Conservative Values

[Laughing Sam's Dice]

 1. Powerful and Continuing Nationalism

2. Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights

3. Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause

4. Supremacy of the Military

5. Rampant Sexism

6. Controlled Mass Media

7. Obsession with National Security

8. Religion and Government are Intertwined

9. Corporate Power is Protected

10. Labor Power is Suppressed

11. Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts

12. Obsession with Crime and Punishment

13. Rampant Cronyism and Corruption

14. Fraudulent Elections



How much of that sounds familiar in the U.S.?

This list, called the  14 Defining Characteristics Of Fascism, comes from Dr. Lawrence Britt's examination of the fascist regimes of Hitler (Germany), Mussolini (Italy), Franco (Spain), Suharto (Indonesia) and several Latin American regimes.

[OzmO]

1. Powerful and Continuing Nationalism

2. Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights

3. Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause

4. Supremacy of the Military

5. Rampant Sexism

6. Controlled Mass Media

7. Obsession with National Security

8. Religion and Government are Intertwined

9. Corporate Power is Protected

10. Labor Power is Suppressed

11. Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts

12. Obsession with Crime and Punishment

13. Rampant Cronyism and Corruption

14. Fraudulent Elections



How much of that sounds familiar in the U.S.?

This list, called the  14 Defining Characteristics Of Fascism, comes from Dr. Lawrence Britt's examination of the fascist regimes of Hitler (Germany), Mussolini (Italy), Franco (Spain), Suharto (Indonesia) and several Latin American regimes.

You could make a point that it sounds familiar but to what degree?

Are some of these implied or are they realities as obvious as they were in 1934 Nazi Germany?

I agree some of these seem to stick like Paris Hilton and a Slut tab, but i don't think we are seeing significant conditions to warrant alarm.....at least not yet.  As long as there is a peaceful change of power in 2008, regularly new elected senators and congressmen,  and freedom of speaking out against the government we shouldn't have too much to worry about.   

As a republic our laws prevent us from going too far and turning into a fascist nation or dictatorship.  When the laws start changing and the checks and balances start getting taken away, then we should start to speak up.   Like we have with this wiring tapping thing.

[Laughing Sam's Dice]

As a republic our laws prevent us from going too far and turning into a fascist nation or dictatorship.  When the laws start changing and the checks and balances start getting taken away, then we should start to speak up.   Like we have with this wiring tapping thing.

Or the Military Commissions Act of 2006, which did away with habeas corpus, the right of suspected terrorists or anybody else to know why they have been imprisoned, provided the president does not think it should apply to you and declares you an enemy combatant.

There's those conservative values at work.  Bush ended habeas corpus in this country.  And no one spoke out.  People hear the label "terrorist" and become hypnotized, assuming that the person has certainly commited harmful acts and does not deserve legal rights.

[OzmO]

Or the Military Commissions Act of 2006, which did away with habeas corpus, the right of suspected terrorists or anybody else to know why they have been imprisoned, provided the president does not think it should apply to you and declares you an enemy combatant.

There's those conservative values at work.  Bush ended habeas corpus in this country.  And no one spoke out.  People hear the label "terrorist" and become hypnotized, assuming that the person has certainly commited harmful acts and does not deserve legal rights.

from what i can recall, I discussed that here on Getbig, and we came to the conclusion that the Military Commissions Act of 2006 doesn't apply to US citizens.  I could be wrong, but i don't think i am.  Perhaps you have a link with a quote to show that?

[The Coach]

1. Powerful and Continuing Nationalism

2. Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights

3. Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause

4. Supremacy of the Military

5. Rampant Sexism

6. Controlled Mass Media

7. Obsession with National Security

8. Religion and Government are Intertwined

9. Corporate Power is Protected

10. Labor Power is Suppressed

11. Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts

12. Obsession with Crime and Punishment

13. Rampant Cronyism and Corruption

14. Fraudulent Elections



How much of that sounds familiar in the U.S.?

This list, called the  14 Defining Characteristics Of Fascism, comes from Dr. Lawrence Britt's examination of the fascist regimes of Hitler (Germany), Mussolini (Italy), Franco (Spain), Suharto (Indonesia) and several Latin American regimes.

