WOW...someone else gets it!!!

The passage of the Torture/Detainee bill (hereafter “the Law”) inspires this long rant.
I realize most of you know a good amount of information about the Law already, but I’m obsessively-compelled to spread a fraction of my knowledge and dot-connecting inferences, NOT about human-rights abuses, NOT about Gitmo or renditions to the no-longer-secret CIA prisons overseas, NOT about Geneva conventions’ violations and torture of foreign innocents held for years without charges. This e-mail rant delves deeper into the Law’s implications, what it truly says and doesn’t say regarding people saying “Shame” while thinking it’s not all that relevant to their personal lives, their own futures.

I take consolation in learning that since “Black Friday,” two days ago, a zillion e-mails, blog posts, chats online and telephonic, etc., have been flying all over. I will make one apology only (for those friends who’ve received similar communiqués, a single apology’s an improvement!) I sincerely believe that Friday was one of America’s darkest days and am sorry for the length of what follows, the intrusion, and unedited prose. I couldn’t let this linger, unfinished or unsent. Please read it: feel free to do so gradually, feel free to forward it promiscuously. The first step and most important action we need to take is educating ourselves and others. My compulsion didn’t arise in a vacuum - there’s been plenty for freedom-loving Americans to rant about for five years. Two-hundred-year-old liberties have been chipped away at, there are several dozen “urgent” political problems - actually, crises - but this Law, in one broad stroke demolished a substantial chunk of what the United States has stood for. Permanently, until or unless the Law can be revoked. And again: I’m not concentrating on what this Law means as it relates to the poor souls, some dead, who’ve been tortured and now, retroactively, are deemed to have been tortured legally.

Throughout this Administration/President (“Party” hereafter), the genius of “getting their way” on the tiniest matters and on “everything” overall has involved -- my specialty -- words. It is the semantics, the re-defining, framing and re-framing, linguistics and usage, expression of ideas and concepts, that Karl Rove, et al., successfully manipulate and employ to manipulate us. I won’t ramble too many examples: y’all know plenty. During these half-dozen years, one often-employed technique has turned definitions topsy-turvy, e.g., patriots have effectively become unpatriotic; many “antis” have become “pros,” etc. Another category of new coinages or usage that are spelled out in Party talking points are such minutiae that the deniability is built-in - an accident or elision, perhaps. One seemingly trivial example Newt Gingrich started this summer and that was followed by Party faithful, was the simple change in speaking about the “Democrat Party” and a “Democrat senator.” The misuse of the noun as adjective, the one-syllable change created two different impressions to its audience: these insidious re-definers wanted to make the “Democratic party” sound less “democratic” and a policymaker, allegedly beamed, "and it ends with rat!” Trust me: this is part of my main point, not a tangent.
Words can confuse and complicate consciously; worse, their effects can subtly run deep, work on America’s collective subconscious. By “definition,” the latter means that the Party, despite its anti-intellectual bent, has gotten away with the "nuances" of concealed motives and actions from even the smartest citizens. Our nation is hardly composed of citizens as mentally challenged as our leader appears to be. However, the subconscious works in mysterious ways. And you know from group-psych how collective expands exponentially, it isn’t merely a total of individuals -- a group of 5 hysterical people produces more than 5x the hysteria of one hysteric. Our country’s figurehead doesn’t have the capacity to consistently retain semantic nuances (haven’t scientists miniaturized that mechanical box he wore under his suit during last campaign? Oops: I forgot, “science.”) The people around him, including those involved in the Project for the New American Century, don’t miss a word-trick. I won’t belabor the “framing” and “re-framing” of ideas and the Big Picture - you’re aware of the techniques and can find plenty online to specifically detail them.

