I’d also recommend The Warning, which features Wolf, but also the brilliant Chris Hedges and Joe Conason…

The Warning exposes the dangerous excesses of last eight years and warns against allowing those changes to go unchallenged during the next administration. Five authors, during extensive interviews, uncover the political and economic forces behind this radical transformation of American democracy.

http://www.truthtopower.tv/

great article Lee!

On point 5, harassment of citizens groups. Note the increasing calls to probe the ‘proportionality’ of the responses of police to protests (Kingsnorth Climate Camp a recent example). Note also the development of the national protester database, yet another system not debated by Parliament. Note further that because ACPO, the organisation responsible, is a private company (funded by Home Office grant) we cannot use the FOIA to get information about that database.

Cheers for that, I can’t believe I missed out the database given how important that is relation to these ten steps.

“I believe this is the most important film to be made on the issue of civil liberties and the erosion of the rights and protections of citizens against their state”

“The reality is that while we’re not quite on America’s level we are getting there,”

And yet in the U.S., we’re about to have a perfectly orderly transition of democratic power with the outgoing administration going out of there way to be as helpful as possible. Typcal liberal Bush derangement hyperbole.

“I believe this is the most important film to be made since an inconvenient truth;”

Yup, hyperbole it is then!

“Typcal liberal Bush derangement hyperbole.”

The facts are right there to be seen, there’s nothing that has been said in the book or film that is anything other than documented truth. Also, Naomi’s book was written in the lead up to Elections in the US, no doubt she had every fear that a republican government would continue to reign in America and that Liberties would continue to be taken away. For all the good feeling there is also still no guarantee that, aside from Guantanamo, the democrats will give the US people back these liberties.

Call it hyperbole if you like, but all you’re doing is making it easier for the few individuals with enough power to take your democracy away to be able to do so, if they’re aiming to do so.

You could apply most of those points to the EU, which is lot less accountable to the people that the US Govt, is hideously corrupt, developing its own private army and unlike the US is becoming ever more powerful. Look how it treats dissenters:

http://www.thefirstpost.co.uk/46253,opinion,justice-for-the-reporter-who-dared-take-on-brussels

And yet in the U.S., we’re about to have a perfectly orderly transition of democratic power with the outgoing administration going out of there way to be as helpful as possible.

Although I advocated vocally to all my American readers that they vote for Obama – it is still yrue that many of the departments that Bush.Cheney created will still be there in 4 years. That in itself leads to an easier transition.

With the election of the monarch in the US every 4 years – the ‘loyalty’ of the American armed forces change – Bush will become an ordinary citizen once more, Obama the president – a very powerful man indeed. He will be held accountable in 4 years – will he campaign on a different theme then? Who knows – he isn’t even sworn in yet.

But in the UK, you can see, if you were not so blind, that the erosion of the civil liberties of the UK populace is happening out in the open – the best of all places to hide it. And you will find people like yourself claiming that we, liberals, should all wear our custom made tinfoil hats and have a cup of tea.

There is no warning that we can give you so strong that you will listen, there is no voice so loud that can make you hear, there is no script so available for you to see, other than what we civil liberty advocates show you, and that is what you ignore.

When they are all gone, all in the name of security, and of course ‘For the sake of the children’ you may well have passed to the next level of spirituality, darkness, or being judged by God – take ya pick – but that will not mean that while you were on this mortal coil all these things happened and you did nothing about it.

Your beloved Conservative party will do nothing to change what Labour has/is doing, why would they, it means that they can transition into power with ease – and carry on the status quo.

As Lee says:

The facts are right there to be seen, there’s nothing that has been said in the book or film that is anything other than documented truth.

If you dismiss them – that is your prerogative, but we, liberals, will still fight as much as we can to keep your liberties and return those to you that have been taken away, as soon as we can.

No thanks are required.

CC,
“And yet in the U.S., we’re about to have a perfectly orderly transition of democratic power with the outgoing administration going out of there way to be as helpful as possible.”

That is, until you start considering Israel/Gaza the 52nd state.

Imagine two parties, each otherwise indistringuishable, one offering “liberty, equality, fraternity” and the other “security, prosperity, celebrity” – which do you think would win?

Hands up all those who think there would’ve been a “velvet revolution” in Eastern Europe at the end of the 1980s if their living standards had been as high as ours?

I occasionally think I should do the National Lottery in the hope of winning enough money to commission a few opinion poll questions. One of my recurring favourites is:-

“Please listen carefully to the following two statements.

1. I have a duty as a citizen to get involved with the way this country is run.
2. It’s better for me to mind my own business – ordinary people can’t change anything, anyway.

Which of them comes closer to expressing your own view?”

BTW, if that question has been asked a link to the answers it got would be most appreciated.

If you dismiss them – that is your prerogative, but we, liberals, will still fight as much as we can to keep your liberties and return those to you that have been taken away, as soon as we can.

Well said.

“Typcal liberal Bush derangement hyperbole.”

People like you don’t deserve to live in a free society.

Bush and his pals have come very close to destroying the US. The courts are now packed with right wing fascist judges who only obey their corporate masters. The constitution has been thrown in the trash can. The bill of rights is on life support. The economy has been destroyed in the name of deregulation and free market doctrine. Bush has put trillions on the deficit that will take generations to pay off and means that there will be no hope of any major social reforms, like health care.

