Conversation:

Just wondering how things are in America now that they've repealed democracy and the rule of law.

How's it going? Does it feel different, now that you live in a dictatorship where the President can declare you "belligerent" at any time and have you locked up without trial indefinitely?

At this point, do any of you now wish you'd protested harder (or at all) against what was being done at Guantanamo Bay?

Will anyone be emigrating to get away, or do you (accurately, imo) think that won't help, given that the United States authorises itself to kidnap foreigners wherever they may be?

(Google "National Defense Authorization Act" if you don't know what I'm talking about)

Change we can believe in

"Just wondering how things are in America now that they've repealed democracy and the rule of law." [Hoovooloo]

Strangely enough, the democratic process was used in order to arrive at the situation we Americans find ourselves in. The "Patriot Act" was passed by Congress and signed by then-President Bush.

"How's it going? Does it feel different, now that you live in a dictatorship where the President can declare you 'belligerent' at any time and have you locked up without trial indefinitely?"

It depends on which president is running things. The one we have now has his hands full with a Depression, two wars [correction, *one* war] in the Middle East, and a Congress that won't can't cooperate in getting any bills passed. If what you're saying is true, he could declare the opposition leadership "belligerent" and lock them away. That hasn't happened. The closest thing to that was in the 1860s when president Abraham Lincoln repealed habeas corpus and threatened to have the justice of the Supreme Court thrown in jail.

"At this point, do any of you now wish you'd protested harder (or at all) against what was being done at Guantanamo Bay?:

Well, yes, I do wish I'd protested. Unfortunately, I am so incompetent at protesting that I felt I would have ruined it for everyone else.

"Will anyone be emigrating to get away, or do you (accurately, imo) think that won't help, given that the United States authorises itself to kidnap foreigners wherever they may be?"

I honestly don't know. I don't know *anyone* who is planning toleave the country over this. By comparison, consider the Vietnam War era when many young men fled to Canada in order to avoid being drafted. But at any given time, there are always many people coming or going. It's a big country. There's still room for new arrivals.

Get the Godwin law post in there right at the outset...

The democratic process of course was at least partly responsible for the rise of the Nazi party into power in Germany.

*comes back from reading about it*

"a Congress that won't can't cooperate in getting any bills passed"

Are you talking about the same Congress that conspired with him to pass the NDAA on New Year's Eve, a day most normal people are preparing to party with their friends or family? An excellent day to bury the news, not coincidentally...

"If what you're saying is true, he could declare the opposition leadership "belligerent" and lock them away"

See above: his so-called "opponents" aren't the opposition he'd want locked away, clearly.

"I don't know *anyone* who is planning toleave the country over this."

Some responses to that:
1. Do you know anyone who fully understands the implications?
2. Not YET they're not. And
3. Like I said, leaving is pointless anyway - if the US government is sufficiently interested in interfering with your day, pesky things like the national sovereignty of wherever you are are irrelevant. Your president has already authorised himself to order the capture or killing of any target he authorises, wherever they may be.



Another question for Americans: how long do you estimate it will be before this Act is used to incarcerate without trial an American citizen?

My bet is: more than a year, but less than five.

Hoo, all countries have stupid laws. Are you picking on the US, or are you going to go through all the countries of the world asking the same question?

In Ireland, for example, people of all religions are entitled to practise their religions without interference or discrimination. Fair enough. But recently, they brought in a ridiculous 'blasphemy' law, which says that I'm not allowed make statements which would be considered blasphemous. So I am not allowed to state my belief, for example, that the Prophet Mohammed was just an ordinary person, that there is no God/Allah/Yahweh or that Jesus Christ died on the cross and did not rise again.

I'm sure that the UK has its share of basic infringements of your human rights too.

"The democratic process of course was at least partly responsible for the rise of the Nazi party into power in Germany." [Orcus]

People are sometimes pretty crazy. What can I say? There are some historians who say that the Nazis never got more than about a third of the vote, so their governance was based on a plurality. For that matter, Richard Nixon and Abraham Lincoln only got a little more than 40% of the vote due to third-party candidates. Democracy is messy. So is totalitarianism. Didn't Winston Churchill say that democracy is the worst form of government except for all the others?

When I said that the "Patriot Act" was enacted by democratic means, all I was saying was there wasn't a military coup that established a dictator.

There's a little more to it than that, though, isn't there, Gnomon.

1. if someone commits blasphemy abroad, Ireland doesn't lean on their host country to extradite that person to Ireland so that they can be prosecuted and jailed.

2. if you did commit blasphemy (), before jailing you, they'd try you.

3. Ireland doesn't bleat on and on and on and on and on about how it's bringing freedom and democracy to the world and how it's a beacon of freedom blah blah blah blah.

4. Ireland hasn't got the most expensive, best equipped military in the world backing up whatever it wants to do wherever it wants to do it, and it doesn't go round assassinating people it has a problem with when they're in foreign sovereign nations. Ireland is not a danger to me, here in the UK. The US *IS*.

"Ireland is not a danger to me, here in the UK. The US *IS*."[Hoovooloo]

Yes, I grant you that. There are some fine points that historians might quibble about, though. For a few administrations, our American presidents restrained themselves in the matter of assassinating foreign heads of state. I believe that this restraint has recently been lifted. I don't see the current president as someone who is likely to abuse the privilege. Beyond that, all I can do is cross my fingers and hope that the least insane candidate will win the election next November. I have opinions as to who the least insane candidate is, but I don't want to inject politics into this discussion, despite the huge temptations.

I don't see how this is terribly new news, apart from it being a little differently articulated from previously. Does no one remember Jose Padilla?


And, the tone of the op . . .

This reminds me of an election in the southern United States where the two candidates were a local convicted criminal and a Ku Klux Klan chief. The supporters of the criminal had the slogan:

"Vote for the Criminal - It's Important!"

David Duke was the Klan member. The wording might have been "Vote for the Crook"

"President Obama on Dec. 31 signed into law the National Defense Authorization Act, which will provide $662 billion in defense funding in 2012. The White House released the following signing statement from the president to accompany the legislation:"

"...Moreover, I want to clarify that my Administration will not authorize the indefinite military detention without trial of American citizens"

http://www.washingtonpost.com/r/2010-2019/WashingtonPost/2011/12/31/National-Politics/Graphics/Obama-NDAA-signing-statement.doc.pdf

Better not vote the other lot in, so.

No dissention without rendition

....or as Samuel Johnson put it "How is it that we hear the loudest yelps for liberty among the drivers of slaves"

It's already happened in the UK as Tony B.liars government effectively abolished "habeas corpus" the right to be released if held without just cause or evidence something that had been written into law since the 13th Century

Tom Paine where are you?

What's that? The English abolished the Habeas Corpus? But you are often* quoted as a model in France with the Habeas Corpus

* well, sometimes.

The English didn't abolish it or our Scottish, Welsh and Irish compatriots - nobody asked us it was done without our consent by people who have forgotten what we do to people who think the rule by divine right