Perhaps my greatest concern about the Law, you’ll see soon below, involves its wording, the Party’s words about the Law, and varying interpretations thereof. The entire process that led up to and resulted in this Law is frightening as hell. “Fear” is the over-riding theme of this two-term Administration. Fear is a technique, linguistic and otherwise. Fear is a motivation, a punishment, and collective psychological control. AND - apart from the Party’s incessant attempts to instill of fear, nationally and globally, the Law is shot-through with genuine reasons for Americans to be fearful. The response, “nothing to fear but fear itself,” in this decade, offers no reassurance. “Fear itself” is the Party’s unwritten motto. We who aren’t lemmings handily saw through early fear-mongering in the Electorate: blatant and awkward examples came with the 2002 and 2004 “heightened terrorism alerts” that coincided just before elections Democrats should have won -- or, without Party-owned, -bought, and -manufactured voting machines, and with well-placed State secretaries of state/brothers, the Democratic Party did win. Those of us who dismissed the literal scare tactics have been able to identify and react appropriately to those false fears. And yet, another brilliant piece of psychology was the manipulation of “terrorism alerts” and simultaneous statements “Don’t be afraid, that’s what the terrorists want!” WHO wants it? The Party, big time.

We could go month-by-month (even a day at a time) since September 11th and create a multi-columned “fear chart” that shows the Party’s attempts to instill fear. The intentional fear-mongering has hardly been limited to terrorism or the “war on” terrorism (William Safire in today’s NYTimes examines the various re-wordings of the illegal invasion/occupation and re-wording of the wars' targets as Islamo-fascists).

IT IS ONLY IN THE CONTEXT OF PERPETUAL FEAR and with a knowledge of wording that the Law’s implications, ramifications, consequences, can be understood. Remember how this “issue” -- one of hundreds on which we must be educated -- began with Gonzales terming the Geneva conventions “quaint?”Under our latest, higher-level Fear-Itself conditions, we can look back on the “Orange Alerts” as quaint. As the Party agenda pushes further and further into __ *I won’t say the word till later* and into deeper fears, political decisions and ideas we complained about, say, 4 or 3 or 2 years ago appear comparatively mild. Instead of discussing the torture of Gitmo, et al., and detainees, I want to begin with the effect of the words on the collective subconscious. The most common of rhetorical devices is repetition -- think Gospel services. Six years ago, if you watched television all day long, how many times would you estimate you heard the word “torture?” If it hadn’t been for the “careless” release of Abu Ghraib photographs, even two years ago, you would’ve heard it a little, either in some Afghan/Iraq/terrorist context OR in news descriptions from places few Americans could find on a map, e.g., remote republics of the former Soviet Union. Before touching on the Law’s politics, what do you know rhetorical repetition does, and does to people? How many times would you estimate the word “torture” has popped into your head 10 years ago? Or, except for joking about a job or relationship, have you used the word? Some researcher should Google “torture,” eliminate historical references, and plot the surge in the past decade, then month-by-month in 2006. How many of y'all could explain "waterboarding" in 2002? Other terms have entered our vocabularies. My initial, significant point herein is “merely” the effect that single word has already had on the American people. And that's The Law's subject matter. First, “torture” is a scary concept and a visceral response to the image adds to our personal and collective fears. Second, the concept of AMERICA as a so-called “torture state” is devastating to patriotism, our own national pride. Torture radically alters the definition of America and of how we, our “forefathers” and the Founding Fathers/ ”Framers” of the Constitution, view America. Obviously, it alters how the rest of the world views America. Since the U.N.’s establishment, the designation “torture state” has existed and those bad-guy countries so labeled have had civil and human rights monitored… Traditionally, ordinary U.S. citizens have derided, disdained, whatever, those bad guys, lumping together its people with its populace. And the Federal government frequently imposed sanctions on “torture states.” How can a resident of a torture state muster patriotism? Paradoxically, the solitary answer I can think of must be triggered by a redoubled patriotism. The rest of the world, including allies and ex-allies, has reason now to dub the USA definitive bad guys, and not for the old, long-running reasons like imperialism. Third and most frightening in my opinion, surpassing concern about the Party's implied fear, is the Party's implied power -- the increased power, “evil” power and seemingly absolute power of the unitary executive, the one-man rule under which our nation officially falls (thanks to the Law). The self-described “Decider” has the exclusive authority to decide who gets detained and/or tortured -- legally. Media are focusing on this controversial Law’s aspects of human rights and terrorism: yes, they’re there and I’m not dismissing the horror of torture in any sense. Yet if the Law’s details are examined and if the innumerable words and actions for five years culminates in the Law, then the most terrifying is the specter of one-man rule (or, to quote the bill, it’s one man “AND” whomever he bestows that same power upon). If you’ve not followed the news from outside the huge media majority that’s controlled by five corporations or been unable to take in recent books and documentaries, it may be difficult to piece together each increment of our democracy’s power the Party has usurped. Our nation has reached a new plateau, where the Party’s defining and re-defining skills enable this Law to re-define our form of government from democracy to one-man rule, and re-define both torture and enemy combatant. I will elaborate below on the unitary executive - suffice to end this “torture” paragraph with the ugly image of a life-and-death power resting exclusively in THOSE particular hands.