Then move..........but when and if the Liberals ever get into the white house, don't come crying when they come back here and start blowing your ass up!

You pacifists are really sad!

[OzmO]

Then move..........but when and if the Liberals ever get into the white house, don't come crying when they come back here and start blowing your ass up!

You pacifists are really sad!

 

BTW,  it's a fact.  Politics move in cycles which it has from day one.  And if not in 2008 then in 2012 or when ever but a Lib will be the white house.   If you weren't so busy with your nose up Rush's ass you'd know that. 

Also, the last time i checked, BUSH was in the white house when 3000 died,  oh sorry i was wrong,  he was reading children stories when that happened.  He's been in the whitehouse since 3400+ US troops died in Iraq crying to his stupid wife about it.

Is this the part were you neo-fags avoid responsibility by blaming 9/11 on Clinton?

[OneBigMan]

I can almost bet that there are some people who wish we were still in the 1990's with Clinton as president since the democrats model for what Americanism should look like and feel like to people is about going out with your many friends on a Friday night or Saturday night and ignore what was so obviously wrong with what was being reported on the news nearly everyday during those final years of the previous decade.

[headhuntersix]

Its funny..conservative values seem to only effect assholes outside this country while u have have nutbag far-left ACLU dirtbags trying to take crosses off of war memorials. How many Conservative speakers have been thrown off of college campuses in the name of far left "free-speech". The way I see it..the friggen Patriot act has not bothered anybody here at all. Unless ur a raghead with a bomb or some other group planning ill will..ur gonna be fine. I talked with an FBI agent on the Anti-Terrorist task force in California. Its harder now to get a warrant and wire tap then it was before 911. The shift back to rampent stupity has made sure all u leftwingers are gonna be safe ..atleast from ur own governmnet..not sure about the real enemy.

[OzmO]

I can almost bet that there are some people who wish we were still in the 1990's with Clinton as president since the democrats model for what Americanism should look like and feel like to people is about going out with your many friends on a Friday night or Saturday night and ignore what was so obviously wrong with what was being reported on the news nearly everyday during those final years of the previous decade.

I don't know about all that regarding Clinton.  But I think almost any moron could have handled the Iraq war better or better yet, not invaded at all.  Terrorism has increased, our political standing in the region has deteriorated, and with the thousands of causalities, we have incurred 400 billion in debt. 

So anything the Dems do is at least an effort to try and clean this f-ing mess up created by BUSH and his staff.  (even though it's stupid the things they have come up with so far.)

[w8tlftr]

Feel free to leave our country at any time.

I'm sure there is a line of getbiggers waiting to help you pack your bags.

[Dos Equis]

from what i can recall, I discussed that here on Getbig, and we came to the conclusion that the Military Commissions Act of 2006 doesn't apply to US citizens.  I could be wrong, but i don't think i am.  Perhaps you have a link with a quote to show that?

Correct.  We've had this discussion.  Ribo claimed it applies to American citizens.  And both Ribo and 240 argued it was used to detain Jose Padilla, even though the Act was passed AFTER Padilla was arrested.    http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=123990.50

But here is the specific language:

"ALIEN--The term 'alien' means a person who is not a citizen of the United States." 

Section 948a(3).

"PURPOSE--This chapter establishes procedures governing the use of military commissions to try alien unlawful enemy combatants engaged in hostilities against the United States for violations of the law of war and other offenses triable by military commission."

Section 948b(a). 

[Decker]

Correct.  We've had this discussion.  Ribo claimed it applies to American citizens.  And both Ribo and 240 argued it was used to detain Jose Padilla, even though the Act was passed AFTER Padilla was arrested.    http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=123990.50

But here is the specific language:

"ALIEN--The term 'alien' means a person who is not a citizen of the United States." 

Section 948a(3).

"PURPOSE--This chapter establishes procedures governing the use of military commissions to try alien unlawful enemy combatants engaged in hostilities against the United States for violations of the law of war and other offenses triable by military commission."

Section 948b(a). 

A petition for a writ of Habeus Corpus refers to when a suspect is brought before a court to determine if he’s being held lawfully, i.e., for some legal reason.  HC is a fundamental safeguard against arbitrary and lawless state action. 