Let’s see how Obama gets on before we claim that everything is fine. I believe that Obama is going to find out just how difficult it is to do anything. Which is why he keeps reaching out to the right wing. Big mistake in my opinion, because these people don’t do compromise.

It’s not like this stuff hasn’t happened but Naomi Klein is a lefty. “Left” (along with “Right”) are pseudo political distinctions that serve to generate much heat but little light. People who identify themselves with these terms are entering a state of mind that obscures and falsifies politics for the sake of entertaining conflict.

And nothing could more obscure politics than this Gnostic idea that history occurs according to knowable “patterns”. The 10 points written here bare only superficial similarity to that of fascist states and movements. The justifications for the repressive measures are entirely different. For instance the “bogey man” of “terrorism”. By terrorism is meant Islamic Jihad, but the American establishment fanatically believes in non-discrimination (the same media, the same journalists, that sold you WMD in Iraq also fawn over Obama), for this reason they have to conceal the conflict behind the term “terrorism”.

For someone deep in this state of mind unmasking there schemes intimidates and frightens them, judging from Will Rhodes lengthy response to “Conservative Cabbie’s” factual point which includes a paragraph of smarmy materialist chauvinism (paragraph 5).

Do you know that the inmates of Guantanamo Bay are allowed to read Koran’s? Do you think that therefore even the waterboarder interrogators believe in tolerance and non-discrimination, along with it’s corollary belief that all religions ultimately express the same truths of universal brotherhood?

When you take the ideological blinkers off and overcome the spiritual trauma of liberalism, could it be possible that this conflict is invited by liberals believing themselves to represent the world (“we are the world”), complete with Universal State (“Our last best hope on Earth”), complete with fanatical denial that the world is differentiated (“One-World”)?

Do you know that the inmates of Guantanamo Bay are allowed to read Koran’s? Do you think that therefore even the waterboarder interrogators believe in tolerance and non-discrimination, along with it’s corollary belief that all religions ultimately express the same truths of universal brotherhood?

I don’t understand this point.

““Typcal liberal Bush derangement hyperbole.”

People like you don’t deserve to live in a free society.”

It goes to show how liberal’s demonise their opponents, or even “others”.

Remebmer Abu Ghraib? Who could forget it. They tortured those Arab men in a manner that plays on their fear of homosexuality. Why? Maybe it’s because Americans are sexually liberated and tolerant and regard “homophobes” as mentally diseased and not fully human.

“Liberalism”, “left” and “right” are pseudo political chauvinism, and are paltry substitute for real virtue.

If you dismiss them – that is your prerogative, but we, liberals, will still fight as much as we can to keep your liberties and return those to you that have been taken away, as soon as we can.

No thanks are required.

Smug, aren’t we? Let me capture your moral high ground. You’re happy to bleat about liberty but in practice you want a Big State, top-down agenda invariably involving high taxes.

It’s your lot – the liberal, progressive left – that are currently in power. Don’t complain now about loss of liberty. This is invariably what you get when you put a bunch of lefties in power with contempt for traditional freedom and contempt for the free individual.

Cicero, do you come here only to troll with your own smugness or do you have anything intelligent to say? Because, so far, you haven’t shown much indication of it.

If you’re just trolling – this isn’t the place. See the comments policy above.

“It’s your lot – the liberal, progressive left – that are currently in power. Don’t complain now about loss of liberty. This is invariably what you get when you put a bunch of lefties in power with contempt for traditional freedom and contempt for the free individual.”

This post is about Bush and America. You are just Regurgitating you moronic talking points that are long on rhetoric but have no facts. Classic Conservative troll.

Cicero:

“It’s your lot – the liberal, progressive left – that are currently in power.”

There is no evidence of this whatsoever, at least on the liberties side of things.

Garzak:

“It’s not like this stuff hasn’t happened but Naomi Klein is a lefty.”

Naomi Wolf wrote this book, Naomi Klein is irrelevant to this debate.

“And nothing could more obscure politics than this Gnostic idea that history occurs according to knowable “patterns”.”

The idea that history occurs according to patterns, knowable or not, has nothing to do with obscuring politics, it’s a completely different subject in to which the state of politics informs.

“The 10 points written here bare only superficial similarity to that of fascist states and movements.”

They are indeed the ten points shared by fascist states and movements throughout history. Should the US be proud to join that company given it’s history of liberty?

“The justifications for the repressive measures are entirely different. For instance the “bogey man” of “terrorism”. By terrorism is meant Islamic Jihad, but the American establishment fanatically believes in non-discrimination (the same media, the same journalists, that sold you WMD in Iraq also fawn over Obama), for this reason they have to conceal the conflict behind the term “terrorism”.”

This is the number one mistake that people like yourself seem to need to fall in to. “We’re not like that, it’s *completely* different to those other fascists.”, or… “What we’re doing isn’t fascistic because we’re doing it for the right reasons!”

Since when have these arguments ever held up to scrutiny in history? Time will tell on this but I feel (and hope) that we will be looking back at America and seeing how the world dodged a bullet.

For someone deep in this state of mind unmasking there schemes intimidates and frightens them, judging from Will Rhodes lengthy response to “Conservative Cabbie’s” factual point which includes a paragraph of smarmy materialist chauvinism (paragraph 5).