“Fear Itself” Part II… Rhetorical repetition eventually grows stale, therefore the years of “terror, terror, terror” propaganda has worn off somewhat (although not for the Party's base, otherwise the pre-campaign-season wouldn’t have revisited “9/11, 9/11, 9/11.”) The shift to “torture, torture, torture” -- setting aside that the Law legalizes some despicable behavior and departs from international agreement -- is another shrewd manipulation of the Electorate. Most Americans, including plenty who were in NYC, cannot truly envision or grasp “international terrorism.” And more than were killed on 9/11/01, many more, have first-hand experience with torture, such as from spousal/child abuse, police brutality, rape and other heinous crimes, etc.

A “breather” paragraph before this rant's intensity crescendos. How much better if this Law were horrible and simple, instead of the simplicity being deceptive and the horror complex and multi-dimensional! Secondary motives for the Law, some obvious, are myriad. The superficial and to-become-oft-repeated excuse will be clarifying the definition of “torture,“ and specifically to demonstrate to Americans and the world that there are forms of torture our government won’t tolerate, I.e., how good we are! We won’t leave scars, and some banana republic torture worse! The Geneva conventions, after all, are old-fashioned and not written for today’s terrorists: see! We made concessions and abolished certain methods you accused us of performing (rightly)…. ..The Party needed this Law to shield itself from its own conservative Supreme Court…... It similarly needed the Law retroactively to shelter itself, as well as the military, intelligence agents, and private contractors who carried out inhumane orders against future indictments on international war crimes and Federal felonies…... It needed the deliberately vague phrases -- NB what I mentioned about brilliance with specific wordings, the least specific wordings are another smart technique..…. The newly-minted ambiguous language used to “sell” the bill to Congress and the public helps evoke a picture, for internal and external consumption, that Americans are still the good guys..…. The urgency to pass the bill by last Friday allows the President on behalf of his up-for-election Party faithful to campaign on fear “terrorism, torture, terrorism, torture,” then mendaciously re-frame the “torture law” as some monumental step forward: conversely the Law instills fear and pledges to combat it..…. Those Republican candidates for the House and Senate, in turn, can parrot the Party talking points about why the Law benefits us all “in dangerous times.”…... Those campaign scare tactics that worked in the 2002 and 2004 elections get kicked up a notch with the Law, the superficial appearance of its benefits and the appearance of bipartisan support. I pity the Democrats in vulnerable races who ceded to the majority - the nicest way I can phrase it - because the instilled false fear would be assuaged by this misunderstood, false solution. They knew their opponents would otherwise wind up their “soft on terror, cut-and-run, soft on terror, cut-and-run” mantras (and over the weekend I heard that RNC commercials are saying "soft on crime, soft on pedophilia").

The 0.001% of good the Law that I can discern is forbidding of a very few types of torture. The media will describe how “some of the most heinous interrogation methods, like rape…” are no longer legal under the new legislation. (Has anyone publicly retorted, because the Law covers retroactive actions, that this proves heretofore the family-values Party HAS been raping detainees?) I suspect the "newly illegal" parts will be all mainstream news sources will cover, as has been traditional for five years, the corporate media have obediently relayed Party talking points. (FYI, most of the corporate media's corporations include defense-contracting business, i.e., war-profiteering trumps the news and entertainment divisions and reality shows combined). One very distorted “plus” in the Law is sure to be emphasized before the election: its supposed clarification of “enemy combatant.” This doesn’t do a hell of a lot of good for the Gitmo (et al.) detainees, the majority of whom were SOLD (humans sold) by Afghani warlords and other bad guys c.2002 just to get the U.S. $bounty. Money makes the oligarchy go round and the Administration trusted greedy “evil-doers” with huge financial rewards to sell some bodies to fill up Guantanamo. (No, I won’t say all detainees were innocents, but mighty few men held for years have been charged with crimes.)

