Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
Andrew Sullivan has a very interesting post on his blog about the proto-fascism coming from the right on a range of issues. I think it's almost entirely accurate until the very end. here's the part I agree with:
I think proto-fascism is a better term than neo-fascism. Cheney and Bush respected the outer limits of constitutional democracy. They obeyed a Supreme Court ruling that struck down their maximalist views of their own inherent power as the executive branch. They left office after an election. They are not fascists. But they do see the executive branch as a kind of fascist element within a democratic polity, an element that can simply ignore the law or hire lawyers to twist it into meaninglessness, an element that has the inherent power to seize anyone, citizen or non-citizen, in the US or not the US, detain them without due process and torture them, in the name of national security, meaning any government response to "active threats" of terrorism.This proto-fascist tendency, proven chillingly in the last week as Cheney Republicans like Stephen Hayes called for the torture of the undie-bomber, is what worries me. It is the embrace of raw violence against the defenseless - not within the constraints of just war, but outside all constraints except victory against an 'evil' enemy.
I do think partisanship has clouded conservative eyes on this question. I don't think many on the right have yet absorbed the full ramifications of what Cheney asserted and what the GOP now holds as its view of the power of government - i.e. total power over the individual, to the point of torture, in the name of national security.
I think this is exactly right. The Bush/Cheney doctrine of executive power is proto-fascist, but they were never willing to go beyond the boundaries of the constitutional checks and balances; once the Supreme Court rejected their claims, they backed down. And it was obvious to me from the start that they would never have the gall to try to stay in power after an election (thus the several bets I made with readers on that very subject).
But here's where I think he goes wrong:
That's why, in my judgment, Obama is essential. He is the barrier between us and a form of fascism, imbued with utter moral certainty, that now animates the core of the GOP.
The problem is that when it comes to the Bush/Cheney "maximalist views of their own inherent power as the executive branch," Obama has pushed the exact same doctrine. His use of the state secrets privilege and sovereign immunity arguments has been identical to Bush's and equally proto-fascist in precisely the same sense.
If those arguments succeed, we will have an entirely unconstrained executive branch because there would no longer be any legal basis for challenging any illegal actions taken by the executive in pursuit of national security because the executive could force dismissal of any challenge merely by claiming that privilege. The result would be a president with unlimited and unchallengeable power over our lives.
It's not Obama that stands between us and that dystopic reality. Obama is fighting tooth and nail to bring it about. It's the courts that stand between us and this kind of proto-fascist future.
Politics
Comments
Agreed. If Obama is the only thing standing between us and them, we're in trouble.
Posted by: Owen | January 7, 2010 9:40 AM
It makes sense that monarchies are much more efficeint at fighting wars than democracies are, mostly from the slow rate of decision-making. King Bush shat on the constitution for 8 years. We can't expect it to change overnight.
Posted by: Anyong | January 7, 2010 9:49 AM
I know this is kind of ignoring the overall thrust of the post to dispute terminology, but I don't think that Sully is right to use the term "proto-fascist." I don't think it means what he thinks it means. Certainly, there is a sense in which "proto" might be used to mean potential, but that is such an obscure use of it, and I really can't find any examples of it being used in that context. "Proto," as you are aware, usually indicates something at an early stage, a primitive point of development, incipient, even a precocious form of a later realized theory (if you waterboarded the word "precocious"). Wagner could be considered a "proto-fascist," just like early christians holding to ideas that would eventually become orthodoxy are considered "proto-orthodox." i don't believe that you can be a proto-fascist after fascism has emerged as an expressed, implemented political system (or as an ethos, as the quote from walter in the big lebowski puts it). once fascism emerges, you can be a fascist, or a quasi-fascist, but not a proto-fascist.
Posted by: Jeff | January 7, 2010 10:02 AM
"But they do see the executive branch as a kind of fascist element within a democratic polity, an element that can simply ignore the law or hire lawyers to twist it into meaninglessness, an element that has the inherent power to seize anyone, citizen or non-citizen, in the US or not the US, detain them without due process"
Just recently, the Supreme Court let stand a lower court ruling authorizing the government to do exactly that, at the urging of the Obama administration's DOJ. So, indeed, while there have been some changes from past practices, in many crucial areas the current administration is no different from the past.
