Jump to content

Is The U.s. A Fascist Police-State?

Wild Bill

Recommended Posts

Wild Bill Advanced Member

Wild Bill

Posted
Posted

Is the U.S. a Fascist Police-State?

by Gonzalo Lira

 

I lived in Chile during the Pinochet dictatorship - I can spot a fascist police-state when I see one.

 

The United States is a fascist police-state.

 

Harsh words - incendiary, even. And none too clever of me, to use such language: Time was, the crazies and reactionaries wearing tin-foil hats who flung around such a characterization of the United States were disqualified by sensible people as being hysterical nutters - rightfully so.

 

But with yesterday's Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project decision (No. 08-1498, also 09-89) of the Supreme Court, coupled with last week's Arar v. Ashcroft denial of certiorari (No. 09-923), the case for claiming that the U.S. is a fascist police-state just got a whole lot stronger.

 

First of all, what is a "fascist police-state"?

 

A police-state uses the law as a mechanism to control any challenges to its power by the citizenry, rather than as a mechanism to insure a civil society among the individuals. The state decides the laws, is the sole arbiter of the law, and can selectively (and capriciously) decide to enforce the law to the benefit or detriment of one individual or group or another.

 

In a police-state, the citizens are "free" only so long as their actions remain within the confines of the law as dictated by the state. If the individual's claims of rights or freedoms conflict with the state, or if the individual acts in ways deemed detrimental to the state, then the state will repress the citizenry, by force if necessary. (And in the end, it's always necessary.)

 

What's key to the definition of a police-state is the lack of redress: If there is no justice system which can compel the state to cede to the citizenry, then there is a police-state. If there exists a pro forma justice system, but which in practice is unavailable to the ordinary citizen because of systemic obstacles (for instance, cost or bureaucratic hindrance), or which against all logic or reason consistently finds in favor of the state - even in the most egregious and obviously contradictory cases - then that pro forma judiciary system is nothing but a sham: A tool of the state's repression against its citizens. Consider the Soviet court system the classic example.

 

A police-state is not necessarily a dictatorship. On the contrary, it can even take the form of a representative democracy. A police-state is not defined by its leadership structure, but rather, by its self-protection against the individual.

 

A definition of "fascism" is tougher to come by - it's almost as tough to come up with as a definition of "pornography".

 

The sloppy definition is simply totalitarianism of the Right, "communism" being the sloppy definition of totalitarianism of the Left. But that doesn't help much.

 

For our purposes, I think we should use the syndicalist-corporatist definition as practiced by Mussolini: Society as a collection of corporate and union interests, where the state is one more competing interest among many, albeit the most powerful of them all, and thus as a virtue of its size and power, taking precedence over all other factions. In other words, society is a "street-gang" model that I discussed before. The individual has power only as derived from his belonging to a particular faction or group - individuals do not have inherent worth, value or standing.

 

Now then! Having gotten that out of the way, where were we?

 

Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project: The Humanitarian Law Project was advising groups deemed "terrorists" on how to negotiate non-violently with various political agencies, including the UN. In this 6-3 decision by the U.S. Supreme Court, the Court ruled that that speech constituted "aiding and abetting" a terrorist organization, as the Court determined that speech was "material support". Therefore, the Executive and/or Congress had the right to prohibit anyone from speaking to any terrorist organization if that speech embodied "material support" to the terrorist organization.

 

The decision is being noted by the New York Times as a Freedom of Speech issue; other commentators seem to be viewing it in those terms as well.

 

My own take is, Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project is not about limiting free speech - it's about the state expanding it power to repress. The decision limits free speech in passing, because what it is really doing is expanding the state's power to repress whomever it unilaterally determines is a terrorist.

 

In the decision, the Court explicitly ruled that "Congress and the Executive are uniquely positioned to make principled distinctions between activities that will further terrorist conduct and undermine United States foreign policy, and those that will not." In other words, the Court makes it clear that Congress and/or the Executive can solely and unilaterally determine who is a "terrorist threat", and who is not - without recourse to judicial review of this decision. And if the Executive and/or Congress determines that this group here or that group there is a "terrorist organization", then their free speech is curtailed - as is the free speech of anyone associating with them, no matter how demonstrably peaceful that speech or interaction is.

 

For example, if the Executive - in the form of the Secretary of State - decides that, say, WikiLeaks or Amnesty International is a terrorist organization, well then by golly, it is a terrorist organization. It no longer has any right to free speech - nor can anyone else speak to them or associate with them, for risk of being charged with providing "material support" to this heinous terrorist organization known as Amnesty International.

 

But furthermore, as per Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project, anyone associating with WikiLeaks - including, presumably, those who read it, and most certainly those who give it information about government abuses - would be guilty of aiding and abetting terrorism. In other words, giving WikiLeaks "material support" by providing primary evidence of government abuse would render one a terrorist.