Beyond those poor fellows, the disastrous problem with re-defining “enemy combatant” is that the Law gives that “one man” the power to legally decide who fits the revised definition. Exponentially more frightening than the subliminal fears of torture, terrorism, and of his omnipotence, is that the broad, vague definition DOES apply to everyone. An enemy combatant is no longer some foreigner who lays down arms on the battlefield (Geneva definition), it can be a U.S. citizen and resident, a naturalized citizen or illegal alien, even a foreign tourist or businessperson or any foreigner off the battlefield… anyone under the Law can LEGALLY be detained indefinitely with no explanation besides the designation “enemy combatant.” (Every time I've typed “detained” insert “indefinitely”). One middle-of-road commentator, relying on a newspaper in front of him, was asked if the Law covered foreigners only. The uninformed reply was, “Well, I don’t see anything in the article that says Americans are eligible for…” Eligible? A sin of omission, intended to at minimum pile more fear onto every American. (Aside: you think illegal immigrants were frightened before??) I’m not saying that the Party is determined to lock up upstanding, political dissidents (me?). The Law’s language has cleverly built-in deniability: wherever the language is broad, the President and others can answer, “Yes, it says so; but that’d never happen in this great nation!” I have spent a lot of time in these two days inhaling information on the Law. A few hours after the one commentator, a Constitutional scholar who’d digested the final draft was asked about good ol’ citizens and the Law, “Without a doubt, it’s legal,” the scholar explained. “The change in definition is purposefully so broad” that anyone who opposes our President or government, and/or anyone who supports hostilities against our government, is eligible to be deemed “enemy combatant.” One one-word change in the last phrase made a huge difference: it once said “anyone who engages in hostilities” … “supports hostilities” can mean whatever the All-Powerful One Man wants it to mean? If it's any consolation, tacitly, the military big brass and not just the outspoken retired generals, say that a majority of troops and officers are disturbed by the Law: not because it replaces Geneva (although the older officers are hurt by that, too), but it replaces the near-holy Field Manual - reportedly the guide book is revered, not to be messed with. The Law messes with it.

Not-quite-an-aside on 3 justifications and 2 reasons for the U.S. invasion/occupation of Iraq… Two of the three public justifications, "EVERYBODY all knew were lies before the invasion and everyone else knows now: the WMD and 9/11-ties. The third had roots in something that, through Alice-in-Wonderland logic, Americans have been proud of for 200+ years - how our nation was born: the flipside of war as we fought to liberate ourselves from the one-man rule by England's George III. If it weren’t for the gravity of the Law, it would be comical or a bizarre sort of psychological projecting, to analyze the “liberating the Iraqi people” excuse… i.e., based on what I've written so far: that the Party intended its occupation as a method of ridding a country of one-man rule, a ruler who tortured and “disappeared” its residents (“extreme rendition”), people in whom fear was perpetually instilled and who needed expansion of civil and human rights, etc. Pot calling the kettle black? Two of the true reasons for the occupation are what keeps our weakened, sad troops there. It’s tough to figure out which is the higher priority - (1) Oil control, (2) establishment of permanent bases. And this, after Bush 100% caved in to Osama bin Laden’s demand that the U.S. base and hundreds of troops be removed from (holy) Saudi soil (yes, and the accommodation was for bin Laden only, not his dad's buddies in the Saudi family - oh boy, another entire topic I'll avoid; the concession had to do with the U.S. military stationed in same country as Mecca and Medina). How to pin that on Clinton!
Plans for the 15 or so bases under construction in Iraq currently are in the plans of the 1998 Project for the New American Century with clearly imperialistic aims. Jeez - as I typed that, even “imperialistic” in the context of this Party sounds quaint!