Posted by: Moopheus | January 7, 2010 10:35 AM
Anyong wrote:
This is such a lame argument. The executive branch's position on the state secrets privilege and unchecked executive power can, in fact, change overnight. It requires no legislation, no political compromise. Obama can change it with a single phone call to Holder ordering him to change the government's position in what is now about a dozen court cases. The only thing preventing that from happening is Obama's choice not to do so. Obama is shitting on the constitution in precisely the same manner that Bush did in this regard (though not in all of the same ways, it is exactly the same way when it comes to executive power and the right to challenge it in court). If he succeeds with the legal argument he is making -- the same legal argument Bush made -- the constitution is, quite literally, a dead letter. The president will then have the totally unchecked authority to do violate any law they wish, including the constitution itself, in the name of national security, and no one will have any right to challenge those actions in court. That damn well should have changed overnight. There is no sane reason to wait to change it.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | January 7, 2010 10:37 AM
Posted by: James Hanley | January 7, 2010 10:42 AM
Jeff - I think Sullivan's use is appropriate. We have empirical evidence that much of the mind-set within the conservative movement that President Bush exploited are attributes of fascism whose roots are not classically conservative. The general trend of the modern-day conservative movement continues towards a more fascist position, hence their semi-disdain for Sen. McCain but fierce emotional attachment to Ms. Palin who exploited those very attributes as we see in the mindset and behavior of teabaggers.
Certainly President Bush was not a fascist, but he either might have become if it were politically expedient and he certainly softened-up the right to be more open to a conservative movement tending more towards fascism as they continue to discard the thinking of past conservatives such as Edmund Burke, aspects of Goldwater, and conservatisms' Tory roots.
In fact what I find interesting is their attempts to merge a populist form of fascism to a corporatist form. In the past it was understand that plutocrats within the Republican party exploited their populists merely for votes without sharing their passion for their wedge issues. Those days now appear over, instead we have corportaist groups like those led by Scaife, Koch, and Armey attempting to reconcile their policy objectives with those of populists. Pershaps these plutocrats' biggest victories are getting populists to deny climate change along with conservative court appointments that have greatly stripped an individual's right to seek justice in the civil courts and have a jury determine damages.
Posted by: Michael Heath | January 7, 2010 10:44 AM
While I see Jeff's point, the problem is that whatever would follow today's radical right, were it to attain its full and terrible realization, hasn't yet been named. Maybe we should call them retro-fascists.
Posted by: Russell | January 7, 2010 10:48 AM
The courts are at best a drag on the rate of change. Given time, an alternation of Obamaist and Bushist Administrations will shape the courts to support their views of Administrative sovereignty. Justice Sotomayor is a good example of this direction.
You may well point to the Senate as a counterweight to this kind of Court-packing, but of course the Senate is also responsive to the electorate's fears, and we've already seen how much of a counterweight they are.
No, the buck stops right here: the voting public of the United States is in the process of getting the Government we want -- and I fear that it's the one we deserve.
Posted by: D. C. Sessions | January 7, 2010 10:49 AM
I agree completely with Sullivan that the present-day American right has become a fascist-leaning, fascist-sympathizing entity. I agree completely with Ed that Obama does not present, in terms of his own policies, a decisive break with the anti-democratic direction in which Bush/Cheney lead the country.
However, I think Sullivan has a point about Obama being the hindrance to further proto-fascism...in the minds of right-wingers. They will never accept Obama as a legitimate leader and authority, no matter how much he toes their line. Now, does this mean anything in the long run? Probably not, as Obama's policies are far more momentous than what crazed authoritarians think of him. But Sullivan at least gets it right that there is a division between Obama's anti-democratic policy leanings and the full-fledged proto-fascism of the right, even if there's not much of a distinction.
Posted by: Sadie Morrison | January 7, 2010 11:00 AM
I don't actually believe the following but it is what some aquaintances of mine are claiming:
"Obama is trying to do good things- but he can't afford to do the best things- because many Americans, including a significant protion of congress, would see doing the best things as being soft on terrorism, crime etc."
Many claim Obama is simply playing the averages to try to get some arguably positive things in place (such as watered down healthcare and "fixing the economy") without alienating the religious right, the law and order crowd, militarists, nativists, corporate supporters etc..."
In other word let not the best be the enemy of the good.
I'd be intersted in the comments of others on this analysis.
M Duran
Posted by: Dark Duran | January 7, 2010 11:00 AM
Obama is using fully the precedents set by the Bush administration--perhaps not actively at the moment, but he's certainly made no steps to countermand those precedents.
