When Democracy Failed/ the neonazi movement alive and well.

Politics & Government Forum

When Democracy Failed: The Warnings of History

By Thom Hartmann feb 27 2003

The 70th anniversary wasn't noticed in the United States, and was barely reported in the corporate media. But the Germans remembered well that fateful day seventy years ago - February 27, 1933. They commemorated the anniversary by joining in demonstrations for peace that mobilized citizens all across the world.

It started when the government, in the midst of a worldwide economic crisis, received reports of an imminent terrorist attack. A foreign ideologue had launched feeble attacks on a few famous buildings, but the media largely ignored his relatively small efforts. The intelligence services knew, however, that the odds were he would eventually succeed. (Historians are still arguing whether or not rogue elements in the intelligence service helped the terrorist; the most recent research implies they did not.)

But the warnings of investigators were ignored at the highest levels, in part because the government was distracted; the man who claimed to be the nation's leader had not been elected by a majority vote and the majority of citizens claimed he had no right to the powers he coveted. He was a simpleton, some said, a cartoon character of a man who saw things in black-and-white terms and didn't have the intellect to understand the subtleties of running a nation in a complex and internationalist world. His coarse use of language - reflecting his political roots in a southernmost state - and his simplistic and often-inflammatory nationalistic rhetoric offended the aristocrats, foreign leaders, and the well-educated elite in the government and media. And, as a young man, he'd joined a secret society with an occult-sounding name and bizarre initiation rituals that involved skulls and human bones.

Nonetheless, he knew the terrorist was going to strike (although he didn't know where or when), and he had already considered his response. When an aide brought him word that the nation's most prestigious building was ablaze, he verified it was the terrorist who had struck and then rushed to the scene and called a press conference.

"You are now witnessing the beginning of a great epoch in history," he proclaimed, standing in front of the burned-out building, surrounded by national media. "This fire," he said, his voice trembling with emotion, "is the beginning." He used the occasion - "a sign from God," he called it - to declare an all-out war on terrorism and its ideological sponsors, a people, he said, who traced their origins to the Middle East and found motivation for their evil deeds in their religion.

Two weeks later, the first detention center for terrorists was built in Oranianberg to hold the first suspected allies of the infamous terrorist. In a national outburst of patriotism, the leader's flag was everywhere, even printed large in newspapers suitable for window display.

Within four weeks of the terrorist attack, the nation's now-popular leader had pushed through legislation - in the name of combating terrorism and fighting the philosophy he said spawned it - that suspended constitutional guarantees of free speech, privacy, and habeas corpus. Police could now intercept mail and wiretap phones; suspected terrorists could be imprisoned without specific charges and without access to their lawyers; police could sneak into people's homes without warrants if the cases involved terrorism.

To get his patriotic "Decree on the Protection of People and State" passed over the objections of concerned legislators and civil libertarians, he agreed to put a 4-year sunset provision on it: if the national emergency provoked by the terrorist attack was over by then, the freedoms and rights would be returned to the people, and the police agencies would be re-restrained. Legislators would later say they hadn't had time to read the bill before voting on it.

Immediately after passage of the anti-terrorism act, his federal police agencies stepped up their program of arresting suspicious persons and holding them without access to lawyers or courts. In the first year only a few hundred were interred, and those who objected were largely ignored by the mainstream press, which was afraid to offend and thus lose access to a leader with such high popularity ratings. Citizens who protested the leader in public - and there were many - quickly found themselves confronting the newly empowered police's batons, gas, and jail cells, or fenced off in protest zones safely out of earshot of the leader's public speeches. (In the meantime, he was taking almost daily lessons in public speaking, learning to control his tonality, gestures, and facial expressions. He became a very competent orator.)