No room here to enumerate how much of the Constitution and other 18th century documents has been decimated in five years, many rights have seen gradual shifts, some rights blatantly trashed. I won't belabor Church & State, Search & Seizure, Cruel & Unusual Punishment., et al. Freedom of the Press?? On the annual list of developed nations with Greatest Freedom of the Press, the USA has dropped to a stunning 26th place in the world. It was four full years ago that I initially read “America’s heading toward a ‘constitutional crisis’” and about two or three ago that “constitutional crisis” was a phrase that cropped up more and more. I believe the Law heralds a Constitutional crisis' official arrival.One time the term was frequently discussed involved the FISA courts and warrantless wire-tapping, especially the domestic -- about the President‘s very public lie and public slips, about the USA Today excellent investigation into the phone companies‘ re-rigging of large and complicated systems to accomplish it, and if you research the timeline from when the article appeared, you‘ll find mysterious maneuvering in the private sector and several departments of the government. When the subject was pushed further, lies were flowing freely. (Something freely!) The huge on-record fact that a lot of Americans seem to have skipped over, is that the Congress has altered the FISA legislation 5 times already since Bush took office - to make it more lenient and secretive! Meaning, to help him "break" the law as it was. It’s hardly been etched in stone -- he determined the wiretapping “necessary“ due to terrorism, terrorism, terrorism. And I’ll be reasonable: okay, let Congress tailored it to suit his needs, again and again They complained about not having time to get a warrant, so the time was adjusted. They complained about the uncertainty of a warrant being approved, so they were told that 99.99% in tens of thousands of cases have been approved. The excuse, “If Al Queda’s calling, we wanna know why” but if it’s not Al Queda, then I want to know why he’s tapping phones. Still, the law will never be acceptable with any paper trail. Some evidence has come out on electronic eavesdropping of journalists, of lawyers for media outlets and on other cases (where attorney-client privilege is shattered), of their own Party operatives, and -- like Nixon -- political enemies. Why else would the Party want no paper trail, many have asked. Well, I agree that that’s the main answer, but there is another, more insidious reason -- in a whisper: "you're being watched, we hear you, torture, terror," successful and more tangible, more relevant to OUR quotidian lives, returning to INSTILLING FEAR - hell, real paranoia. The old joke about paranoiacs and “sometimes people really are spying on you…” is a propos. I'm tired of the incessant Orwellian allusions, already! Every line of 1984 someone's quoted during the Party's rule because the "fiction" is apt. Also apt is the Party slogan, “Be afraid, be very afraid.” On the news, in the paper, at the coffee shop, there’s talk about various ways citizens have lost their right to privacy. That WAS one of their first targets in gingerly disassembling our democracy, not just through wiretapping and - AHEM! - reading civilians' domestic electronic communications. And losing liberties and losing privacy, has the same results on individuals and the collective consciousness and subconscious..."we could be tortured, that man tortures human beings, they're reading this e-mail," etc. We feel very vulnerable because we are being made to feel very vulnerable. We are not safe because we are programmed to feel unsafe. I cannot ramble on about every aspect of Democracy Lost, but trampled-upon rights and this Law -- regardless of whether or not ANY torture or eavesdropping ever occurs -- gives the Party omnipotence. The president's "joke" several years ago that he was in favor of "dictatorship, just so long as I get to be the dictator!" is so a propos in retrospect I sense it was more an accidental truth spilling out than anything else. One-man rule is controlling. I wonder how frightened and under-his-control the Non-Neocon Republicans are.... The Party nicknamed last month Security September -- it's the Step Two of their atavistic strategy: scare the hell out of everyone, control their actions and CONTROL EMOTIONS - then twist the falsehoods to provide the sense of security. It’s equal to poisoning someone and offering a placebo antidote. Since 2001, we’ve discussed the real and potential eradication of 200-year-old liberties; another analyst said this Law, with habeas corpus, et al., set us back pre-Magna Carta.