HC occupies an essential place in our history with respect to American ideals of fairness and justice.

Whether it applies only to non-US citizens is immaterial to that larger issue of basic fairness.

“You are a suspect and will remain in custody subject torture as long as we see fit.”

That is not the American way. 

That is the old Soviet Style of corrupt police work.

As for denying the right of HC to US citizens, the Military Commissions Act of 2006 DOES AUTHORIZE THAT.

"Any person is punishable as a principal under this chapter who commits an offense punishable by this chapter, or aids, abets, counsels, commands, or procures its commission," according to the law, passed by the Republican-controlled Congress in September and signed by Bush on Oct. 17, 2006.

Another provision in the law seems to target American citizens by stating that "any person subject to this chapter who, in breach of an allegiance or duty to the United States, knowingly and intentionally aids an enemy of the United States ... shall be punished as a military commission … may direct."

Who has "an allegiance or duty to the United States" if not an American citizen?

That provision would not presumably apply to Osama bin Laden or al-Qaeda, nor would it apply generally to foreign citizens.

This section of the law appears to be singling out American citizens.  Source: Robert Parry

[Laughing Sam's Dice]

Then move

Feel free to leave our country at any time.

Gotta Love that traditional conservative response, "America, Love it or leave it!"  No matter that this country is becoming more fascist- don't criticize the government!  You people will get the police state you deserve.

[Dos Equis]

A petition for a writ of Habeus Corpus refers to when a suspect is brought before a court to determine if he’s being held lawfully, i.e., for some legal reason.  HC is a fundamental safeguard against arbitrary and lawless state action. 

HC occupies an essential place in our history with respect to American ideals of fairness and justice.

Whether it applies only to non-US citizens is immaterial to that larger issue of basic fairness.

“You are a suspect and will remain in custody subject torture as long as we see fit.”

That is not the American way. 

That is the old Soviet Style of corrupt police work.

As for denying the right of HC to US citizens, the Military Commissions Act of 2006 DOES AUTHORIZE THAT.

"Any person is punishable as a principal under this chapter who commits an offense punishable by this chapter, or aids, abets, counsels, commands, or procures its commission," according to the law, passed by the Republican-controlled Congress in September and signed by Bush on Oct. 17, 2006.

Another provision in the law seems to target American citizens by stating that "any person subject to this chapter who, in breach of an allegiance or duty to the United States, knowingly and intentionally aids an enemy of the United States ... shall be punished as a military commission … may direct."

Who has "an allegiance or duty to the United States" if not an American citizen?

That provision would not presumably apply to Osama bin Laden or al-Qaeda, nor would it apply generally to foreign citizens.

This section of the law appears to be singling out American citizens.  Source: Robert Parry

What's the section number?  I'll read it in context.  I doubt it applies to American citizens. 

[Decker]

What's the section number?  I'll read it in context.  I doubt it applies to American citizens. 

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=109_cong_bills&docid=f:h6166rfs.txt.pdf

Check pages 3 & 78.

Page 3 contains the definition of "unlawful enemy combatant"...as you see, Ribo and 240 were correct about the standard used in the Padilla case--the MCA has retroactive legal force.

Page 78 refers to support of terrorist orgs/activities.  It is overly broad.  It can apply to any person. Not any alien, but any person.

Anyone who has been determined to be an “unlawful enemy combatant” by a Combatant Status Review Tribunal or “another competent tribunal” established by the president or the defense secretary is presumed to be an enemy combatant for the purposes of military commissions.

The law is overbroad and it gives too much discretion to a president who is incompetent.

[Eyeball Chambers]

Listen at 6:20  Ron Paul talks about the Military Commissions Act.

What good is the Bill of Rights if you can be locked up for no reason?

[Laughing Sam's Dice]

Listen at 6:20  Ron Paul talks about the Military Commissions Act.

What good is the Bill of Rights if you can be locked up for no reason?

Good for Ron Paul for wanting this Act repealed.

[Eyeball Chambers]

Good for Ron Paul for wanting this Act repealed.

Ron Paul is an amazing guy.  I think God sent him. 