Within the first months after that terrorist attack, at the suggestion of a political advisor, he brought a formerly obscure word into common usage. He wanted to stir a "racial pride" among his countrymen, so, instead of referring to the nation by its name, he began to refer to it as "The Homeland," a phrase publicly promoted in the introduction to a 1934 speech recorded in Leni Riefenstahl's famous propaganda movie "Triumph Of The Will." As hoped, people's hearts swelled with pride, and the beginning of an us-versus-them mentality was sewn. Our land was "the" homeland, citizens thought: all others were simply foreign lands. We are the "true people," he suggested, the only ones worthy of our nation's concern; if bombs fall on others, or human rights are violated in other nations and it makes our lives better, it's of little concern to us.

Playing on this new nationalism, and exploiting a disagreement with the French over his increasing militarism, he argued that any international body that didn't act first and foremost in the best interest of his own nation was neither relevant nor useful. He thus withdrew his country from the League Of Nations in October, 1933, and then negotiated a separate naval armaments agreement with Anthony Eden of The United Kingdom to create a worldwide military ruling elite.

His propaganda minister orchestrated a campaign to ensure the people that he was a deeply religious man and that his motivations were rooted in Christianity. He even proclaimed the need for a revival of the Christian faith across his nation, what he called a "New Christianity." Every man in his rapidly growing army wore a belt buckle that declared "Gott Mit Uns" - God Is With Us - and most of them fervently believed it was true.

Within a year of the terrorist attack, the nation's leader determined that the various local police and federal agencies around the nation were lacking the clear communication and overall coordinated administration necessary to deal with the terrorist threat facing the nation, particularly those citizens who were of Middle Eastern ancestry and thus probably terrorist and communist sympathizers, and various troublesome "intellectuals" and "liberals." He proposed a single new national agency to protect the security of the homeland, consolidating the actions of dozens of previously independent police, border, and investigative agencies under a single leader.

He appointed one of his most trusted associates to be leader of this new agency, the Central Security Office for the homeland, and gave it a role in the government equal to the other major departments.

His assistant who dealt with the press noted that, since the terrorist attack, "Radio and press are at our disposal." Those voices questioning the legitimacy of their nation's leader, or raising questions about his checkered past, had by now faded from the public's recollection as his central security office began advertising a program encouraging people to phone in tips about suspicious neighbors. This program was so successful that the names of some of the people "denounced" were soon being broadcast on radio stations. Those denounced often included opposition politicians and celebrities who dared speak out - a favorite target of his regime and the media he now controlled through intimidation and ownership by corporate allies.

To consolidate his power, he concluded that government alone wasn't enough. He reached out to industry and forged an alliance, bringing former executives of the nation's largest corporations into high government positions. A flood of government money poured into corporate coffers to fight the war against the Middle Eastern ancestry terrorists lurking within the homeland, and to prepare for wars overseas. He encouraged large corporations friendly to him to acquire media outlets and other industrial concerns across the nation, particularly those previously owned by suspicious people of Middle Eastern ancestry. He built powerful alliances with industry; one corporate ally got the lucrative contract worth millions to build the first large-scale detention center for enemies of the state. Soon more would follow. Industry flourished.

But after an interval of peace following the terrorist attack, voices of dissent again arose within and without the government. Students had started an active program opposing him (later known as the White Rose Society), and leaders of nearby nations were speaking out against his bellicose rhetoric. He needed a diversion, something to direct people away from the corporate cronyism being exposed in his own government, questions of his possibly illegitimate rise to power, and the oft-voiced concerns of civil libertarians about the people being held in detention without due process or access to attorneys or family.

With his number two man - a master at manipulating the media - he began a campaign to convince the people of the nation that a small, limited war was necessary. Another nation was harboring many of the suspicious Middle Eastern people, and even though its connection with the terrorist who had set afire the nation's most important building was tenuous at best, it held resources their nation badly needed if they were to have room to live and maintain their prosperity. He called a press conference and publicly delivered an ultimatum to the leader of the other nation, provoking an international uproar. He claimed the right to strike preemptively in self-defense, and nations across Europe - at first - denounced him for it, pointing out that it was a doctrine only claimed in the past by nations seeking worldwide empire, like Caesar's Rome or Alexander's Greece.