 

This form of repression does seem to fit the above definition of a police-state. The state determines - unilaterally - who is detrimental to its interests. The state then represses that person or group.

 

By a 6-3 majority, the Supreme Court has explicitly stated that Congress and/or the Executive is "uniquely positioned" to determine who is a terrorist and who is not - and therefore has the right to silence not just the terrorist organization, but anyone trying to speak to them, or hear them.

 

And let's just say that, after jumping through years of judicial hoops, one finally manages to prove that one wasn't then and isn't now a terrorist, the Arar denial of certiorari makes it irrelevant. Even if it turns out that a person is definitely and unequivocally not a terrorist, he cannot get legal redress for this mistake by the state.

 

So! To sum up: The U.S. government can decide unilaterally who is a terrorist organization and who is not. Anyone speaking to such a designated terrorist group is "providing material support" to the terrorists - and is therefore subject to prosecution at the discretion of the U.S. government. And if, in the end, it turns out that one definitely was not involved in terrorist activities, there is no way to receive redress by the state.

 

Sounds like a fascist police-state to me.

 

 

Is the U.S. a Fascist Police-State?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
freemannabis Advanced Member

freemannabis

Posted
Posted

Excellent article!

 

Thank you, Gonzalo Lira!

 

And, thank you, Wild Bill, for the worthy heads-up!

 

Yes, Michigan is a Fascist Police-State; Especially, all the more so being an International Border.

 

The Keweenaw / Copper Country, along with most all of Upper and Lower Michigan has border hounding sheep-dogs all over the place.

 

Vain-Glorified playground safety patrol commando with an aluminum badge must've been their highlife in "grade-school," eh? All that lusty power over the sheeple in the play pen at recess time musty've bent any otherwise noble intentions that might've been salvaged from their now robotic, shallow-willed, moral-less minds.

 

FREE The CURE!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
just_speakin_my_mind Advanced Member

just_speakin_my_mind

Posted
Posted

I agree mostly...

yet, we can still openly speak our minds without arrest or being publicly being shot/stoned/burned/beaten to death-- and we ALL still rely on the police when WE need them.....

 

These are the typical feelings, thoughts and points made when a certain right is being challenged.... and rightfully so.

 

But are you willing to give up your OTHER rights afforded by the Constitution that do not exist in those other "Facist" States????

 

We can not be an anarchy, with NO laws or rules--- but the Constitution affords us that the Laws are to be "equal& just"...

lately, that just doesn't seem to be panning out-- does it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
MightyMightyMezz Advanced Member

MightyMightyMezz

Posted
Posted

I agree mostly...

yet, we can still openly speak our minds without arrest or being publicly being shot/stoned/burned/beaten to death-- and we ALL still rely on the police when WE need them.....

 

These are the typical feelings, thoughts and points made when a certain right is being challenged.... and rightfully so.

 

But are you willing to give up your OTHER rights afforded by the Constitution that do not exist in those other "Facist" States????

 

We can not be an anarchy, with NO laws or rules--- but the Constitution affords us that the Laws are to be "equal& just"...

lately, that just doesn't seem to be panning out-- does it?

 

How about the Seattle protest where innocent people were brutally attacked by stormtroopers or fenced "Free Speech Zones" in D.C.? They make precedents like that and ratchet it up little by little. Even a member of this board was raided after organizing a protest. What was the American kid's name who was sent to Guantanamo for being an "Enemy Combatant?" That is exactly the kind of Anti-Constitutional precedent they love to work with. Now they are considering "banning conspiracy theories." Come on!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Wild Bill Advanced Member

Wild Bill

Posted
  • Author
Posted

I agree mostly...yet, we can still openly speak our minds without arrest or being publicly being shot/stoned/burned/beaten to death--

Police Attack Protesters With Mace, Tazers to Keep Them Out of City Hall

 

and we ALL still rely on the police when WE need them.....

Help Leo Stole Everything

 

Are you sure?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
welj31 Advanced Member

welj31

Posted
Posted

What founding father said 'We need a revolution every 75 years because that is how long it takes for it to become so bad that it can't be corrected'?

 

 

Although he didn't use those exact words, Thomas Jefferson expressed the sentiment that periodic revolution is probably necessary to remove the excesses, corruption, violation of rights, etc. that accumulate in government.

 

It was 25 years. The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants

Link to comment
Share on other sites
xxsesimeseedxx Advanced Member

xxsesimeseedxx

Posted
Posted

What founding father said 'We need a revolution every 75 years because that is how long it takes for it to become so bad that it can't be corrected'?

 

 

Although he didn't use those exact words, Thomas Jefferson expressed the sentiment that periodic revolution is probably necessary to remove the excesses, corruption, violation of rights, etc. that accumulate in government.