If he were not merely a slick political package, it should've been one of his 1st duties, along with charging & prosecuting both Bush & Cheney for war crimes, or at the very least, not actively preventing a multi-national war tribunal from opening any similar proceedings.
I think we'll find, as we progress further into the 21st century, the events on 9/11/01 kick-started a lot of changes, both constitutionally & politically. There is a paradigm shift occuring at the highest levels...one that the freedom loving masses will not be too keen on.
Posted by: William | January 7, 2010 11:05 AM
Michael: I am not disputing that the Bush administration manifested terrifying fascist tendencies. Nor do I dispute the fact that the teabagger movement would go one further than the Bush administration (I would like to point out here that many of these people are clearly idiots, as they would accuse Obama of being a fascist and a socialist at the same time, which is a bit like being a klansman and a black panther at the same time. Only the right, which ironically seeks to "preserve" tradition, can have such a terrible understanding of history that it can make such an assertion, or produce a book with the absurd title "Liberal Fascism."). One of the most uncanny aspects of this whole movement on the right is comparing it to two works written by Theodor Adorno (et al.) in the aftermath of the defeat of Nazi Germany . Reading his analysis of authoritarian/fascist personalities in "The Authoritarian Personality" or "Freudian Theory and the Theory of Fascist Propaganda" is terrifying. This is an intellectual who was forced to flee Germany along with other members of the Frankfurt School in the early days of Hitler's rise to power. He was a first-hand observer, and later wrote about the make-up of the fascist personality. It is remarkable how similar the picture he paints of the fascist personality looks to the picture of a typical teabagger/bush admin supporter/cheney.
My objection is to the use of the prefix "proto" as that prefix would imply that fascism has not yet emerged, but is in its infant stage, or has yet to be "canonized." while i understand the desire to qualify the charge of fascism, and to pull back a bit from using that term, i think that one would need a different prefix to do so. I rather like Russell's "retro-fascists." One could also go with "authoritarian assholes."
Posted by: jeff | January 7, 2010 11:07 AM
Here's a very worthwhile analysis of the degrees of fascism, as applied to the contemporary USA.
The above link is the 1st in a 3-part series. Here's the final piece, which contains a link to the middle (omitted to bypass the moderation filter): the sequelae are about protecting democracy, but not so much about relying on the courts.
Posted by: Pierce R. Butler | January 7, 2010 11:08 AM
William wrote:
It's much worse than this. The Obama administration is quite actively pushing the state secrets privilege in nearly a dozen separate cases now in the courts. This is not merely passive neglect, it is active destruction of the separation of powers and the constitutional safeguards against a lawless executive.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | January 7, 2010 11:16 AM
I gotta tell ya--I just chuckle everytime I hear "teabaggers"--I mean come on! Not one single person from the right knew the sexual connotations associated with that phrase?
They truly are a bunch of morons--protesting taxes that don't exist, whining about gun laws that haven't changed in years and bemoaning policy that was created in the Bush administration, for crying out loud!.
And not one journalistic outlet from the MSM thought fit to point this out? What a world...what a world...(I'm melting...melting).
Posted by: William | January 7, 2010 11:20 AM
The one possible upside to the Obama administration continuing to embrace the Bush/Cheney policies, and to assert them in court challenges, is that they will eventually force an opinion by the SCOTUS. An assertion of power will succeed if it remains unchallenged (or if the challenge is dropped before final resolution), and although the legality would be uncertain, it would set a very weak sort of precedence for the existence of that power, which can grow in strength with time. (And a number implied executive powers exist because, early on, Congress did nothing, and over time their legitimacy was strengthened on the basis of "tradition").
If the Obama administration just reverted to the status quo ante by executive decision, it would moot all the current litigation. Thus, nothing would prevent another Bush/Cheney-like executive from reviving those claims of authority later. IOW, better to litigate it now and settle the matter with the full record that has been created presently, than have to do it later. Even if the SC sides with the executive branch, at least we will get clarity on the issue, which would allow us to consider what we have, and possibly change it.
Posted by: Divalent | January 7, 2010 11:27 AM
@ Ed Brayton:
That really is frightening. I am very concerned about where this country is headed--even more concerned about where it is already...without us even suspecting.