It took a few months, and intense international debate and lobbying with European nations, but, after he personally met with the leader of the United Kingdom, finally a deal was struck. After the military action began, Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain told the nervous British people that giving in to this leader's new first-strike doctrine would bring "peace for our time." Thus Hitler annexed Austria in a lightning move, riding a wave of popular support as leaders so often do in times of war. The Austrian government was unseated and replaced by a new leadership friendly to Germany, and German corporations began to take over Austrian resources.

In a speech responding to critics of the invasion, Hitler said, "Certain foreign newspapers have said that we fell on Austria with brutal methods. I can only say; even in death they cannot stop lying. I have in the course of my political struggle won much love from my people, but when I crossed the former frontier [into Austria] there met me such a stream of love as I have never experienced. Not as tyrants have we come, but as liberators."

To deal with those who dissented from his policies, at the advice of his politically savvy advisors, he and his handmaidens in the press began a campaign to equate him and his policies with patriotism and the nation itself. National unity was essential, they said, to ensure that the terrorists or their sponsors didn't think they'd succeeded in splitting the nation or weakening its will. In times of war, they said, there could be only "one people, one nation, and one commander-in-chief" ("Ein Volk, ein Reich, ein Fuhrer"), and so his advocates in the media began a nationwide campaign charging that critics of his policies were attacking the nation itself. Those questioning him were labeled "anti-German" or "not good Germans," and it was suggested they were aiding the enemies of the state by failing in the patriotic necessity of supporting the nation's valiant men in uniform. It was one of his most effective ways to stifle dissent and pit wage-earning people (from whom most of the army came) against the "intellectuals and liberals" who were critical of his policies.

Nonetheless, once the "small war" annexation of Austria was successfully and quickly completed, and peace returned, voices of opposition were again raised in the Homeland. The almost-daily release of news bulletins about the dangers of terrorist communist cells wasn't enough to rouse the populace and totally suppress dissent. A full-out war was necessary to divert public attention from the growing rumbles within the country about disappearing dissidents; violence against liberals, Jews, and union leaders; and the epidemic of crony capitalism that was producing empires of wealth in the corporate sector but threatening the middle class's way of life.

A year later, to the week, Hitler invaded Czechoslovakia; the nation was now fully at war, and all internal dissent was suppressed in the name of national security. It was the end of Germany's first experiment with democracy.

As we conclude this review of history, there are a few milestones worth remembering.

February 27, 2003, was the 70th anniversary of Dutch terrorist Marinus van der Lubbe's successful firebombing of the German Parliament (Reichstag) building, the terrorist act that catapulted Hitler to legitimacy and reshaped the German constitution. By the time of his successful and brief action to seize Austria, in which almost no German blood was shed, Hitler was the most beloved and popular leader in the history of his nation. Hailed around the world, he was later Time magazine's "Man Of The Year."

Most Americans remember his office for the security of the homeland, known as the Reichssicherheitshauptamt and its SchutzStaffel, simply by its most famous agency's initials: the SS.

We also remember that the Germans developed a new form of highly violent warfare they named "lightning war" or blitzkrieg, which, while generating devastating civilian losses, also produced a highly desirable "shock and awe" among the nation's leadership according to the authors of the 1996 book "Shock And Awe" published by the National Defense University Press.

Reflecting on that time, The American Heritage Dictionary (Houghton Mifflin Company, 1983) left us this definition of the form of government the German democracy had become through Hitler's close alliance with the largest German corporations and his policy of using war as a tool to keep power: "fas-cism (fbsh'iz'em) n. A system of government that exercises a dictatorship of the extreme right, typically through the merging of state and business leadership, together with belligerent nationalism."

Today, as we face financial and political crises, it's useful to remember that the ravages of the Great Depression hit Germany and the United States alike. Through the 1930s, however, Hitler and Roosevelt chose very different courses to bring their nations back to power and prosperity.