I won’t delve into the Law’s provisions on inhumane “commissions”/ tribunals and the legalese I don’t entirely understand. Yet regarding making the Constitutional-right-for-some-of-us of habeas corpus, another odd twist in the Law "any habeas counsel" -- meaning the private attorneys, public defenders, and EVEN MILITARY LAWYERS -- are possible “enemy combatants” themselves in attempts to get judicial review, habeas corpus rights, et al., for their enemy-combatant clients! I’m not paranoid enough to say that examples of “possible combatants” will become definite. Still , regarding “those who oppose the U.S…those who support hostilities,” think about the State of the Union Address which Cindy Sheehan attended as an invited guest -- before the Law. As soon as her T-shirt was noticed, Capitol Police ejected her. AND, minutes later, the wife of a Republican congressman was likewise escorted out - a panic over her “Support the Troops” shirt. (Go figure?) I’d like to think Cindy wouldn’t be declared an enemy combatant, but she could qualify. BUT, I’d like to think she could’ve politely remained in the seat provided for her. Her T-shirt that had nothing more than a 4-digit number printed on it (the to-date number of American dead troops). Asked of that Constitutional Scholar Friday: protest marchers? He said that the “organizers of an anti-war march” could fall under the Law, although not individual marchers (“who’d sue, if they can”). About 35 million people I’ve neglected: the various-status immigrants in the USA. The scholar said the Law jeopardizes them if participating in any way in public, e.g., a rally pro or con some immigration legislation might be a place where someone’s easily disappeared. IMMIGRANTS’ fates are up for grabs…. OVERSEAS CHARITABLE CONTRIBUTIONS, even to U.S. NGOs working in Islamic societies. Unlike problems associated with fake Muslim charities that funneled money into anti-US-policy battles, the Law’s vagueness can regard legit contributors to legit charities “enemy combatants” -- this scholar’s example: “If you give $5 to an NGO building a school in Afghanistan, and it turns out the principal’s father-in-law is ex-Taliban, your $5 is ‘supporting hostilities.’” What about tourists wearing an anti-Bush T-shirt in New York? The expert hesitated but said, “they’d better not do it at the Statue of Liberty - really! Federal government.” Don’t infer that I believe that tourist or the $5-donor will be hauled off to secret prisons; these are examples, though, of what Americans are NO LONGER protected against. The criterion "anyone who opposes the U.S." is so broad I could tally up a couple billion folks. I suppose we could be grateful that the Figurehead isn't really in charge - or exclusively so... Halliburton, et al., would have a lot of facility-building to do!

Another “breather” -- break from the Law rant -- before more intensity in my final section. A few random facts you may or may not know … #1 Re Condi Rice/Afghanistan region’s future. The media have carelessly misreported that Dr Rice is a “Russian scholar” or “expert on Russian affairs.” It’s not propaganda, just sloppy reporters who've substituted “Russia” for “USSR.” Before working at Chevron Oil, Rice was indeed a scholar of / expert on …a few specific Soviet republics, namely the less stable (oil-rich) former SSRs bordering Afghanistan. While the Cuckoo-in-Chief plays tic-tac-toe, with Iran the connector between Iraq and Afghanistan, his brighter subordinate has a more elaborate connect-the-pipeline-dots game… #2 If you heard the EPA was being dismantled, did you know it was meant literally? Moving companies have gone in without notice to employees and are currently taking - literally banging down the hallways - the library holdings and lab equipment, removing libraries and laboratories period. It’s no surprise that the anti-science (and pro-business-polluters) would make cutbacks to the agency and its low- and mid-level staff, but some of the top scientists in the world had been drawn to working at the EPA. If top scientists aren’t given labs, libraries and funds, uh, some are leaving regretfully and regrettably, without the Feds looking bad for pushing them out. …#3 Is anyone surprised that Henry Kissinger is involved in helping out on “Middle East policy“ right now?…. #4 Conspiracy theorists - I’m not dignifying this as possible - say Oct 21st is the D-Day for Iran (under cover of new moon darkness)…. #5 Here’s something that’s been said a million times but one detail bears repeating: long before this Administration the USA was respected and/or envied by most of the world. And the Administration squandered the bonus global good will and sympathy after 9/11. Pop quiz for your neocon friends: what did Iran do on 9/12? What did that axis-of-evil nation say in response? Think, think: Iran had pro-American rallies. The USA had Iran’s good will and sympathy as much as the next guy’s. Parallel to us losing our rights and our pride in America, the Administration has lost not only allies, but made many more enemies. We used to regard ourselves as the good guys - hell, most of the world thought we were too….