Face it, the masses are absolutely clueless as to what's happening right under their very noses. I've never been one to jump on any conspiracy band wagon, but I do believe there has been an active & on-going effort (by whom? I do not know) to dumb down the American public...an effort in place since the Nixon era. And not only to dumb us all down, but to indoctrinate us into a state of abject apathy.
And so here we are--the results of that effort all grown up & ready for programming. That frightens me...because it's already a done deal.
Posted by: William | January 7, 2010 11:31 AM
I've been reading Dispatches for many years now (and it's fueled a number of arguments -- er, discussions -- with my wife), and generally find myself in agreement with Ed. And this topic is no exception -- I'm profoundly disappointed in Obama's continuation of Bush-era policies on executive power and his failure to investigate the prior administration's abuses (though I can perceive the political utility of both stances). However, every time I'm tempted to say that I regret voting for Obama, I consider the alternative and shudder. (And since I live in Colorado, which generally goes Republican but went Democratic this time around, I feel like my vote counted.)
Similarly, I find it difficult or impossible to imagine that the Republicans will field a candidate in 2012 who will be a better choice than Obama. But that doesn't mean we need to give the current President a free ride, and I applaud Ed and his vocal compatriots for continuing to speak out against abuses and hypocrisy.
Posted by: Squiddhartha | January 7, 2010 11:31 AM
Sadie @ 10 - well put.
Posted by: Michael Heath | January 7, 2010 11:37 AM
You mean you 'threw away' your vote, instead of helping to validate a three-party system? All bark and no bite, Jim. ;~)
Posted by: Gingerbaker | January 7, 2010 11:43 AM
> It makes sense that monarchies are much more efficient at
> fighting wars than democracies are, mostly from the slow rate
> of decision-making.
I would take great exception to that - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coalition_Government_1940%E2%80%931945
Posted by: David Durant | January 7, 2010 11:43 AM
The problem with threads about fascism nowadays is that nobody has the same definition of the word, and yet we parse fine nuances.
Fascism has become almost like pornography - we can't seem to be able to define it, but we know it when we see it, or at least we think we do. Our grandparents have a much higher visual acuity, a better nose, for this ugly thing, of that we can be sure. They lived through it.
And many of them smelled the stench of fascism emanating from the Bush administration, and wrote compellingly from first-hand experience of the eerie and frighteningly multifarious parallels between life under Bush and life under the nascent Nazi Reich. It is my believe that the people who actually lived under 20th century fascism would have no hesitation at all in asserting that Bush was indeed a fascist.
It seems to me if we are going to discuss fascism and fascists, we need to agree on their definitions.
Posted by: Gingerbaker | January 7, 2010 12:06 PM
> It seems to me if we are going to discuss fascism and fascists,
> we need to agree on their definitions.
Also, alas, Godwin comes into play : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law
Posted by: David Durant | January 7, 2010 12:21 PM
Gingerbaker - my sense of fascism is a formal study of it. Both Jeff and myself noted fascist elements of the conservative movement, which included words and deeds by President Bush as well. Therefore I don't think your argument is in contradiction with mine unless you believe the modern day conservative's increasingly fascist tendencies actually turned the conservative movement into one that by definition is fascist.
I think what Sullivan, Jeff, and I are stating is that while conservatives have said, supported, and done things consistent with fascism, that volume hasn't reached a tipping point where they are by definition fascist. A good example was Sullivan's point that President Bush willingly left office in spite of his party and his movement losing power in an election. Your example of the Nazis portrays an opposite result, once they had power, they lost power only by losing a war.
Posted by: Michael Heath | January 7, 2010 12:25 PM
I always get edgy when the word "fascist" gets thrown around. We really do need clear definitions. And I'd really argue in favour of not conflating fascism with National Socialism and not using "fascist" to simply mean authoritarian/nationalist/conservative. The fascist movements I'm familiar with (Hungary, Portugal, Austria, the Spanish Falange, Italy) marketed themselves as something more than just conservative/nationalist. They also marketed themselves as modernisers, as having an economic plan that wasn't Marxist or capitalist and that would modernise economy and society in some heroic way. Fascism where it was marketed outside of Europe (e.g., places like Brazil) in the 1930s offered the same thing. Fascist movements and governments pick up nationalist and conservative support and partners, but there's a world of difference between, say, Gombos and Imredy in Hungary and populist/religious/nationalist movements like the Arrow Cross.
