Gamingforce Interactive Forums
85239 35211

Go Back   Exploding Garrmondo Weiner Interactive Swiss Army Penis > Garrmondo Network > Political Palace

Notices

Welcome to the Exploding Garrmondo Weiner Interactive Swiss Army Penis.
GFF is a community of gaming and music enthusiasts. We have a team of dedicated moderators, constant member-organized activities, and plenty of custom features, including our unique journal system. If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ or our GFWiki. You will have to register before you can post. Membership is completely free (and gets rid of the pesky advertisement unit underneath this message).


Is the United States a Fascist Police State?
Reply
 
Thread Tools
Bradylama
Banned


Member 18

Level 51.14

Feb 2006


Reply With Quote
Old Jun 25, 2010, 04:13 PM Local time: Jun 25, 2010, 04:13 PM #1 of 5
Is the United States a Fascist Police State?

Gonzalo Lira: Is the U.S. a Fascist Police-State?
Quote:
First of all, what is a “fascist police-state”?

A police-state uses the law as a mechanism to control any challenges to its power by the citizenry, rather than as a mechanism to insure a civil society among the individuals. The state decides the laws, is the sole arbiter of the law, and can selectively (and capriciously) decide to enforce the law to the benefit or detriment of one individual or group or another.

In a police-state, the citizens are “free” only so long as their actions remain within the confines of the law as dictated by the state. If the individual’s claims of rights or freedoms conflict with the state, or if the individual acts in ways deemed detrimental to the state, then the state will repress the citizenry, by force if necessary. (And in the end, it’s always necessary.)

What’s key to the definition of a police-state is the lack of redress: If there is no justice system which can compel the state to cede to the citizenry, then there is a police-state. If there exists apro forma justice system, but which in practice is unavailable to the ordinary citizen because of systemic obstacles (for instance, cost or bureaucratic hindrance), or which against all logic or reason consistently finds in favor of the state—even in the most egregious and obviously contradictory cases—then that pro forma judiciary system is nothing but a sham: A tool of the state’s repression against its citizens. Consider the Soviet court system the classic example.

A police-state is not necessarily a dictatorship. On the contrary, it can even take the form of a representative democracy. A police-state is not defined by its leadership structure, but rather, by its self-protection against the individual.
Whole Blog Post:
Spoiler:
I lived in Chile during the Pinochet dictatorship—I can spot a fascist police-state when I see one.

The United States is a fascist police-state.

Harsh words—incendiary, even. And none too clever of me, to use such language: Time was, the crazies and reactionaries wearing tin-foil hats who flung around such a characterization of the United States were disqualified by sensible people as being hysterical nutters—rightfully so.

But with yesterday’s Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project decision (No. 08-1498, also 09-89) of the Supreme Court, coupled with last week’s Arar v. Ashcroft denial of certiorari (No. 09-923), the case for claiming that the U.S. is a fascist police-state just got a whole lot stronger.

First of all, what is a “fascist police-state”?

A police-state uses the law as a mechanism to control any challenges to its power by the citizenry, rather than as a mechanism to insure a civil society among the individuals. The state decides the laws, is the sole arbiter of the law, and can selectively (and capriciously) decide to enforce the law to the benefit or detriment of one individual or group or another.

In a police-state, the citizens are “free” only so long as their actions remain within the confines of the law as dictated by the state. If the individual’s claims of rights or freedoms conflict with the state, or if the individual acts in ways deemed detrimental to the state, then the state will repress the citizenry, by force if necessary. (And in the end, it’s always necessary.)

What’s key to the definition of a police-state is the lack of redress: If there is no justice system which can compel the state to cede to the citizenry, then there is a police-state. If there exists apro forma justice system, but which in practice is unavailable to the ordinary citizen because of systemic obstacles (for instance, cost or bureaucratic hindrance), or which against all logic or reason consistently finds in favor of the state—even in the most egregious and obviously contradictory cases—then that pro forma judiciary system is nothing but a sham: A tool of the state’s repression against its citizens. Consider the Soviet court system the classic example.

A police-state is not necessarily a dictatorship. On the contrary, it can even take the form of a representative democracy. A police-state is not defined by its leadership structure, but rather, by its self-protection against the individual.