Conservative Cabbie’s point, factual as it was, bears no relation to the erosion of liberties nor the precarious situation this particular western democracy finds itself in. No-one, not even the author of the book, is claiming that the US is Nazi Germany, nor are they claiming that everything has been lost. What they are saying, simply and clearly backed up by a variety of facts is that the US is following the same model as Germany did.

Is it really the best course of action to blinker ourselves and say “nah it won’t be that bad” until the actual point of no return is reached? At worst we Liberals will have made a fuss over nothing while inconveniencing no-one, so what’s it matter to you if you don’t believe what we’re saying if we do anything or not? Or is that simply an ironic statement given that it is we who are liberal and wish for freedom while it would appear you are not so happy with “liberalism” and would rather we shut up?

Do you know that the inmates of Guantanamo Bay are allowed to read Koran’s?

This is before or after they’ve had their genitalia mutilated with a scalpel, despite not having been charged with any crime, not being able to see any evidence to support their arrest and being treated outside of any acceptable international law? You think the fact they have access to a fucking book makes any difference to the argument about liberties here?

could it be possible that this conflict is invited by liberals believing themselves to represent the world

True liberals don’t ever claim to represent the world, only the rights upon which we would each individually expect to have. The fact this is entirely scalable to the rest of the world is a necessary coincidence of equality. You, on the other hand, seem to extol the virtues of inequality while claiming somehow that acceptance of other religions makes all of this “ok”.

Remebmer Abu Ghraib? Who could forget it. They tortured those Arab men in a manner that plays on their fear of homosexuality. Why? Maybe it’s because Americans are sexually liberated and tolerant and regard “homophobes” as mentally diseased and not fully human.

I really needn’t say more. Shocking beliefs.

“This post is about Bush and America.”

It’s actually much more about Brown, Labour, the Tories and this countries democracy declining in to an authoritarianism that mimics fascistic state’s in their rise to what most daily mail readers would call “evil”.

Sally, the thread is not about Bush and the US, its inviting comparisons with Labour’s Britain:

“What interested me, from within the first 5 minutes of turning the documentary on, was the clear as day comparisons that could be brought to UK politics upon each of these points. While Naomi despairs at the erosion of liberties in America thanks to 8 years of George Bush and his cohort, it would be very easy to sit back and say “Well thank god we don’t live there!”, indeed Naomi herself wrongfully claims that countries (such as the UK) that have suffered terrorist attacks have managed their security without these types of erosions. The reality is that while we’re not quite on America’s level we are getting there, and since the appointment of Gordon Brown it can be argues that we’ve reached a new gear in such developments.”

Lee Griffin @ 18,

Thanks for doing the refutations so I don’t have to.

The idea that the US is a shining beacon is a bit tarnished right now. I cannot, for the life of me, see where some posters, OK, Cicero and Garzak are coming from.

Roll on tomorrow.

“BTW, if that question has been asked a link to the answers it got would be most appreciated.”

I’m not sure, Mike, where I saw it but saw that it was interesting to see that at a school age (can’t remember the age) kids generally though by more than two thirds that it was a duty to vote. Probably isn’t what you were getting at but did remind me of it.

You won’t get Americans submitting to ID cards as dociley as the British have.

Say what you want about the right-wing gun-hugging militias but their paranoia helps keep the government in check.

Smug, aren’t we?

Smug, well no – just a matter of speaking the truth. And, I may add, not the first time I have been called that because of speaking out in such a way.

Let me capture your moral high ground. You’re happy to bleat about liberty but in practice you want a Big State, top-down agenda invariably involving high taxes.

Why people of the right keep thinking because a liberal says that they are looking toward a better society we must believe in big government. If I could just inform you that most liberals don’t think that way – what they do want is an efficient government – and that isn’t at all big. Because we believe in the civil and human rights of people – we don’t want government departments so big, or at all, that are simply there to spy on the population.

Liberals believe in the individual freedoms that are based on bottom up, certainly not allowing government to dictate from on high – where you got that idea I have no clue – but hey, if it floats your boat.

It’s your lot – the liberal, progressive left – that are currently in power. Don’t complain now about loss of liberty. This is invariably what you get when you put a bunch of lefties in power with contempt for traditional freedom and contempt for the free individual.

Labour, New Labour are liberal? Progressive? Left?

You have been reading from a fiction novel methinks. This government is neither of those – all you do is look at the policies they are espousing and you can tell from that they are neither liberal, progressive or, indeed, left.

Why would you think blogs like mine and this one – plus many, many more decry what this government is doing to the civil liberties of the people who reside in the UK?

Baffles me.

Ever since The Reagan/Thatcher Right wing revolution of 30 years ago we should not be at all surprised at the slow, onward march of fascism both in America and Britain. With the collapse of Communism the only game in town was a right wing belief in deregulated free markets, and an authoritarian state. The folly of that is only now coming home to roost as the entire Anglo Saxon banking system , left to it’s own devices, has managed to destroy itself. Of course, the Right wing solution would be let it go broke in a Darwinian model, but that would leave millions in poverty and with their savings gone like the wind. That is why you need a police force in riot gear and armed to the teeth to keep control in the chaos which will follow. The whole argument about terrorism is a red herring. These policies are put in place, on both side of the Atlantic for the protection of the corporate elites who want total control of society . One of the policies that has gone almost unnoticed in America is Bush decision to allow military personnel to be stationed ready for action on American soil. The elites know full well that their ongoing policies of stealing the worlds resources for their benefit will eventually lead to some form of resistance from the people.