[Dos Equis]

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=109_cong_bills&docid=f:h6166rfs.txt.pdf

Check pages 3 & 78.

Page 3 contains the definition of "unlawful enemy combatant"...as you see, Ribo and 240 were correct about the standard used in the Padilla case--the MCA has retroactive legal force.

Page 78 refers to support of terrorist orgs/activities.  It is overly broad.  It can apply to any person. Not any alien, but any person.

Anyone who has been determined to be an “unlawful enemy combatant” by a Combatant Status Review Tribunal or “another competent tribunal” established by the president or the defense secretary is presumed to be an enemy combatant for the purposes of military commissions.

The law is overbroad and it gives too much discretion to a president who is incompetent.

Oh no.  You're not going to argue that Padilla was detained and charged with violating an act that hadn't been enacted?  Explain that to me.  He was detained in 2003 (or something like that).  He couldn't possibly have been detained in 2003 for violating a law that hadn't even been written. 

I read pages 3 and 78.  Page 3, section 948a, mentions a "person," but the next section 948b, which is the "purpose" section, limits the act to aliens.  Clear as day.  And page 78 says "any person subject to this chapter," and the only persons subject to the chapter are aliens. 

[ToxicAvenger]

from what i can recall, I discussed that here on Getbig, and we came to the conclusion that the Military Commissions Act of 2006 doesn't apply to US citizens.  I could be wrong, but i don't think i am.  Perhaps you have a link with a quote to show that?

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5969429083125319458&q=road+to+guantanamo

[ToxicAvenger]

Then move..........

classic bible thumper responce...
n oh..LSD lives in newzeland

[ToxicAvenger]

I talked with an FBI agent on the Anti-Terrorist task force in California.

BULLSHIT....my buddy matt is FBI...and you'll make up ANYTHING wont ya..

again..

classic bible thumper..

[Decker]

Oh no.  You're not going to argue that Padilla was detained and charged with violating an act that hadn't been enacted?  Explain that to me.  He was detained in 2003 (or something like that).  He couldn't possibly have been detained in 2003 for violating a law that hadn't even been written. 

I read pages 3 and 78.  Page 3, section 948a, mentions a "person," but the next section 948b, which is the "purpose" section, limits the act to aliens.  Clear as day.  And page 78 says "any person subject to this chapter," and the only persons subject to the chapter are aliens. 

President Bush designated Padilla, an american citizen, an unlawful enemy combatant.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jos%C3%A9_Padilla_%28alleged_terrorist%29

The MCA gave Bush legal authority to do that retroactively.

That's how it happened.

If you can find evidence to the contrary, I'll look at it.

As for Section 948B, that's a wonderful preamble but look at the meat of the law re: enemy combatants: 

The term 'unlawful enemy combatant' means – (i) a person who has engaged in hostilities or who has purposefully and materially supported hostilities against the United States or its co-belligerents who is not a lawful enemy combatant (including a person who is part of the Taliban, al-Qaeda, or associated forces); or (ii) a person who, before, on, or after the date of the enactment of the Military Commissions Act of 2006, has been determined to be an unlawful enemy combatant by a Combatant Status Review Tribunal or another competent tribunal established under the authority of the president or the secretary of defense."

Bruce Ackerman, professor of law at Yale reads it this way:

"Buried in the complex Senate compromise on detainee treatment is a real shocker, reaching far beyond the legal struggles about foreign terrorist suspects in the Guantanamo Bay fortress. The compromise legislation...authorizes the president to seize American citizens as enemy combatants, even if they have never left the United States. And once thrown into military prison, they cannot expect a trial by their peers or any other of the normal protections of the Bill of Rights."

As a matter of statutory construction, the MCA does NOT refer to terrorists or aliens in that paragraph, it refers to 'a person' and that's the problem.

Anyone meeting the definition of "unlawful enemy combatant" is subject to the MCA.  And guess who decides that designation?  (Just look at the Padilla case) 

It is a horribly written constitutionally overbroad law.

[Camel Jockey]

You mean republican party values

True conservatives would opposed the republican party and their nonsense.

[ToxicAvenger]

You mean republican party values

True conservatives would opposed the republican party and their nonsense.

conservative..repb party...bible thumper..same triangle..different sides..