That seques into wrapping up the unitary executive worry, and what this means and could mean. I conjured a piece of irony: from Day 1, this President claimed that he didn’t look at polls, he wouldn’t make decisions based on poll numbers … a unitary executive wouldn’t need to! I made it this far, with so many words both in this e-mail and in many discussions, etc., without using the F-word. I’ll reiterate that our leader cannot be name-called A.H.: A.H. was unique. This particular F-word is similarly a semantic bombshell, and has been misused and overused by the gamut of politicians. (And progressives are guilty for it arising with every Republican since Eisenhower… Good ol’ DDE who warned us of precisely what's happening vis-a-vis the military-industrial complex, something our other World Wars lacked.) So I'll say it, the United States truly is approaching objectively definitive fascism. As I started this rambling rant about the Torture & Detainee Law, I’m sorry about the torturing and detaining; I'm worried about the mistreatment of human beings. But we must all be on guard, as well as mortified, about the increased power and fearful power that the Law places in the hands of a unitary executive. "Unitary executive" has been the neocon goal all along, and the Party's come closer and closer. Remember when we last heard that term overused? During the Harriet Myers’ nomination for Supreme Court and Sam Alito confirmation hearings? Both of them favored such an utter imbalance in power. Over the last few years, we've heard members of the executive branch say the judicial needed to be subordinated ("activist judges, activist judges!"), we've heard members of executive and nominees for the judicial say the legislative's power be curtailed. And vice versa. The whole bunch of 'em have concentrated in unitary executive and this Law's a further confirmation. I’m not going to get stuck with words like oligarchy, plutocracy, et al. Here is my partial list of what conditions lead to fascism and/or is fascism:A unitary executive: one-man rule without checks-and-balances of a co-equal branch of government; stripping of citizens’ rights, stripping of Constitution; legalized torture, detention and disappearing of its own citizens as well as foreigners; invading sovereign countries; blatant propaganda (paying newscasters to report Party viewpoints, planting a gay-prostitute White House correspondent - who the Secret Service shows entered the WH 100+x; paying public relations firms for government-produced video reports for local broadcasters to pick up as “news,” paying Americans to write pro-war articles to publish in Iraqi papers, etc., etc.); the “subconscious fear techniques” (I hadn’t yet used the B-word: mass brainwashing); the rise of corporatocracy (expansion far beyond a pro-business agenda; no one in history’s handed out tax cuts in wartime); no-bid contracts for corporate war-profiteering; disobeying treaties to which we were signatories; spying on citizens; the worst-possible-capitalist-cronyism; election tampering and denial of some voters' rights; control of mainstream media (initiated with Republican Chairman running Fox News); etc. It could go on, this list of pre- and proto-fascist conditions which engender actual Fear, not the other fears intentionally instilled to make us more compliant and make the president more powerful.If you know your WWII history, the Law is the equivalent of A.H’s “Enabling Act.” Both enable(d) the leaders to legally break laws as unitary executives.“The other shoe to drop” -- one thing missing from the list in comparison with Nazi Germany is the economic collapse ~ think pictures of wheelbarrows full of cash. With Bush’s wastefulness and very-anti-conservative spending spree, giving money to cronies, the corporatocracy, oil buddies, defense contractors, the USA has its highest ever national debt and highest ever deficit. More than the total of all previous presidents combined - it’s not even close. So the country’s approaching one side of the economic catastrophe. The other goal is to erase the Middle Class completely -- not forgetting the Party’s original goal of likewise erasing all of the New Deal which could’ve helped the Middle Class survive. A lot of pundits have thrown around the term Banana Republic for the past couple of years. Well, this year there’s at least one statistic to back it up. The USA now comes in 3rd on the list of income disparity (measurement of middle class between upper & lower) -- we’re 3rd right behind Russia and Mexico! I can imagine Europe beating us, but South America does too.