I dislike the Republican Right on all sorts of grounds, but I wouldn't call them "fascist". Now the teabagger/Palin people--- they do have a whiff of the Arrow Cross or the Croatian Ustasha or the Iron Guard/Legion of the Archangel Michael. Governments like Salazar's of Dollfuss' were authoritarian, and opponents could end up dead fairly easily--- but they weren't the really crazy, proudly irrational populist groups like the Iron Guard or the Arrow Cross.
Posted by: DesertHedgehog | January 7, 2010 1:15 PM
Michael: Well said.
David: I can appreciate Godwin's law, but I do not think that every time someone mentions fascism it shoud be invoked. If you cannot discuss fascism when discussing a group that champions a paternalistic, nativist, populist, authoritarian system aimed at preserving "traditional values" and near-monopoly capitalism, and which enjoys substantial support from paramilitary organizations, when is the comparison apt?
Posted by: jeff | January 7, 2010 1:16 PM
*grin* I hear you.
But there was no way in hell I was going to vote for Bob Barr or John McCain (although McCain would have garnered my vote if it had been two years earlier, before he became a total right-wing suckup and Bush Clone). As displeased as I am with Obama, if you gave me a time machine I wouldn't go back and change my vote.
Posted by: James Hanley | January 7, 2010 1:39 PM
D.C. Sessions at #9:
Funny, I would have put that the other way around: regarding authoritarianism, we're getting the government we deserve and what scares me is that it is the government too many people seem to want.
Posted by: Scott Hanley | January 7, 2010 1:47 PM
Posted by: llewelly | January 7, 2010 2:09 PM
I can't remember which President it was but one of them, upon gaining office, instructed federal lawyers to literally switch sides and start defending the people they had been prosecuting. My memory's hazy.
Anyway, IANAL but Ed's right - there really is no reason why Obama couldn't just instruct DOJ to flip and start arguing in favor of judicial review of excutive branch actions in all the currently open cases instead of arguing against it. All it takes is a phone call.
It is doubly surprising coming from Obama. When a President comes from a background of being a Governor, you can understand why he might defend a strong executive. That's what he's always been. But Obama was a Senator; you'd expect from his background that he'd understand the problems of an unchecked executive.
Posted by: eric | January 7, 2010 3:39 PM
I watched the whole Charles Johnson/Conn Carroll discussion at bloggingheads. Carroll is a fucking shit. At basically every turn he tries to twist Johnson's objections into something much more extreme than what he's actually saying. He never actually seriously addresses Johnson's reasons for leaving the right.
But I guess that shouldn't be a shock, seeing as Carroll came from the Heritage Foundation, and they're one of the entities generating precisely the kind of bullshit that alienates moderate conservatives like Johnson.
Posted by: Wes | January 7, 2010 4:11 PM
If you cannot discuss fascism when discussing a group that champions a paternalistic, nativist, populist, authoritarian system aimed at preserving "traditional values" and near-monopoly capitalism,...
..., virulent anti-intellectualism, obsessive preoccupation with community decline, and a rampant climate of victimization, revolutionary action,...
...and which enjoys substantial support from paramilitary organizations, when is the comparison apt?
Posted by: jimmiraybob | January 7, 2010 4:30 PM
One of the most distressing things about the Obama administration's decision to continue the Bush administration's excessive executive power policies is that even a discussion of these actions is almost impossible. His opponents scream about the babies he hasn't murdered with puppies while not shoving them down the throats to not muzzle old ladies to death, all the while ignoring this legitimate issue of concern. On the other hand his supporters, for the most part, wave away and excuse his actions along the line of, 'he isn't really doing so, he is slowly rolling them back, he can't change everything all at once,' etc. etc. etc.
Problem is, and this is stated as an Obama supporter, I felt he was the best candidate, I still think he is, but I am profoundly disappointed in his stance on these issues. He isn't 'slowly backing away,' he is actively embracing these policies and aggressively defending his administration's "right" to implement them. I didn't expect a liberal, unlike some pie-in-the-sky supporters, I saw him as a moderate, even slightly right-leaning moderate, but I did hope he would protect the constitution and our rights.
As I've said so many times before ... *sigh*
Posted by: dogmeatib | January 7, 2010 6:06 PM
I'm not one for conspiracies but it seems all presidents tend to take one legacy seriously - never give ground on executive power, in fact expand it.