New Labour, having been out of power for 20 years, and having spent time trying to cultivate good grace with the right wing media that had torn it to shreds for most of the last 30 years basically gave up it’s beliefs and signed on the neo con view. This was to appease the likes of Murdoch and Black and other right wing newspaper proprietors, and their corporate masters. Anyone who thinks The Conservative party is going to usher in a new era of freedom and power to the people is an idiot of the first order.

Sally,

So, just asking, if I agree with your analysis, who do you suggest I vote for?

“Say what you want about the right-wing gun-hugging militias but their paranoia helps keep the government in check.”

If the US government actually worked more like the UK we wouldn’t even be having this conversation I bet. The *only* reason that this film was made, and thus why I’m drawing comparisons, is because a single person…the President…has been able to do what the hell he likes. Because ultimately paranoia never applies to the President, somehow he never gets scrutinised the same as the senate or other political bodies. He will no doubt never answer to his contravention of US law in the way he ignored democratic process.

Of course the same happened in Germany. The people were distressed at the Nazi party for how they were running the country, but people seemed to tolerate and even like Hitler as a leader.

We should be thankful that the very move to make a situation like that in the UK would require such democratic upheaval that I’d hope we’d stand together as a society and oppose it. But then no-one in the “paranoid” US did with Bush when he declared that he and he alone could declare anyone he wanted a terrorist without any necessary basis in fact. Of course if it wasn’t for the Lords we would have Smith doing something all too similar.

On that note, why hasn’t much more of a fuss been made over the counter-terrorism bill and the victories to be had over the final bill?

Bush has been able to get away with so much because most Americans don’t see these laws as applying to them yet: in a way their faith in the independence of individual states insulates them from reality.

Also, the fact that the Government have visibly targeted brown skinned people with beards rather than white men in crew cuts (compare the lack of coverage of the arrests of the Alabama Free Militia with Muslims arrested for similar crimes) gives White America the impression that they aren’t going to get shot or arrested by mistake.

Americans aren’t yet feeling restrictions on their behaviour because they don’t think the law applies to THEM.

Americans aren’t yet feeling restrictions on their behaviour because they don’t think the law applies to THEM.

This could easily be said for the UK.

People still insist that such things as the ID scam are relevant to the UK because we need to stop the Muslim terrorist or the organised crime boss. Their idiotic mantra of “If you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear” is still as hollow as always.

It is when all those liberties are gone, barring for the few who would be party members or affiliates, that they will then admit they were wrong.

I was speaking with one person and he equated the civil liberties argument with not paying the TV license fee. He was serious – that is how low on his priorities they are – that is the point where you actually begin to question the intelligence of the average person.

ID cards will only work against terrorism if the owners tick the ‘terrorist’ box on their application; they are fuck all use against benefit cheats either as they lie about their circumstances, not their identity.

I read that you won’t be forced to carry your ID card but if a police officer stops you he’ll be able to demand you report to the police station with your card in the near future, just as they can demand you produce your car documents now; but if this is the case, what if you don’t produce your documents? How can they prove it was you they asked? And if they can prove it, what’s the fucking point of the card?

And if they can prove it, what’s the fucking point of the card?

A question that is asked, will be asked and never answered.

A police officer has to have a reason to stop you – if he doesn’t then he can’t. If you are not forced to carry the card, as you say, why have it? Unless, the real reason for having one is to give police the right to stop you!

It will do precisely nothing – other than cost billions of pounds to administer and launch.

As Mizz Smith found out – her finger prints were lifted, to her embarrassment, by the guys at NO2ID – hilarious, she among the other moron say that this will also mean that you idenity cannot be stolen – which is pure bunkum.

So why do you need all those IDs on a system that will not be secure?

We have yet to find out the real answer from this “Labour government” – and do take into account that the police and other government bodies are doing just fine right now at catching criminals and the odd terrorist.

“A police officer has to have a reason to stop you”

Alas, in the age of random compulsory stop and searches, he doesn’t have to have a reason.

Hasn’t Chris Atkins aleady beaten Naomi Wolf to it ?
http://www.noliberties.com/trailer.htm

The more economical Atkins details SIX as opposed to TEN ‘pillars of liberty’ which are:
[1] right to protest.
[2] right to freedom of speech.
[3] right to privacy
[4] right not to be detained without charge.
[5 innocent until proven guilty.
[6] prohibition from torture.

The cowardly manhandling of 82 year old Walter Wolfgang for shouting “nonsense” at Jack Straw (who was trying to defend Labour’s policy on Iraq at the annual party conference) is particularly instructive.

If elderly, and life long labour supporters are being dragged into the street by the goons what chance is there for the rest of us, eh ?

No Liberties took a different approach, and was linked to the key levels of rights we actually do have according to law but how the government has managed to restrict our access to these rights.

Naomi Wolf is much more sepcifically looking, a) at America, and b) at the correlation with American government actions with fascistic states in history, not really pillars of liberty or measures of a liberal society. America could not meet any of Naomi’s ten conditions and it could still be illiberal, it just may not be dangerously so.

Essentially Naomi Wolf’s book is the next step after Chris Atkin’s documentary, not just content with pointing out about our lost liberties but also just what type of country it’s becoming because of it.

