New Wave Outpost Forum

Most of my wacko (to you all theories regarding the Bush administration are based on what has happened in the past. Nazi Germany, the best example we have of how to control a population through fear and hate, is the result of one man's study of history and human nature. My tendency to take things to the extreme comes from Aldus Huxley, George Orwell, John Brunner and Ray Bradbury.


Subject: FW: Discussion between Two Political People

Quote from a private conversation with Nazi Reichsmarshall and Luftwaffe-Chief Hermann Goering conducted by Gustav Gilbert, a German-speaking Intelligence Officer and psychologist during a break in Goering’s Nuremberg trial (18 April 1946):

"Why, of course, the people don't want war," Goering shrugged. "Why would some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best that he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece. Naturally, the common people don't want war; neither in Russia nor in England nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship."

"There is one difference," I (Gilbert) pointed out. "In a democracy the people have some say in the matter through their elected representatives, and in the United States only Congress can declare wars."

"Oh, that is all well and good, but, voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country."

For verification, see http://www.snopes.com/quotes/goering.htm

Thanks for the amusing analogy Stella, and I can see Rove as Goebbels too in a strictly humorous scenario! But it serves no other purpose than humor IMHO. The religious right for example is also very good at picking out contextually narrow self-serving biblical parables and parallels that devisively support their cause. The classic stuff usually involves a powerful and self-righteous god that ignores the very same god of love and peace.

You have to take things as a whole. In this case, if you want to draw out the full analogy, who would you have as FDR and Churchill? Bin Laden and al-Zawahiri?! It's a useful parable to make us think, and we certainly have to be aware of the recent trampling of our rights and loose definitions of constitutional rights, but it's a pretty inflammatory lead-in if you intend this to be a useful discussion versus flame bait. I hate Bush and his cadre, honestly, but I dont' sympathize with any of the baiters here either. But I've baited too - it's fun, I admit that as well.

Oh those wacky Nazis!

Stella, you're so deep, you've fallen out the other end.

<img src="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v647/dbince/eight.gif"><img src="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v647/dbince/number6.gif">

I'm amazed that anyone here is even dignifying this idiocy with a reply.
Oh well.

(\__/)
(='.'=)
(")_(")

Hitler was right. Stella:

<a href="http://photobucket.com" target="_blank"><img src="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v465/Nuwavghost/th63eea320.jpg" border="0" alt="Image hosting by Photobucket"></a>

[quote][i]Originally posted by Jimbo[/i]
<br>I'm amazed that anyone here is even dignifying this idiocy with a reply.
Oh well.

(\__/)
(='.'=)
(")_(")
[/quote]

Come on Jimbo, she's giving you a run for your money.[}:)]

<img src="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v647/dbince/eight.gif"><img src="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v647/dbince/number6.gif">

[quote]Originally posted by stella
[br]Most of my wacko (to you all there ya go nuff said
[/quote]

<img src="http://music.hyperreal.org/artists/brian_eno/thennow.gif">

Interesting.. veddy intedesting[}:)].

On a similar note: this came to me today via the Progressive review as published in the Boston Globe on March 24
<a href="http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2006/03/24/bush_shuns_patriot_act_requirement/" target="blank">Bush Shuns Patriot Act Requirement: In addendum to law, he says oversight rules are not binding
By Charlie Savage
The Boston Globe</a>

Washington - When President Bush signed the reauthorization
of the USA Patriot Act this month, [b]he included an addendum
saying that he did not feel obliged to obey requirements
that he inform Congress about how the FBI was using the
act's expanded police powers.[/b]

The bill contained several oversight provisions intended
to make sure the FBI did not abuse the special terrorism-
related powers to search homes and secretly seize papers.
The provisions require Justice Department officials to
keep closer track of how often the FBI uses the new powers
and in what type of situations. Under the law, the
administration would have to provide the information to
Congress by certain dates.

Bush signed the bill with fanfare at a White House ceremony
March 9, calling it "a piece of legislation that's vital to
win the war on terror and to protect the American people."
[b]But after the reporters and guests had left, the White
House quietly issued a "signing statement," an official
document in which a president lays out his interpretation
of a new law.

In the statement, Bush said that he did not consider himself
bound to tell Congress how the Patriot Act powers were being
used and that, despite the law's requirements, he could
withhold the information if he decided that disclosure
would "impair foreign relations, national security, the
deliberative process of the executive, or the performance
of the executive's constitutional duties."

Bush wrote: "The executive branch shall construe the
provisions... that call for furnishing information to
entities outside the executive branch... in a manner
consistent with the president's constitutional authority
to supervise the unitary executive branch and to withhold
information..."[/b]

The statement represented the latest in a string of high-
profile instances in which Bush has cited his constitutional
authority to bypass a law.

After The New York Times disclosed in December that Bush
had authorized the military to conduct electronic
surveillance of Americans' international phone calls and
e-mails without obtaining warrants, as required by law,
Bush said his wartime powers gave him the right to ignore
the warrant law.

And when Congress passed a law forbidding the torture of
any detainee in US custody, Bush signed the bill but issued
a signing statement declaring that he could bypass the law
if he believed using harsh interrogation techniques was
necessary to protect national security.

Past presidents occasionally used such signing statements
to describe their interpretations of laws, but Bush has
expanded the practice. He has also been more assertive in
claiming the authority to override provisions he thinks
intrude on his power, legal scholars said.

Bush's expansive claims of the power to bypass laws have
provoked increased grumbling in Congress. Members of both
parties have pointed out that the Constitution gives the
legislative branch the power to write the laws and the
executive branch the duty to "faithfully execute" them.