President Obama is everything I expected when I voted for him, absolutely zero surprises except that he's exactly what he presented himself as and except in these cases. I think the liberals asking 'where the change?' voted for a liberal Obama in their head rather than the person who campaigned. I think the conservatives who claimed we didn't know him and now are blaming all real and perceived ills on him are doing what they always do, acting in a manner consistent with dishonest delusional partisan idiots.
Being an optimist and given Mr. Obama's being steeped in history and the Constitution, I thought he'd be better on executive power. I thought he'd distinguish himself amongst other Presidents, especially since I thought he'd want to be a Supreme Court justice someday after his tenure as president is over (Though that nomination is scheduled after his stint as the Antichrist when Palin leads us into Armageddon against a UN headed by Hillary and Bill Clinton.) Instead I'm becoming convinced there must be some secret President's club that gets all of them regardless of party to extend the power of the office; maybe they get Tiger Woods' speed dial list for committing to such (too early?).
Posted by: Michael Heath | January 7, 2010 6:32 PM
Have any of you not heard about the growing crimes of organized stalking and electronic harassment? You will not believe what is going on right here in our own neighbourhoods under the guise of citizen watch groups and “national security” gone, well, nutz. Believe it or not it appears to be a form of domestic terrorism right here in Canada and the United states. Shouldn’t rights and freedoms be protected here in North American against such torture before protecting them overseas?
http://www.freedomfchs.com/
catchcanada.net
raven1.net
Thanks for your time,
Justin TI, Ottawa, Canada.
Posted by: Justin TI | January 7, 2010 7:32 PM
Justin, I would be prepared to believe you, unfortunately the site you link to seems to treat common symptoms of mental illness such as hearing voices and sudden paranoia as evidence of surveillance. I would seriously worry that you might discourage people from seeking medical help by validating their delusions.
Posted by: Matty | January 8, 2010 7:00 AM
Thanks for responding Matty. I'm glad you took a moment to check out the link. Did you look at the catchcanada.net site?
catchcanada.net
You're right, the deniability of these crimes is what's fuelling their growth. I'm a mental health professional and have seen victimization through these crimes first hand. Resultantly, I have researched organized stalking and electronic harassment to confirm their existence. The Toronto Rape Crisis center has out-rightly acknowledged and supported victims. The American Victims of Crime Center receives thousands of calls per month as well (at least 10% of their calls) from people calling in because they are experiencing organized stalking. I’ve talked to both organizations personally to confirm these facts.
I have had detailed exchanges with several genuine victims of organized stalking, many of whom are highly educated, and who do not present with any of the clinically relevant symptoms of a psychotic or a delusional nature, - they simply demonstrate normal emotional and psychological reactions consistent with what they are going through.
- Justin.
Posted by: Justin TI | January 8, 2010 10:45 AM
That the Obama White House is obsessed with the state secrets privilege, doesn't mean the executive is "lawless". It's always been the case that anybody (whether it's the executive or just some average Joe) can try any defence in court. It doesn't mean they'll be successful. If the judiciary is competent enough and the defence is ridiculous enough, then it'll fail. All that's wrong with what's happening is that Obama and his people think it's okay to chuck the state secrets privilege around like it's going out of fashion. It's quite clearly not okay. But it's a fundamental principle of law that you can try any defence, and it'll succeed if there's "reasonable doubt".
Posted by: Bob | January 8, 2010 6:31 PM
Next Stop Fascism?
Does Sarah Palin Support McCain’s bill S.3081 That Calls For—Indefinite Detention of U.S. Citizens On Mere Suspicion?
On March 4, 2010, Sen. John McCain introduced S.3081, The “Enemy Belligerent Interrogation, Detention, and Prosecution Act of 2010.”
Sen. McCain’s S.3081 would eliminate several Constitutional protections allowing Government to arbitrarily pick up Americans on mere suspicion—with no probable cause. Your political opinions and statements made against U.S. Government could be used by Authorities to deem you a “hostile” “Enemy Belligerent” to cause your arrest and indefinite detention. S.3081 is so broadly written innocent anti-war protesters and Tea Party Groups might be arrested and detained just for attending demonstrations; Government can charge that attending demonstrations "materially supported hostilities."