Germany's response was to use government to empower corporations and reward the society's richest individuals, privatize much of the commons, stifle dissent, strip people of constitutional rights, and create an illusion of prosperity through continual and ever-expanding war. America passed minimum wage laws to raise the middle class, enforced anti-trust laws to diminish the power of corporations, increased taxes on corporations and the wealthiest individuals, created Social Security, and became the employer of last resort through programs to build national infrastructure, promote the arts, and replant forests.

To the extent that our Constitution is still intact, the choice is again ours.


Thom Hartmann lived and worked in Germany during the 1980s, and is the author of over a dozen books, including "Unequal Protection" and "The Last Hours of Ancient Sunlight." This article is copyright by Thom Hartmann, but permission is granted for reprint in print, email, blog, or web media so long as this credit is attached.

thanks for the post in a new thread Fortress (it was first post on "for or against the war").

something i have read a lot was "never forget".
another one was "we did nothing to stop hitler on WW2, now we are acting before it s too late". hmm.


when i read this text i was shocked. this is so similar to what we are living today !

all is there, religion, homeland, "Triumph Of The Will", war on terrorism, bypassing UN (well it was not UN at this time), preventive war...

it s for the least scaring.

i have to go now, cant write more, but i think they are lot to talk about this.

Coming back from work, i see nobody posted on this subject.

am i alone to think this story has so much similitudes with the events going on now ? when i first read it in a quick glance, i had to check again the beginning of the story to make sure it was not talking about USA today.

has anyone took the time to read the long story ?

do you think it s just rubbish ?

yes, i have read it

and it has impressed me also a lot.

As you did, i had to beginn another time to check that it was not the US case.

It is very intersting and i am worried because no one has read it

I think many of war suporters should read it to understand what is happening now in thier country. I hope the story will no repeat, but the USA are in the right path of doing it.

new caledonia?? vous parle français???

thanks for posting this... we should share this with every American who says this is like the 30s... only the USA take Germany's role today !

But I just realized... they don't have enough patience to read such a long text !
Rambo or Caps would say "bull****" !

Did someone say Rambo?

You're not talking about that Super Badass Rambo II guy?

LOL! He was by far the most ignorant of any I have come across. I ran him through the ringer though....so if you want a good laugh go see: For or Against war in Iraq. I think page 80 is where I first encountered his brilliance.

i wonder why no pro war or bush supporter post any answer of this one.

They're scared of me.

Brothers!

In these times it's difficult for those of us who love truth and justice to live from day to day, let alone get scared and obedient people. "good Americans" (like "good Germans") to see what is happening. Yet, as implied, it's all over the place: the sunset clause of the firsat Patriot Act about to be destroyed (by Hatch and others), the second Patriot Act destroying more civil liberties, new wars threatened, extremist judges pushed down our throats, etc.

Some people have trouble seeing Sept 11 as a "reichstag Fire" because they imagine that must mean "we" planned it. Of course that's not necessary -- as the "Plan" of Cheney, Wolfowitz, and crew was written 4 years earlier -- and 11 September was a godsend to them.

Osama bin Laden didn't need to be set up like the Dutch nazi tool of 1933: he did his thing warnings were ignored, and 11 September became Bush's Reichstag Fire and "18th Brumaire" (Napoleonic coup) rolled into one.

It's good, though, that so many voices are raised against this. I was starting to think we were all crazy -- looking for a democracy that no one else seems to notice is gone!

Keep up the fight!

Reply to all:

Hitler had his White Rose movement. Napoleon III (another manipulator of terror) had the Commune (or rather his ex-cronies did).

And we all know Patrick Henry's speech about Caesar, Charles I, and George III.

And "George V" (or by some reckonings, the VIII) may profit by their example!

Keep up the fight.

What's up!


http://www.inreview.com/showthread....=2512&forumid=8

*click*

I love the ignore function.

LOL!

I was just seeing if that would send you into a flying rage.