Several senators have proposed bills to bring the warrant-
less surveillance program under the law. One Democrat,
Senator Russell Feingold of Wisconsin, has gone so far as
to propose censuring Bush, saying he has broken the wire-
tapping law.

Bush's signing statement on the USA Patriot Act nearly went
unnoticed.

Senator Patrick J. Leahy, Democrat of Vermont, inserted a
statement into the record of the Senate Judiciary Committee
objecting to Bush's interpretation of the Patriot Act, but
neither the signing statement nor Leahy's objection received
coverage from in the mainstream news media, Leahy's office
said.

Yesterday, Leahy said Bush's assertion that he could ignore
the new provisions of the Patriot Act - provisions that
were the subject of intense negotiations in Congress -
represented "nothing short of a radical effort to manipulate
the constitutional separation of powers and evade account-
ability and responsibility for following the law."

"The president's signing statements are not the law, and
Congress should not allow them to be the last word,"
Leahy said in a prepared statement. "The president's
constitutional duty is to faithfully execute the laws as
written by the Congress, not cherry-pick the laws he decides
he wants to follow. It is our duty to ensure, by means of
congressional oversight, that he does so."

The White House dismissed Leahy's concerns, saying Bush's
signing statement was simply "very standard language" that
is "used consistently with provisions like these where
legislation is requiring reports from the executive branch
or where disclosure of information is going to be required."

"The signing statement makes clear that the president will
faithfully execute the law in a manner that is consistent
with the Constitution," said White House spokeswoman Dana
Perino. "The president has welcomed at least seven Inspector
General reports on the Patriot Act since it was first
passed, and there has not been one verified abuse of civil
liberties using the Patriot Act."

David Golove, a New York University law professor who
specializes in executive power issues, said the statement
may simply be "bluster" and does not necessarily mean that
the administration will conceal information about its use
of the Patriot Act.

[b]But, he said, the statement illustrates the administration's
"mind-bogglingly expansive conception" of executive power,
and its low regard for legislative power.

"On the one hand, they deny that Congress even has the
authority to pass laws on these subjects like torture and
eavesdropping, and in addition to that, they say that
Congress is not even entitled to get information about
anything to do with the war on terrorism," Golove said.[/b]
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

IMO It's just more suggestive evidence to the old adage that 'absolute power corrupts absolutely'.. as the surrepticious use of these signing statments has enabled the president to sidestep enacted legislation.

While they have notably been in existence since the <a href="http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/signing.htm" target="blank">Jackson & Tyler administrations</a>, they came into to extensive use during the <a href="http://www.justicescholars.org/pegc/archive/Articles/cooper_35_PSQ_515.pdf#search='Signing%20Statements,%20history%20of'" target="blank">Reagan and Bush 1 Administrations</a> and have since been used more by Duhbya than by his predecessors to further loosen the reigns on among other things, post 9/11 counterterrorism & homeland security legislation.

Thanx for the insightful & cautionary critique Blir, despite that adviso I'm sure this will become another one of 'Those Threads'


<IMG SRC="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v395/richp62/Icons%20Avatars/inot.gif">

[quote][i]Originally posted by 2Nu[/i]
<br>Interesting.. veddy intedesting[}:)].

On a similar note: this came to me today via the Progressive review as published in the Boston Globe on March 24
<a href="http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2006/03/24/bush_shuns_patriot_act_requirement/" target="blank">Bush Shuns Patriot Act Requirement: In addendum to law, he says oversight rules are not binding
By Charlie Savage
The Boston Globe</a>
[/quote]
<img src="http://home.comcast.net/~myirwin/IGOT.JPG">

j/k but come on!

What an idiot [xx(](the pres., not above posters)

I agree with Blir, that the specifics of the thread are very inflammatory. As far to the right as we have become as a country we are nowhere near where Germany was in 1938. But, God help me, the background idea that stella was refering to I have to agree with. Many times in history, specifically in the last 200 years, has the emotion of fear been used to manipulate populations. Sometimes to give up rights, sometimes to be taxed, sometimes to affect society as a whole (e.g. against a certain ethnic or racial group). My estimation using the visor of history is that often the results of these manipulations were injust, corrupt, or just plain wrong. Michael Creighton, John Stossel and others have pointed out the environment of fear (promulgated by the media) we in the U.S. endure. Fear, IMHO, is a poor emotion to make long term, macro-decisions. For example, I am continually amazed how people are willing to give up their civil liberties in the name of "security". An odd notion to say the least, as history has often shown.

So if stella is trying to suggest that our current trends in the U.S. equate a fascist society, my opinion is obviously not. But, we should be on constant guard that fear is not used by those who lead us into giving up the very rights granted us in the Constitution.

Ben Franklin's oft-used quote is appropriate here:
“Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.”

[quote][i]Originally posted by NuWaveRx[/i]
<br>But , ..... , the background idea that stella was refering to I have to agree with.


[/quote]

Likewise. It's sickening what a bunch of pussies we've become. Now let me go hide in case somebody blasts me for that (yeah, right).

[quote][i]Originally posted by NuWaveRx[/i]
<br>[b]For example, I am continually amazed how people are willing to give up their civil liberties in the name of "security". An odd notion to say the least, as history has often shown.[/b]

So if stella is trying to suggest that our current trends in the U.S. equate a fascist society, my opinion is obviously not. But, we should be on constant guard that fear is not used by those who lead us into giving up the very rights granted us in the Constitution.

Ben Franklin's oft-used quote is appropriate here:
“Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.”
[/quote]

I totally feel this same way.

[quote][i]Originally posted by NuWaveRx[/i]
<br>Ben Franklin's oft-used quote is appropriate here:
“Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.”
[/quote]
Balanced of course with another great liberal (and conversative!) notion:
"You are either part of the solution or part of the problem."
- Eldredge Cleaver