Not sure I understand your point Lee.
Who knows what rights we have when laws are introduced on daily basis – 3,000 new offences on the statute book up to 2006 according to this item (after 9 years of NuLab).
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/blairs-frenzied-law-making-a-new-offence-for-every-day-spent-in-office-412072.html

The man-handling of Walter Wolfgang is a perfect metaphor for NuLab’s distain for individual freedom – this was Atkin’s central message; and it’s an issue that should concern the rest of us as well.

I don’t disagree with you, I’m just saying that the comparisons between No Liberties and End of America are slight but enough for them to be different aspects of the same message.

“it is detailed that there are ten ingredients necessary to turn a state in to one that removes democracy and runs under fascistic rule”

Detailed by whom? It seems to me, they missed a particularly important point, the unwillingness to give up power. How exactly can this be laid at the feet of Bush. His desire for an orderly transition and his respect for the Democratic process simply nullify any of the extreme polemicism emanating from the left as regards fascism. It is those who seek to criminilise their political opponents (America’s left), those who want to bring an end to secret ballots in the workplace (America’s left) and those who wish to challenge the independence of the media (guess who) who have questions to answer about fascism.

Alas, in the age of random compulsory stop and searches, he doesn’t have to have a reason.

This is true, Lee.

But it is normally restricted to one part of society rather than all, is it not?

Maybe that will change on this historic day.

“Detailed by whom? It seems to me, they missed a particularly important point, the unwillingness to give up power. How exactly can this be laid at the feet of Bush.”

Putting aside, for just one minute, the issue of vote rigging and corruption in Florida, it’s interesting to see you try and compare two slightly different situations. Not necessarily in sentiment and underlying desire, but because the people (as Naomi is key to stress) in Germany let their power be taken and given to Hitler and the Nazi’s.

Who says that Bush is willing to give up his power? Yes he did give it up but how much of that was personal desire and how much was simply rules that he didn’t feel he could break, despite breaking other constitutional laws. If a republican got in of similar mind who’s to say that it wouldn’t be a situation of eroding civil liberties more and more? Nazi Germany didn’t just appear in a coup, it took around a decade to form to the stage where Hitler could become what he was, and the first few years of that decade were even when Hitler himself wasn’t even a part of the changes.

That is perhaps the biggest worry (and maybe biggest relief given Obama’s speech today?)…Bush himself could have been a well meaning authoritarian, taking peoples liberties away. But the simple fact he took them away meant that it weakened democracy, and that a single individual coming after him could break that democracy further, just as Hitler did. Until Obama actually rescinds some of these laws as well as shutting down Guantanamo that risk is STILL there.

No-one at all, in their right mind, is saying that the US is like Hitler lead Germany at the time of war; they are saying that the earlier path to destroying democracy to allow for that to happen is being followed. Although I would accept some arguments that what Bush has done (in allowing Israel to do what it does, Afghanistan, Iraq) is possibly the more intelligent way to be a fascist. Do it under the guise of democracy, never let democratic institutions fall so far that people can label you as Hitler, destroy a few countries in a cultural re-alignment exercise and then accept your end of tenure with (lack of) grace and walk away a free man having seemingly done everything perfectly “legally”.

“It is those who seek to criminilise their political opponents (America’s left), those who want to bring an end to secret ballots in the workplace (America’s left) and those who wish to challenge the independence of the media (guess who) who have questions to answer about fascism.”

You mean their opponents that are breaking the law and getting away with it? The secret ballots thing I have no knowledge of but sounds spurious as an example, at best. As for challenging the independence of the media, the REPUBLICAN PARTY was at the front of calls to arrest a newspaper editor for TREASON, so don’t talk shit about the left here being some kind of ogre. Oh, wait…this is just a typical diversionary tactic anyway, to try and start shouting “I know you are, but what am I” because you are absolutely uncomfortable with the fact before you…facts, I might add, that you have barely disputed rather than try to excuse.

“It is those who seek to criminilise their political opponents (America’s left), those who want to bring an end to secret ballots in the workplace (America’s left) and those who wish to challenge the independence of the media (guess who) who have questions to answer about fascism.”

No one has done more to criminalise their political opponents in America than the Right wing. The Justice department was stacked with Right wing goons, who used their power to go after their political opponents. Just like Nixon tried to do in the 1970′s.

And if you think the media is independent in America then you show your complete idiocy for all to see. It was the Right that got rid of the Fair Doctrine because they knew that it would usher in a Right wing media which is exactly what has happened. The Us media is now a joke. They even refused to show the speech by the Gay clergy yesterday at the inauguration in case it offended the Republican knuckle draggers.

You obviously know nothing about what you are commenting on. Classic right wing rhetoric of bullshit.

“so don’t talk shit about the left here being some kind of ogre”

“You obviously know nothing about what you are commenting on. Classic right wing rhetoric of bullshit”

I have to confess to being somewhat disappointed in the quality of debate.

Let’s try again.