Excellent.


I hate to disrupt your delusions of grandeur,


Disruptions is what I would seek. After all, If I am delusional I'll need your help.


First off, while He tries to stealthily blend terminology of the 30s/40s with modern day concepts of terrorism,


So you're saying that there is no lesson to learn from the past?
We should completely ignore history?


He manages to GREATLY subvert history with his blends of lingo. ( I actually admit this was brilliant of him ). How do you feel actual historians would interpret his parallels of Nazi nationalism with current American patriotism following 9/11?


I do not know how they would, do you?

I do know that it is similiar. History seems to repete itself and this is the contention.


But fortunately for you and your loyal followers, they'll believe it because they want to believe it.


Unsubstantiated assumption. Ignored.


I see you fancy yourself becoming a political activist, just a little advice....If you try to sell garbage like this as your point of view, you will rapidly discredit yourself as a delusional nutcase.


I'll take that advise. There's nothing wrong with that.


Its easy to feel intellectual in forums like these,


Not just for me, sir.


dont confuse this audience with people youd actually contend with outside of here.


Another unsubstantiated assumption. Ignored.


Time on your hands, a search engine, and a little intelligence goes a long way here. It wont go very far in the real world.


Are you saying that getting information off the internet is not a viable means of discussing an issue and a concern? Further doesn't the real world get attention through various forms of media on the internet? Then why would you say that speaking here on the internet is vastly different than in the real world?

I'll use your own words for this.

Your assumptions are skewed towards creating the parallel, rather than uncovering it.


It definately wont take the place of an education.


Agreed.


Dont let the adulations of the ignorant masses go to your head.


I'll take that advice also.

gdog: I would just like to ask you one thing, in your post where is a single counter argument to the comparison that fortress 46 made? I read it and I find arguments lacking. If we're going to talk about professional observation in terms of educated intellectuals they would say that your post is 'hot air' to use a very unprofessional term (most of us are lay people, as you say yourself, so lets keep this simple). Or, too make it even easier to understand, too much blabber, no content.
I'm not saying that fortress' comparison is correct, I don't know, I haven't checked the facts, but what I am saying is that your attempted refutal is nothing of the sort. I would suggest that you look into my post http://www.inreview.com/showthread....3427&forumid=28 which discusses your form of argumentation. In 'professional' terms its called fallacious. Now, I'm hoping for you to bring forth some proper arguments so that this topic, which many of us find interesting, can be properly discussed. I'm getting a little sick and tired of bush supporters yelling 'that’s ridiculous' and 'how dare you make such a comparison' without actually supplying any proof or information for why that argument is wrong. I will admit immediately that the accusation is very aggressive and could be considered offensive but it will not go away until it has been properly dealt with.

Now will you pick up the gauntlet or will you let those that are better suited argue your case?

I suppose the best way to tackle your unfounded assertions that things are black and white is to pick apart this essay regarding the parallels of past and present piece by piece. Below, the essay “when Democracy failed” is in italics sometimes followed by snip-its in bold to support the observations made by Thom Hartmann. Which then leads to my questions "Q:". This might clear up the huge mystery of why some people come to different conclusions than you do, Mystic.



When Democracy Failed: The Warnings of History

By Thom Hartmann feb 27 2003

The 70th anniversary wasn't noticed in the United States, and was barely reported in the corporate media. But the Germans remembered well that fateful day seventy years ago - February 27, 1933. They commemorated the anniversary by joining in demonstrations for peace that mobilized citizens all across the world.

It started when the government, in the midst of a worldwide economic crisis,



http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/article.php?ModuleId=10005480
During 1930-1933, the mood in Germany was grim. The worldwide economic depression had hit the country hard, and millions of people were out of work. The unemployed were joined by millions of others who linked the Depression to Germany's national humiliation after defeat in World War I. Many Germans perceived the parliamentary government coalition as weak and unable to alleviate the economic crisis. Widespread economic misery, fear, and perception of worse times to come, as well as anger and impatience with the apparent failure of the government to manage the crisis, offered fertile ground for the rise of Adolf Hitler and his Nazi party.

