: all safe and cozy in your mindset, you won't even CONSIDER the alternative, unless they have seen it, with their own eyes.

Well, with THAT sort of mindset: there'd still be people stranded and dying, in New Orleans.

No thanks, Joe: the idea of having to "prove" my views to you by putting myself in harm's way just to make a point seems pretty stupid to me, IMO.

Until then, I'll just continue to scan your posts for amusement.... :D

You do that...goody for you.

Neil Mick
11-15-2005, 01:47 PM
Neil,

I am happy to read that other global issues offend you and that you have spoken out against them. I meet way too many people who have a hatred for Bush and his policies with no basis for these beliefs. They just hate bush because it is the popular thing to do. I personally believe Bush's arrogance and short sightedness are what led the US into Iraq, I just don't believe he is the wost kid on the block. It frustrates me to see so many people putting so much effort into Bush and Iraq when there are more people suffering and dying in other parts of the world.

You know, I agree with you, here. There is too much capping on Bush from the Left, for my tastes. I find this thinking dangerous because there are many actors in this tragedy, and making Bush the poster bad-boy is oversimplistic and misleading.

I do not believe we are the UN, how could we be when the average person does not have a say in the decisions that are made or not made.

Because, this is not how the UN is run. The UN is run by the nations, as a whole. The US, as the world's only superpower, has had tremendous pull within the UN since it began.

You and me have very little say over what goes on in the UN, just as we have very little say for what passes as foreign policy, here in the US. Oh, we can protest, sure: but it's all secondhand.

If we are the UN then we should be ashamed that Women in Sudan are raped for sport while the international community does nothing.

Absolutely.

I enjoy this debate and I thank you for sharing your opinions. I hope this thread will help to peek interest and others will learn more about Bush, Iraq and other global issues and form an opinion for themselves.

Yes, it was good chatting with you. Thank you for offering your perspectives.