Lee

“Bush himself could have been a well meaning authoritarian, taking peoples liberties away. But the simple fact he took them away meant that it weakened democracy, and that a single individual coming after him could break that democracy further, just as Hitler did”

But surely that is true for every President isn’t it? So when FDR broke a convention set by George Washington and went for four terms, or when he tried to pack the Supreme Court with his judges to prevent his agenda being ruled unconstitutional. Or how about when LBJ bugged Nixon’s campain aircraft in ’68 and long before Watergate. What about the internment of the Japanese in World War II or Nixon’s attempts to circumvent congress. How do these fit with your descent to fascism theory? Because the thing is, America didn’t descend to fascism then and nor will it now despite your hyperbole. Your ten elements of fascism are not a fixed definition of fascism, they are a subjective list designed to implicate Bush as a fascist. The thing is, almost all the things I listed above have one thing in common. War. When at war, the fear quotient is raised and defensive measures are made more extreme. BTW, Woodrow Wilson fits almost perfectly your 10 elements but that was war again.

I haven’t tried to dispute your facts because some of them are right. I also don’t necessarily excuse many of his actions but I do recognise that the world exists outside of your ideologically incorruptible fantasy. Try imagining that Bush didn’t do what he has because he shared your moral perfection and then imagine a dirty bomb attack on New York in which thousands died. Which Bush has the claim to moral righteousness? More importantly, which Bush fulfills his first obligation, which is to protect the people he serves? Torture is a horrible practice, as is the denial of habeus corpus. Do you want to know who else authorised both those things? Abraham Lincoln, the hero of The Messiah. Strange what war does to people.

I’d like to engage with you further in a reasonable way on this, unfortunately it appears that you aren’t particularly tolerant of contrarian views but if you want to prove me wrong, I’m game.

Sally

Had to laugh. You’re words remind me of Scargill and Galloway. They’re pillocks too.

Abraham Lincoln suspended habeas corpus in wartime for people captured or held by the military. I think it has been long accepted that the laws of war are rather different from the laws of peace (or under the Queen’s peace, in the UK) – that’s not to say Lincoln’s decision wasn’t controversial.

Under the European Convention, the equivalent of habeas corpus can be suspended from during peace time, if there is an emergency that warrants it. And, indeed, it was – by our Beloved Leader Tony – although our courts found that the situation did not warrant it.

As for torture, inhumane or degrading treatment, it’s banned full stop. There is no excuse for it, in law, domestically in the UK or US, or in the international agreements both countries are party to, in peace or war. And because we live under the rule of law, and not the rule of men, we should really be adjusting the law (if we want to torture), not breaking it on a whim, particularly for a category of people who we aren’t certain are guilty and many of whom probably aren’t.

It was initially argued that Guantanamo detainees were entirely outside the protection of the law. That was not just, even if it were true (which it wasn’t). I happen to think Bush & co. were well intentioned in terms of the protection of the USA. I think however that their actions were unjust, to say the least, and hardly warranted in relation to many detainees (particularly those ‘bought’ from third parties).

I can understand why September 11 made people consider such actions to be OK. But such circumstances are when we should pay more attention to our actions and make more effort to justify them, and scrutinise more carefully the words and deeds of our governments. We mustn’t just throw out all the rules just because there is a ‘war’ on. I think it should be a matter of grave concern when a government thinks it may point the finger and put someone outside legal protection. I think it should be a matter of grave concern when such a great nation sets up secret prisons and tortures its prisoners. It is an extraordinary state of affairs in a great democracy when the only justification for indefinitely holding people is the ‘evidence’ tortured from their co-prisoners.

Terrorists use violence to achieve their objectives but the only way they can significantly change our society is if we change our society ourselves. I think Lee’s article is essentially about the putting in place of machinery for a society that none of us would like to live in, and it’s important to note that it isn’t jackbooted thugs who take away our liberties but smooth talkers with the complicity of ordinary people (the banality of evil). I think Lee makes it very clear that neither the USA nor UK are Nazi Germany. But we should be concerned when we find things in common.

“I have to confess to being somewhat disappointed in the quality of debate.”

A few naughty words comprises of poor quality debate for you? Fair play, not answering the points raised against yours because of that is my sense of poor quality debate on your behalf, so we’re even.

“How do these fit with your descent to fascism theory?”

That the descent has been a long process, obviously, only hastily sped up by George Bush and his administration. That is the way that the creep in to fascism works in established democracies, people have to be gradually hoodwinked, intentionally or otherwise. Take the detention laws here in the UK, 28 days is still unjust as far as I’m concerned, and there were those that said when the first extension was initially put in place that this was “the slippery slope”. It was people with arguments much like yours that said “You’re paranoid” and such like, but then they extended it…then they wanted to extend it again. All of the subsequent actions are made easier by the initial loss of liberty

“Because the thing is, America didn’t descend to fascism then and nor will it now despite your hyperbole.”

It already has descended in to a certain level of fascism, albeit it term limited fascism. If someone other than Obama got in (and perhaps even he will too, though this morning announcement seems to stand against that) they could continue to bring about illiberal measures and there would be little recourse, it seems, to stop it until the next election. Bush broke laws, he undermined the congress…did he ever even get near to being impeached for this undermining of democracy?

You also ignore one of the main points Naomi makes, which is that through the use of fear created by the government people are made to do things out of their character. How many people voted for Bush in 2004 because his government’s mantra of fear over terrorism (along with more voting irregularity concerns) meant that they bought in to the idea that actually what he was saying is true?