Considering how often Sarah Palin defends Free Speech, one can’t help wonder why Palin is helping McCain’s reelection to the U.S. Senate after he introduced possibly the most anti-Free Speech Bill in Modern U.S. History. Perhaps Palin or her Tea Party supporters haven’t considered McCain’s legislation might be used by a corrupt government administration to crush them. Tea Parties might question Palin whether she supports Sen. McCain’s bill the “Enemy Belligerent Interrogation, Detention, and Prosecution Act of 2010.” (S.3081)
Under S.3081, an “individual” need only be Suspected by Government of “suspicious activity” or “supporting hostilities” to be dragged off and held indefinitely in Military Custody. Government will have the power to detain and interrogate any individual without probable cause. Government need only allege an individual kept in detention, is an Unprivileged Enemy Belligerent suspected of; having engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners; or has purposefully and materially supported hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners. How could one prove to Government they did not purposely do something? “Materially Supporting Hostilities” against the United States could include any person or group that spoke out or demonstrated disapproval against an agency of U.S. Government. It is foreseeable many Americans might go underground to Resist Government Tyranny. Definition for Unprivileged Enemy Belligerent: (Anyone Subject to a Military Commission)
At least under the Patriot Act, law enforcement generally needed probable cause to detain a person indefinitely. Passage of S.3081 will permit government to use “mere suspicion” to curtail an individual’s Constitutional Protections against unlawful arrest, detention and interrogation without benefit of legal counsel and trial. According to S.3081 Government is not required to provide detained individuals U.S. Miranda Warnings or even an attorney.
S.3081 if passed will frighten Americans from speaking out. S.3081 is so broadly written, it appears any “individual” who writes on the Internet or verbally express an opinion against or an entity of U.S. Government or its coalition partners might be detained on the basis he or she is an “unprivileged enemy belligerent”, “supporting hostilities against U.S. Government.”
How might Americans respond should Government use this bill to take away their loved ones, family members and friends on mere suspicion? It is foreseeable McCain’s bill will drive lawful political activists underground, perhaps creating the domestic terrorists McCain said we needed to be protected from.
McCain’s bill mentions “non-violent acts" supporting terrorism in the U.S. and or emanating from America against a Coalition Partner. Non-violent terrorist acts" are covered in the Patriot Act to prosecute Persons that support “coercion to influence a government or intimidation to affect a civilian population.” However, U.S. activists and individuals under S.3081 would be much more vulnerable to prosecution, if (charged with suspicion) of “intentionally providing support to an Act of Terrorism”, for example American activists can’t control what other activists might do illegally—they network with domestically and overseas. Under the Patriot Act, law enforcement generally needs probable cause to detain or prosecute someone. But under S.3081, law enforcement and the military can too easily use (hearsay or informants) to allege “suspicious activity” to detain an individual. It is problematic under S.3081 that detained individuals in the U.S. not involved in terrorism or hostile activities, not given Miranda Warnings or allowed legal counsel will be prosecuted for ordinary crimes because of their alleged admissions while in military custody.
Notably, McCain’s S.3081 mandates (merging) Federal, State and Local Police and subsequently the U.S. Military to detain and hold Individuals in the U.S., even without probable cause. Interestingly a Rand Report prepared for the Army, recently made public, appears to suggest that U.S. Government develop a Local, State and Federal U.S. "National Police Stabilization Force merging State law enforcement with the Feds. What could happen to State Rights and what Laws and Jurisdiction would be used to prosecute state Citizens arrested by a National Police Stabilization Force? A National Police Force could potentially be sent by the President into any State with the approval of its governor, against the wishes of its Citizens? To clarify the Rand Corporation report visit:
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageI...
Historically it is foreseeable under S.3081 that "erroneous informant information" could be used to detain innocent Individuals. Other countries have used lying informants to imprison; even execute political opposition.
Under S.3081 government may use an individual’s phone call and email information to allege without probable cause “suspicious or hostile activity against a U.S. civilian population or the United States to detain Americans.”
(Make Your Own Determination If The Analysis Herein Is Correct) See McCain’s 12-page Senate bill S.3081 at:
assets.theatlantic.com/static/mt/assets/politics/ARM10090.pdf
FYI: below is enclosed a copy of “Hitler’s Discriminatory Decrees signed February 28, 1933.” Although the Nazi Decrees are written differently than S.3081, the McCain bill could bring America to the same place crushing free speech and personal liberty. Note how the Nazi Government in Section (1) and (4), similar to U.S. S.3081, suspend personal liberty— shutdown Free Speech to intimidate Citizens speaking out against Government:
See Section 1
“Sections 114, 115, 117, 118, 123, 124, and 153 of the Constitution of the German Reich are suspended until further notice. Thus, restrictions on personal liberty, on the right of free expression of opinion, including freedom of the press, on the right of assembly and the right of association, and violations of the privacy of postal, telegraphic, and telephonic communications, and warrants for house-searches, orders for confiscations as well as restrictions on property, are also permissible beyond the legal limits otherwise prescribed.”