I’m going to quit while I’m ahead (joke!), but I was genuinely compelled to rant about the Law. The daily newspapers aren’t making the Law’s implications clear. My “PS” below is a meditation on What We Can Do (or what can we do?). More and more Americans must wake up soon and discover what’s been done to their country, realize that our military forces are weary and depleted on top of everything else, then realize that an unintelligent, seemingly medicated, utter madman has his finger on “the button.” Oh well, I take passive-aggressive consolation in the thought that he thinks he’s going to Heaven after this behavior.

Peace & love (of the 2006 variety),Vanessa

PS - WHAT WE CAN DO… sounds silly to say “vote on 11/7”? As if you won’t?? Well, my dear very progressive friends, this is not the year to take a stand and vote third-party or not at all; and those friends who are more right-leaning, hold your nose and click straight down the Democratic line: you, too, need checks and balances, even if you disagree with me on other points. People of every stripe: don’t be apathetic believing your vote “won’t count anyway.” If you aren’t registered, you’ve got time - most (all?) states registering to vote can be done online. Re stolen elections - I didn't make a big deal above with elections & “fascism” despite the Party’s tampering ever since Al Gore was elected president. The promising Ohio lawsuits won’t be publicized until after Nov 7. One voting-security expert said that “they” could steal as many as 2 million votes BUT (a big but!) that expert said “ONLY" 2 million, an infinite number cannot be stolen. A very large turn-out voting on Democratic line will cancel the abuse.BETTER MOVE: If you’re unsure if you’ll be home or don’t want to wait in line, vote absentee NOW. If you have time on your hands or an easy precinct, simply go in person and vote now… you can do that, and they must supply you with a paper ballot to do so. IF you’ve got a penny to spare, donate now for the last-minute TV ads… the Republican Party of course has tons & tons more money, they’ve got tons more to lose, tons more at stake. (If you don’t know whom to donate to, ask me. It’s the closest races with greatest money disparity.) MAKE SURE EVERYONE YOU KNOW VOTES. No, not “duh.” Non-active citizens are a zillion times more likely to show up for presidential elections, not off-year ones. There is a "convenience" factor, and apathy. Make sure they’re registered (to hell with manners, JUST BRING IT UP IN CONVERSATION: this is the most important election of our lives). Make sure they’ve got a ride to the polls, help neighbors, et al., if you can. Several nonprofit organizations are recruiting as many poll watchers as they can (ask me) -- America’s become one of those “torture states” and America’s become one of those banana republics that requires international monitors come in to oversee the counting of our votesBEYOND “JUST“ VOTING ON 11/7. This Thursday’s a nationwide protest ("worldcantwait. org) taking the form of the kind of general strikes that occur in Europe … I’m afraid it’ll fail this time because not enough people understand YET… Those of you know me really well, know that I don't throw around words like fascism lightly, i.e., I wish people could realize that we're NOT CRYING WOLF. Without checks and balances we're screwed.
Re general strikes, Ukrainians, et al., have been willing to sacrifice a day of work for the sake of their country’s liberty. The Oct 5 protest in more than 100 US cities will no doubt get minimal mainstream media coverage. That's been the problem with a lot of marches & rallies since the Party took control... the main purpose behind those events IS to "demonstrate" on television ideally how many people believe in / feel about some issue. It seems that the best TV news coverage of what’s going on in USA is coming from outside the USA now. Join organizations, if only the online variety. Rent/watch recent documentaries (I can suggest 10). EDUCATE YOURSELF - read the recent books (most libraries have many to choose from). YOU MAY PASS AROUND THIS EMAIL TO ANY/EVERYONE YOU WISH -- THE MOST IMPORTANT / FIRST STEP IS TO LEARN WHAT’S GOING ON. It can’t hurt to sign petitions, especially those where you can add your own comments. (One handy short-cut is “PetitionSite” where you can sign a batch on different issues at the same website.) Okay. I promised I’d stop somewhere. There are a million more things going on in this nation -- and world, if you think about global warming and this president -- that I could say, but I’ve more or less stayed on topic: the Law sucks.