Q: Was there also a Recession beginning to unfold during the first year of the Bush Presidency? If there was, is it then reasonable to consider this as a parallel?

received reports of an imminent terrorist attack.

Q: Was there reason to believe that a similar terrorist attack was going to hit America, possibly in such detail that American intelligence officials such as John O’neill resigned over not being able to investigate them?

Q: Is there is even evidence that suggests American intelligence even had foreknowledge of the type of attack Via Hijackers receiving flight training at government facilities?



A foreign ideologue had launched feeble attacks on a few famous buildings, but the media largely ignored his relatively small efforts. The intelligence services knew, however, that the odds were he would eventually succeed. (Historians are still arguing whether or not rogue elements in the intelligence service helped the terrorist; the most recent research implies they did not.)



I’ll end there. I’d like to see your response to this and ascertain whether or not you’re worth the time in dissecting this issue with objective reasoning.

Originally posted by Fortress46


Q: Was there also a Recession beginning to unfold during the first year of the Bush Presidency? If there was, is it then reasonable to consider this as a parallel?

Was there a recession? yes. But most presidents obtain the economy from their predecessor. Any programs made the the former president will more than likely not be felt until after they have left office. The most likely to blame for recessions is not the president, but the chairman of the federal reserve board. Hoover, Reagan, and Carter all endured recessions. No one ever compared them to Hitler though.


Q: Was there reason to believe that a similar terrorist attack was going to hit America, possibly in such detail that American intelligence officials such as John O’neill resigned over not being able to investigate them?

As far as my understanding, the Feds that worked with him said that John probably never said those things and the he took the new job for better pay. His closest friends said that the things John was quoted saying were something that he would never say, and they also said that he always spoke about taking a better job if the right one was offered. The only corroboration to john's "supposed" story were by French analysts in their book. I have nothing against the French..so to speak...but they did have their own agenda.

The thing that was probably questioned the most was Yemen. And it was because of death threats that the director had them tone it down, not the State Department.

Q: Is there is even evidence that suggests American intelligence even had foreknowledge of the type of attack Via Hijackers receiving flight training at government facilities?

Do I think there is evidence? I dont know. Honestly I should say that I don't know. I do believe that there was a breakdown in American security. But there are so many conflicting stories that I don't think I have ever come to final conclusion. With that I should at least be honest!

The one thing that gets me the most though, is the analogy ....To make such an offensive comparison between Bush and Hitler, who was responsible for the murder of 6 million Jews in the Holocaust and more than 60 million people in WWII exceeds all limits in my opinion. Hitler started spouting off his propaganda 12 years before becoming Chancellor, he wasn't even a German citizen until a year before. He supported anti semetic views. I just dont get the comparison.

I guess you didnt want to just tackle one thing at a time huh?



Originally posted by Fortress46

Q: Did Hoover Regan or Carter take away Civil Liberties?
Is it reasonable to compare the Enabling act of Hitler to that Of the Bush Administrations' Patriot Act 1 & 2?


Personally, in my opinion, I do not think that this is taking away civil liberties.

Q: Do you have access to John's resignation letter?

[b]
http://www.dailykos.com/archives/001232.html

No I dont have access to his resignation letter...and this site doesnt either. All this site is about is Bush bashing as far as I could tell. Correct me of I'm wrong though.


Q: If John resigned after a 35 years career with the FBI on the sudden whim he wanted to do something else possibly involving more pay, what do you think about Richard Clarke's resignation?

Let's see Richard Clarke said he wanted to pursue private sector work. And many have found flaws in Clarke's comments...such as some "root servers" were NOT disabled as he says. Slammer did not destroy data, hardware, or software. Like a denial of service attack, it simply overwhelmed servers, hundreds of thousands of them,with massively duplicated and spurious traffic. Only one root service was diabled and that was in Vienna. I think, as other do, that it is fraudulous to grossly misstate facts just to undermine the Internet he was asked to protect, so that he could go into private sectors that profit heavily.