“Your ten elements of fascism are not a fixed definition of fascism”

I never claimed they were, nor does Naomi, and I believe I’ve stated this already. They’re not the blueprints for Fascism, they’re the blueprints for the viability of a fascist state; once they’re all in place the barriers that exist to then take the next step in to Fascism are weak or destroyed. They are things we should be concerned about because they actually have no place in a free democracy, they hold no benefit other than to grease the rails of power, so (as UKLiberty said) we have to question why they’re there and so comparable to existing fascist states

“When at war, the fear quotient is raised and defensive measures are made more extreme. ”

You call this situation a war? That is quite interesting. How many terrorist attacks have been attempted on US soil since 9/11? Here in the UK we’ve had, to my knowledge, three since 7/7 and they all failed miserably. They were also all carried out by people on such an individual level that short of absolutely draconian security measures they would not ever have been caught.

The fact is that we suffered more greatly at the hands of the IRA than at the hands of “Islamic Jihadists” and we didn’t need to go anywhere near as far in removing our liberties then. What’s happening between Israel and Palestine is a war, where both sides are actually under real and regular threat of their own country and people being damaged or injured, or killed. What is happening between the US and “The Muslim world” is an exercise in occupation and forcing cultural change.

“Try imagining that Bush didn’t do what he has because he shared your moral perfection and then imagine a dirty bomb attack on New York in which thousands died.”

Jacqui Smith and others use this argument on a constant basis. “But what if…”, you don’t make political decisions that severely inflict loss of liberty (and life, abroad) on suppositions and unfounded guess work. Bush didn’t need to launch a war, he didn’t need to remove his citizen’s liberties, all he needed to do to prevent massive terrorism on the scale of a dirty bomb is to invest in the resources of his own domestic security forces and the way they operate.

“More importantly, which Bush fulfills his first obligation, which is to protect the people he serves”

If we’re going to venture so readily in to the realms of fantasy, do you believe that your safety is worth being restricted to your home, being escorted to work by the army, and then home again when you’re done? I mean…it’s pretty easy to protect “your people” if you know where they are every night and that no-one but your military are out and about, right?

This is why there is never a “first obligation”, there are sets of obligations, all of which carry equal importance yet in certain areas also contradict each other…the balance needs to be struck between all obligations.

“I have to confess to being somewhat disappointed in the quality of debate.”

That’s because you don’t know anything about debate, you just print right wing talking points you picked up at troll central.

Just another right wing troll wasting time.

Lee, you may be interested in this point.

Hmm, yes ukliberty, that’s pretty much my point. I actually believe we are spending enough (cost-effectiveness wise) on counter-terrorism and domestic security from external threats…and I wouldn’t be surprised if the US does too. If they weren’t then their security could surely have been increased by spending the money they spent on war on more resources, instead of diverting their funding as that blog comments on. It’s a ridiculous situation.

Lee

“You call this situation a war? That is quite interesting. How many terrorist attacks have been attempted on US soil since 9/11″

Isn’t that the point? Doesn’t it go some way towards proving that Bush’s actions may have been successful.? Only time will tell, 30 years if their releasing documents rule is like ours. One day we may find out how many attacks have been prevented. On the war, that’s what I call concerted attacks on our way of life. Perhaps you have a different definition of war.

“Take the detention laws here in the UK, 28 days is still unjust as far as I’m concerned”

Completely agree.

“It already has descended in to a certain level of fascism, albeit it term limited fascism”

I think this is the problem, your use of the word fascism. It’s too over the top, one cannot call a democratically elected government fascist, it’s the usual tactic of the left. If there’s a right-wing government they don’t like, they whip out the fascist label. Not very imaginative.

Personally, I find the arresting of opposition M.P.’s fascist. Or how about abortion? 30 million babies have been aborted since Roe v Wade came into law. So we don’t like handicapped people now? Abortion is a mild form of eugenics and eugenics is definitely fascist.

“The fact is that we suffered more greatly at the hands of the IRA than at the hands of “Islamic Jihadists”

Maybe we have, but America certainly hasn’t. I don’t remember the I.R.A. killing thousands in one go. And don’t forget, for a time we suspended habeus corpus in Ireland and operated a shoot to kill policy. Not the best example. And you’ll probably be hard pressed to find a better one because when a country comes under attack, their first priority is to protect themselves. It’ll be interesting to see if any country who has been regularly attacked hasn’t suspended it’s moral values to some degree.

Look, basically I agree with you, torture is a vile practice and I am basically opposed. I don’t want to try to justify it, but I’m not so idealistic to recognise that there may be times when it is necessary. It’s very easy in your comfortable world to be so moralistic, you may see things differently if you were responsible for the lives of millions, had just suffered a devestating attack and were being told by your intelligence people that more might be on the way.

Bush broke laws, he undermined the congress…did he ever even get near to being impeached for this undermining of democracy?

That’s an issue for the Democrats in congress. That’s all part of the democratic process and if the demos judges he shouldn’t be impeached then so be it.

Sally

I’m no troll. I do my research and I form opinions based on that. And more than that, I engage in interesting debates with political friend and foe alike. It’s how I develop my thoughts and opinions. I don’t know if you are capable of intelligent thought, perhaps you’re a genius although I’ve seen no evidence of that. I’m happy to trade insults, but I see no point in that, so feel free to ignore me and I’ll do the same.

“Isn’t that the point? Doesn’t it go some way towards proving that Bush’s actions may have been successful.?”