Similar to McCain’s S. 3081, but using different wording the Nazi Government in Section (4) see below, suspended Constitutional rights, ordered the arrest of Citizens for any ACT that might incite or provoke disobedience against state authorities. McCain’s S.3081 instead mentions detaining and prosecuting Individuals for “supporting hostilities” against U.S. Government. S.3081 is so broadly written any person or group attending a protest could be arrested without provable cause and detained if government charged a protest-supported hostilities.
See Section 4
Whoever provokes, or appeals for or incites to the disobedience of the orders given out by the supreme state authorities or the authorities subject to then for the execution of this decree, or the orders given by the Reich Government according to Section 2, is punishable—insofar as the deed, is not covered by the decree with more severe punishment and with imprisonment of not less that one month, or with a fine from 150 up to 15,000 Reichsmarks.
DECREE OF THE REICH PRESIDENT FOR THE PROTECTION OF THE PEOPLE AND STATE
Note: Based on translations by State Department, National Socialism, 1942 PP. 215-17, and Pollak, J.K., and Heneman, H.J., The Hitler Decrees, (1934), pp. 10-11.7
In virtue of Section 48 (2) of the German Constitution, the following is decreed as a defensive measure against Communist acts of Violence, endangering the state:
Section 1
Sections 114, 115, 117, 118, 123, 124, and 153 of the Constitution of the German Reich are suspended until further notice. Thus, restrictions on personal liberty, on the right of free expression of opinion, including freedom of the press, on the right of assembly and the right of association, and violations of the privacy of postal, telegraphic, and telephonic communications, and warrants for house-searches, orders for confiscations as well as restrictions on property, are also permissible beyond the legal limits otherwise prescribed.
Section 2
If in a state the measures necessary for the restoration of public security and order are not taken, the Reich Government may temporarily take over the powers of the highest state authority.
Section 4
Whoever provokes, or appeals for or incites to the disobedience of the orders given out by the supreme state authorities or the authorities subject to then for the execution of this decree, or the orders given by the Reich Government according to Section 2, is punishable—insofar as the deed, is not covered by the decree with more severe punishment and with imprisonment of not less that one month, or with a fine from 150 up to 15,000 Reichsmarks.
Who ever endangers human life by violating Section 1, is to be punished by sentence to a penitentiary, under mitigating circumstances with imprisonment of not less than six months and, when violation causes the death of a person, with death, under mitigating circumstances with a penitentiary sentence of not less that two years. In addition the sentence my include confiscation of property.
Whoever provokes an inciter to or act contrary to public welfare is to be punished with a penitentiary sentence, under mitigating circumstances, with imprisonment of not less than three months.
Section 5
The crimes which under the Criminal Code are punishable with penitentiary for life are to be punished with death: i.e., in Sections 81 (high treason), 229 (poisoning), 306 (arson), 311 (explosion), 312 (floods), 315, paragraph 2 (damage to railroad properties, 324 (general poisoning).
Insofar as a more severe punishment has not been previously provided for, the following are punishable with death or with life imprisonment or with imprisonment not to exceed 15 years:
1. Anyone who undertakes to kill the Reich President or a member or a commissioner of the Reich Government or of a state government, or provokes to such a killing, or agrees to commit it, or accepts such an offer, or conspires with another for such a murder;
2. Anyone who under Section 115 (2) of the Criminal Code (serious rioting) or of Section 125 (2) of the Criminal Code (serious disturbance of the peace) commits the act with arms or cooperates consciously and intentionally with an armed person;
3. Anyone who commits a kidnapping under Section 239 of the Criminal with the intention of making use of the kidnapped person as a hostage in the political struggle.
Section 6
This decree enters in force on the day of its promulgation.
Reich President
Reich Chancellor
Reich Minister of the Interior
Reich Minister of Justice
Posted by: Dan Scott | April 17, 2010 7:42 AM