Q: If indeed secret order w199i did take John off of investigating Saudi Terror links by Bush, is it unreasonable to consider the possibility that he did resign over frustration, French source aside?

My understanding is the the state department did not take him off but the director of the FBI did. Maybe you can link me to something more impartial that says otherwise.


Q: Is this the only time the FBI FAA NSA was warned?

Couldn't tell you....but I'm assuming you can tell me.

Q: Is it unreasonable to consider the possibility that this "breakdown" was deliberate?

Not too me is wasnt.


Q: Should we make these types of comparisons only until after Social Disaster and Genocide has occurred?

What genocide are you talking about??? This is going a little overboard dont you think???

Q: What if Hitler had been compared to some other historical figure that had similarities in their foreign policies? Would the comparison be offensive before his crimes were perpetrated and Germany was in complete ruins?

You should have stopped at "what if"...because he was not. Again, you cannot compare hilter to bush...the comparison is outlandish. Hitler MURDERED people. I do not think Bush will ever get to that point. I think if it even came close, EVERYONE would put an end to it...the comparison does not work. You can take many things and piece it together anyway you want and make people comparable, but it doesnt make it true when you look at the whole picture.

Q: Is it reasonable to compare Bush's Policies regarding Civil Liberties and Secrecy to that of Hitler’s SS?

Um.....no. Bush is trying to stop terrorism, Hitler was trying to oppress the Jews. Big difference to me. The Jews were one type of persons, terrorism can be any people. The Jews were innocent people who did no harm to others, while terrorists try to murder people. If you compare Hitler to Bush, you may as well compare the Jews to terrorists...ridiculous!


Q: Whether or not the comparison is offensive, why shouldn't we do all that we can to understand how the degradation of civil rights does not ever lead to security? Don't you think that if there's no need to compare we ignore political and social land mines the past has clearly outlined?

That would be more of an opinion. If I were to check out a book on how to make bombs from the library, dont you think I may be a cause for concern?


Q: If Bush knew that the Terrorists would strike and waited until then, why would it be unreasonable to find this similar to a tactic that Hitler used?

Im still trying to figure out where you got that information.


Q: Was nationalism stirred after the Reichstag building was set on fire? And if so, was not American Nationalism also stirred?

If disaster strikes, people tend to gather around and stick together. But again, we dont reallyknow for sure that he knew...do we? again, where did you get your info from?

Q: Didn't Bush talk about Good, Evil and terrorism?

And???

Q: Shouldn't we always be aware of the tactics that have been utilized by people such as Hitler as a comparison, rather than the person itself?

Whatever makes you happy....I cant argue when I think the comparison is wrong. Ill just end up repeating myself.

Two weeks later, the first detention center for terrorists was built in Oranianberg to hold the first suspected allies of the infamous terrorist. In a national outburst of patriotism, the leader's flag was everywhere, even printed large in newspapers suitable for window display. [/i]

Q: Do you know about camp X-Ray? Are there Children being detained there? Are there other such facilities also being built to house Terrorists in the USA?

So you think that the terroists are being tortured there? I think if they are, the people responsible for such tortures will have to face strict punishment. But I see that you are more concerned with the right of the terrorist then you are with those who are harmed by them...maybe Im wrong, but Im in a crappy mood today, and thats how Im reading into it...today. Are there children there? I highly doubt it! And any terrorists that we detain here are housed in prisons, like any other criminal.


Q: Were the camps like Dachau in early Nazi Germany specifically for the mass murder of Jews and political dissidents at first, or did they evolve into their death state as a result of Civil Liberties being trashed at the expense of fighting terrorism?

Yes there were many camps in Germany like Auschwitz that were there specifically for murdering Jews. Do I think these camps such as camp x-ray is for that purpose? No I do not. I do not recall any mass murder of terrorists there. I guanrantee they are being treated more humanely then the Jews were treated!