Not really, but like you say; until we actually have details on what the homeland security service have had to deal with we’ll never know. It’s my belief that they would have suffered no more attacks whether they had invaded Iraq or not. Obviously this is just my opinion, as there are not enough facts on the ground.

“I think this is the problem, your use of the word fascism. It’s too over the top, one cannot call a democratically elected government fascist, it’s the usual tactic of the left. If there’s a right-wing government they don’t like, they whip out the fascist label. Not very imaginative.”

I use the dictionary definition, I’m not really one for getting in a contest about which personal interpretation of the word is correct. Obviously this definition isn’t necessarily the best (I’m commenting on my break)…

a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition

This is what I know fascism to be. Now, Bush conducted a war against Islam, in the name of God, and was willing to give the state illiberal powers over the individual to achieve that. He gave himself more powers at the detriment of the federal system and dictated more centralised policies to achieve his aims. A president, by it’s very nature, is dictatorial even if residing in a democratic system, though Bush showed himself to be very dictatorial with no qualms over vetoes and, indeed, ignoring constitutional law to make his powers stronger. He also did all of this while managing to make protesters and activists in to “terrorists” by definition in law, using paramilitaries and his new laws to suppress dissent in a number of ways.

Now, to me, that would seem fascist, would it not? Just because fascism has become synonymous with Hitler doesn’t mean you have to go to Hitler’s lengths to act in a fascistic manner.

“Abortion is a mild form of eugenics and eugenics is definitely fascist.”

Abortion is definitely fascist, but there is another set of threads that have well treaded out abortion debate so it’s probably best to go there for that debate and keep this one on track

“Maybe we have, but America certainly hasn’t. I don’t remember the I.R.A. killing thousands in one go. ”

This is my trouble with the whole argument you propose here. Yes, it was a tragic event, 9/11, but it is a freak occurrence. You can’t go around making illiberal laws because of a singular incident. As UKLiberty said, you have to question more at those times that what is happening is for the right reasons, not just lie back and let the government take things away from you because of an extraordinary event.

“but I’m not so idealistic to recognise that there may be times when it is necessary.”

Neither am I. But we’re now over 7 years since that attack and despite there being no more attacks on US soil they are still making illiberal laws that are going in to the realm of taking the right of protest away and trying to bully the free press. This isn’t because it’s necessary to combat an external threat, it’s because the administration was using an opportunity to quash an internal opposition.

You mention how liberties were scaled back during the worst of the IRA years, though I assume you accept they were never scaled back as bad as Bush did for the US, but those liberties were also given back when the threat level dissipated. We know that the US could do this, because Obama is already after only a day starting about the task of doing so…that’s probably the biggest indictment of all, that a no doubt heavily briefed new president has still been able to decide that actually these are steps too far so long after 9/11.

“That’s an issue for the Democrats in congress. That’s all part of the democratic process and if the demos judges he shouldn’t be impeached then so be it.”

Well indeed, I suppose that is another issue entirely.

Talk of war is interesting in this context because it was the year before George W Bush was born, 1946, that our governments started drafting the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1945:

Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world,

Whereas disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of mankind, and the advent of a world in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear and want has been proclaimed as the highest aspiration of the common people,

Whereas it is essential, if man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be protected by the rule of law, …

It’s very easy in your comfortable world to be so moralistic, you may see things differently if you were responsible for the lives of millions, had just suffered a devestating attack and were being told by your intelligence people that more might be on the way.

You’re absolutely right, indeed I probably would see things differently in that position. Would I be right, though?

And let’s not give terrorists any credibility, or dignity, by referring to this as a war. It isn’t a war at all. They are criminals, and – domestically speaking – incompetent ones at that. They aren’t worth giving up our fundamental freedoms and rights for.

Lee

I realise we’re not going to agree on this – interesting debate though.

On your point of no more terrorist attacks, I’m not really sure how you can say that when you take into consideration Richard Reid (Shoe Bomber) and the liquid bomb conspirators that planned to bring down planes en route to the U.S. Add the Fort Dix plotters and the potential attack on the JFK fuel lines and it would appear that there is a constant state of potential terrorist attack. There are others which seem somewhat less dangerous, my favourite is the plotter who planned to bring down the Brooklyn Bridge using a blow torch. Now that requires some patience.

That definition of fascism you provide seems fairly close to the mark, however, it puts me more in mind of Gordon Brown than George Bush.

“I realise we’re not going to agree on this – interesting debate though.”

I don’t mind if you don’t agree, as long as you understand. I certainly understand your thinking.

“I’m not really sure how you can say that when you take into consideration Richard Reid (Shoe Bomber) and the liquid bomb conspirators that planned to bring down planes en route to the U.S.”

Some of us accept that to live in a free society there is a certain risk. If a terrorist competent enough to build a bomb on the sly without getting flagged they will get through just about any security measure we have, short of scanning and searching everyone everywhere we go.

The question isn’t if terrorism couldn’t happen if we’d have taken a more measured approach, my feeling is that if people are determined and lucky enough they’ll be able to do terrible things regardless. To stop the big things you need only to resource security services better, and that can be done without bringing down so many of our liberties for so many years…and it can certainly be done without attacking the spiritual homeland of these people and enraging them further.

“That definition of fascism you provide seems fairly close to the mark, however, it puts me more in mind of Gordon Brown than George Bush.”

I think there’s barely a hair between the two if I’m honest.