 

It was 25 years. The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants

 

Well if a revolution is what it takes to get rid of our corrupt government, then i hope it happens soon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
RevThad Advanced Member

+RevThad

Posted
Posted

lol careful or we will be on another watch list <_<

Oh no, not another one. Hehe. I am surprised I don't have my own personal satellite following my every move. Watch lists these days just mean folks we don't agree with politically, and by we I mean the administration.

 

Just want to send a quick shout out to my Uncle Sam and all of my cousins watching..... :sword:

Link to comment
Share on other sites
DT61 Advanced Member

DT61

Posted
Posted

We are thought of as cattle for the most part - Henry Kissinger called us "useless eaters" google NSSM2000 - see what our "leaders" would do with us.

Anybody take notice of the "detention camps" (500) built by Haliburton under G.W. Bush and then authorized for use by Obama? They are not for illegal aliens, yet they are empty - waiting for the new prison guards to get back from the current wars.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest drcanna-pest

Guest drcanna-pest

Posted
Posted

democracy only works for so long...longer than 75 yrs but no more than 150. We are in a serious need of a change. If 2012 will change the magnetic poles we will be back to fighting with sticks and stones. Which is what world war 4 will be fought with.

 

sadly...in theory...the only gov't that works is Communism. which in reality doesn't work. so we must go back to governing ourselves. almost like the amish without the inbreeding...

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Silverblue Advanced Member

+Silverblue

Posted
Posted

If I'm lucky I'll die before it gets much worse- I have no hope left. This life is hell. They have their perceived threats, yet the real terrorists are still out there. They know the people would surely rise up against them, that's why they're doing all this in self preservation. They made this hell. I know it could be worse, but to me it's bad enough, my life is hell, living in fear every day, living under this illusion of freedom, what kind of a life is that? Let it end soon. I'm a coward, could never take my own life, all I can do is pray it ends in peace.

 

Sb :(

Link to comment
Share on other sites
greenbuddha Advanced Member

greenbuddha

Posted
Posted

If I'm lucky I'll die before it gets much worse- I have no hope left. This life is hell. They have their perceived threats, yet the real terrorists are still out there. They know the people would surely rise up against them, that's why they're doing all this in self preservation. They made this hell. I know it could be worse, but to me it's bad enough, my life is hell, living in fear every day, living under this illusion of freedom, what kind of a life is that? Let it end soon. I'm a coward, could never take my own life, all I can do is pray it ends in peace.

 

Sb :(

 

Silver, Sweetheart, At least you're not paranoid about it.

 

You can be thankful for that I suppose.

 

My dear old Granny used to say; "You can't grow a good rose without a whole lot of sh*t!"

 

She was one wise old ding bat, I have to admit.

 

Medicate, meditate and forget the rest of the horse sh*t, that would be my humble advice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
420Atheist Advanced Member

+420Atheist

Posted
Posted

Any serious student of our Civil War will not want to see a armed conflict like that again. I agree with the article and also agree it is a limit on free speech. But the biggest reason they wanted this group stopped was what they do. They help organization find peaceful resolutions to their problems. How can Halburton and the war complex benefit from that?

 

But the bigger question, yes we are a police state. We have been for some time. I'm not sure where the exact moment was but my vote goes for 1984 when the exclusionary rules were change with the "good faith" clause being added effectively gutting the 4th amendment. Since then all evidence is able to be use as long as the cop was acting in "good faith." No cop is going to say "I knew it was an illegal search."

 

Does anyone else find it ironic that 1984 is the year we turned into a police state? Look up George Orwell if you don't get the reference.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
RevThad Advanced Member

+RevThad

Posted
Posted

There have been small steps towards the forming of a police state taken over the last century. Most of those steps have been taken in the guise of necessary protections of public safety. Never let a tragedy go to waste, and that whole line of thinking. 1925, 1937, and 1970 are all important markers in that march towards tyranny as the federal government seized more power, and created stronger federal police powers over things that should be state issues. Coincidentally, 1984 also introduced harsher penalties for violating the CSA....

Link to comment
Share on other sites
welj31 Advanced Member

welj31

Posted
Posted

Well the real problem in a decline in the number of dirt roads. Now lets see who picks up on this one :rolleyes:

 

Who you going to rob? The nice home in town or the trailer on a dirt road outside of town?

The one in town has a caddy and a poodle.

The trailer has a few dogs, a pick up truck w/ gun rack.

Your call lol

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Irishgreen Advanced Member

Irishgreen

Posted
Posted

everyone knows that when the state doesn't issue the cards everyone needs within the time limit,and then arrests the folks for not having a card,there's something wrong.zzb

 

 

I think this is SUCH a HUGE point...........

 

Don't issue the cards, then.........arrest everyone that doesn't have the card!? HMMMMMM

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...