Q: Are we as a nation so impervious to error, evil, and immorality that we could never be responsible for another Genocide?

Oh...Genoceide of terrorists is what you were talking about? Again, I hardly see that as reality.

Q: How many normal German citizens did not even know about the death camps until they saw them with their own eyes?

More than you think!! Although Im sure some didnt...but again, if people saw that to be happening...it would not be tolerated now as it was in the 1930's....different time.

Q: Wouldn't you agree that freedom is eternal vigilance? If freedom is eternal vigilance, aren't offensive comparisons inevitable and must be made at one time or another?


#1....yes #2....Are they inevitable? Perhaps. But just because some people feel a need to make them, doesnt mean that the comparison works. Sometimes these types of comparisons are made to sensationalize, and the problem with that is when people use these comparisons, their actual statement becomes covered by this instead, therefore the point of the actual statement istself becomes lost in all the BS.

To Mystic ... don't have time to get into all of it right now.

One point he was right about and you are gravely mistaken about. There are children in Guantanamo Bay. There is a Toronto teenager being held ther since war in afghanistan. The teen was in Afghanistan prior to US invasion { my understanding he was visiting relatives } and took up arms against US invading forces. He was captured { a teenager is hardly a warrior } and has since been denied rights under the Geneva Convention

BTW here is a link on Omar who, I stand corrected, was 15 at time of conflict and may face death penalty in violation of Geneva Convention!



http://nor.ecadp.org/headlines/news.php?newsID=822

So you think that the terroists are being tortured there? I think if they are, the people responsible for such tortures will have to face strict punishment. But I see that you are more concerned with the right of the terrorist then you are with those who are harmed by them...maybe Im wrong, but Im in a crappy mood today, and thats how Im reading into it...today. Are there children there? I highly doubt it! And any terrorists that we detain here are housed in prisons, like any other criminal.


Q: Have you ever heard the FBI talk about Torturing people to aquire information?

Q: With no constitutional oversight, how are those who commit torture to be "punished"?

Q: How do you know that the suspects are being treated humanely?

http://news.com.au/common/story_pag...0%5E401,00.html


US plans death camp
May 26, 2003

THE US has floated plans to turn Guantanamo Bay into a death camp, with its own death row and execution chamber.

Prisoners would be tried, convicted and executed without leaving its boundaries, without a jury and without right of appeal, The Mail on Sunday newspaper reported yesterday.

The plans were revealed by Major-General Geoffrey Miller, who is in charge of 680 suspects from 43 countries, including two Australians.

The suspects have been held at Camp Delta on Cuba without charge for 18 months.

General Miller said building a death row was one plan. Another was to have a permanent jail, with possibly an execution chamber.


Q: Was Dachau intended at first (1933) to be a place to Hold or detain Political dissidents Terrorists Jews later to be, when Appropriate, released.....

Or Did Dachau evolve into its death state as a result of a patriotic disregard for inalienable and basic civil liberties? IE the right to a trial. The right to face your accusors. The right to know the charges against you? You know, due process?

Q: Are terrorists, even the most cold blooded to be treated as animals? If suspected terrorists are animals, are they seperated from being treated with dignity?

(Caring about terrorists more, or victims more is irrespective to upholding the consistency of Constitutional American Values)

Q: Are you morally strong enough to judge suspects, try them and punish them with death impartially? And if you are strong enough, can you gurantee that every succesive generation who will be responsible for overseeing the Detention and possible execution of suspected terrorists will carry on in your tradition of impartiality 100%?

Q: Is it wrong to think that because people aren't born in the America that they shouldn't be entitled to the very words of the declaration of independence which established the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA?

I... I.... Oh God do I hope and pray that the above post { about a death camp in Cuba } was some form of misquote.....

I know some of us have done the US-Germany parrallel thing before ... but I can not believe it would go this far