"Fred Stone" <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9852CA25957F7fstone69@66.150.105.47...
Emmanual Kann <nicht@keinspam.invalid> wrote in
news:pan.2006.10.04.19.16.38.542993@keinspam.invalid:
An Fri, 29 Sep 2006 21:22:36 -0700, Chris Johnson schreibt:
Fred Stone wrote:
I wonder how one goes about determining if a population is
unwilling. Take a vote? :-)
Fred, before enactment of the Enabling Act, in 1932 the NAZI party was
in the minority of the Reichstag (1/3 with 37% of the popular vote).
After the 1933 election (44% of the votes), the Nazis used fear of
terrorism to grant the chancellor the power to declare the Communist
Party and the Socialist Party as terrorist organizations. He then
went on to arrest or kill all the Communist terrorists and thousands
of Socialist terrorist. With the 81 Communist members of the Reichstag
missing only 94 Socialists voted against the Enabling Act (presumably
the other 26 were either dead or in prison). After the Enabling Act
was made law, the Reichstag continued to exist until 1942 as a body of
acclimation for actions of "our leader".
Which has what exactly to do with anything relevant?
I'm not using this example to compare Bush with Hitler or the
Republicans with the Nazis. I am using it to draw the similarity
between the recently passed torture act with the enabling act.
It does not enable torture. Quite the contrary, evidence gathered
through the use of torture is excluded. I suppose you think you're being
very profound in launching off on this series of unsupported claims.
I haven't read the act, but I suppose you mean that evidence obtained by
torture is excluded from legal proceedings. That doesn't preclude torture
being used.
.
The
Republicans are not Nazis; the Republicans are clearly in a majority.
Bush has not sent any Democratic senators or congressmen to Guantanamo
yet. However, it is clear that the recently signed law gives the
President such power.
In fact it does no such thing. The recently signed law deals with the
procedures by which the military detainees can be tried for war crimes.
That is *all* it does.
News reports have claimed that it allows no Habeas Corpus for those
arbitrarily designated Enemy Combatants. That seems to mean that the
Executive could designate any organization terrorist, if it sympathized with
a political faction in a foreign country, say Mexico or Canada, and an
American cutizen who expressed views contrary to the Executive, sympathetic
to such a foreign political movement, could then be arrested and held
without charge indefinitely with no review by a criminal court, except a
court set up by the executive specifically for that purpose..
I believe it was Fareed Zakaria that made the case that Iraq would,
given the opportunity, immediately vote in a restrictive Islamist
regime. That democracy follows liberty and comes via a popular
revolution rather than a foreign imposition.
Authoritarian followers choose authoritarian leaders. Fred is
evidence consistent with that hypothesis.
Actually, I think it's *you* who are the evidence consistent with the
utter delusional nature of the opposition to the Bush administration.
And who is delusional is a subjective judgement. When I hear the
administration spin about the Middle East, I have to wonder.
.
