Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Actual left/right wing discussion -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: one_less who wrote (1193)	9/18/2006 11:22:36 PM
From: thames_sider	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 10087

That's why I called out the particular actions I have. Here's a fuller selection. POTUS refers loosely here to both Bush and the most powerful officers - Cheney and Rumsfeld, generally. You've seen a substantial increase in military spending; not all of it is accountable. There's a parallel espionage network being set up, reporting obscurely and without oversight, again under the auspices of the military/political leadership (DoD). The abilities of these agents to spy on whom they choose, when they choose, without judicial oversight or control, are asserted and enhanced. The POTUS asserts their right to detain who they wish, in secret, without trial or recourse. The POTUS asserts that the Geneva conventions are 'too vague' and seeks to impose an interpretation which would basically allow torture (by modifying the definition of torture) - effectively shielding his agents from counts of breaching the Conventions. There are moves to get oversight lessened or removed altogether on matters of 'national security', as defined by the POTUS. Restrictions designed to fetter the executive are continually argued against and attempts made to remove them. The POTUS asserts, even as he signs laws into being, that he disagrees with them and should not be bound by them. His legal officials urge that this is a valid and binding interpretation. The POTUS declares himself not bound to follow laws in time of war, and then declares a war with no declared nation-state enemy and no clear end. All true, all done, all ongoing. Do you really not see any pattern here? I do, and it isn't pretty. It is however familiar to any student of history, and it's what the authors of the constitution wanted to prevent when they deliberately limited executive power. Back then, mind, they called it absolute monarchy; and they had no conception that the state might ever be able to monitor all its people, location, word and deed, at all times. Sure, your government would have to change to become fascist... but all the above are major enablers, they all point the same way, and that change wouldn't be so great as ten years ago. Remember, the two most notable fascists came to power via elections, having whipped up their masses against the enemies without and within.