A definition of “fascism” is tougher to come by—it’s almost as tough to come up with as a definition of “pornography”.

The sloppy definition is simply totalitarianism of the Right, “communism” being the sloppy definition of totalitarianism of the Left. But that doesn’t help much.

For our purposes, I think we should use the syndicalist-corporatist definition as practiced by Mussolini: Society as a collection of corporate and union interests, where the state is one more competing interest among many, albeit the most powerful of them all, and thus as a virtue of its size and power, taking precedence over all other factions. In other words, society is a “street-gang” model that I discussed before. The individual has power only as derived from his belonging to a particular faction or group—individuals do not have inherent worth, value or standing.

Now then! Having gotten that out of the way, where were we?

Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project: The Humanitarian Law Project was advising groups deemed “terrorists” on how to negotiate non-violently with various political agencies, including the UN. In this 6-3 decision by the U.S. Supreme Court, the Court ruled that that speech constituted “aiding and abetting” a terrorist organization, as the Court determined that speech was “material support”. Therefore, the Executive and/or Congress had the right to prohibit anyone from speaking to any terrorist organization if that speech embodied “material support” to the terrorist organization.

The decision is being noted by the New York Times as a Freedom of Speech issue; other commentators seem to be viewing it in those terms as well.

My own take is, Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project is not about limiting free speech—it's about the state expanding it power to repress. The decision limits free speech in passing, because what it is really doing is expanding the state’s power to repress whomever it unilaterally determines is a terrorist.

In the decision, the Court explicitly ruled that “Congress and the Executive are uniquely positioned to make principled distinctions between activities that will further terrorist conduct and undermine United States foreign policy, and those that will not.” In other words, the Court makes it clear that Congress and/or the Executive can solely and unilaterally determine who is a “terrorist threat”, and who is not—without recourse to judicial review of this decision. And if the Executive and/or Congress determines that this group here or that group there is a “terrorist organization”, then their free speech is curtailed—as is the free speech of anyone associating with them, no matter how demonstrably peaceful that speech or interaction is.

For example, if the Executive—in the form of the Secretary of State—decides that, say, WikiLeaks or Amnesty International is a terrorist organization, well then by golly, it is a terrorist organization. It no longer has any right to free speech—nor can anyone else speak to them or associate with them, for risk of being charged with providing “material support” to this heinous terrorist organization known as Amnesty International.

But furthermore, as per Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project, anyone associating with WikiLeaks—including, presumably, those who read it, and most certainly those who give it information about government abuses—would be guilty of aiding and abetting terrorism. In other words, giving WikiLeaks “material support” by providing primary evidence of government abuse would render one a terrorist.

This form of repression does seem to fit the above definition of a police-state. The state determines—unilaterally—who is detrimental to its interests. The state then represses that person or group.

By a 6-3 majority, the Supreme Court has explicitly stated that Congress and/or the Executive is “uniquely positioned” to determine who is a terrorist and who is not—and therefore has the right to silence not just the terrorist organization, but anyone trying to speak to them, or hear them.

And let's just say that, after jumping through years of judicial hoops, one finally manages to prove that one wasn’t then and isn’t now a terrorist, the Arar denial of certiorari makes it irrelevant. Even if it turns out that a person is definitely and unequivocally not a terrorist, he cannot get legal redress for this mistake by the state.

So! To sum up: The U.S. government can decide unilaterally who is a terrorist organization and who is not. Anyone speaking to such a designated terrorist group is “providing material support” to the terrorists—and is therefore subject to prosecution at the discretion of the U.S. government. And if, in the end, it turns out that one definitely was not involved in terrorist activities, there is no way to receive redress by the state.

Sounds like a fascist police-state to me.


Stories about police brutality are becoming more and more well known in people's consciousness as internet news sources report on cases frequently ignored even by the local news. What's even more troubling is that the state almost unilaterally rules in favor of the police in just about every instance of police brutality.

How is this any different than the past you may ask? It appears now that American law enforcement has grown so powerful that they are above reproach even by middle class white people.

Case in point, here in Oklahoma a white 86 year old bed-ridden octogenarian was tazered by the El Reno police after her grandson called 911 fearing she hadn't taken her medication. The police claim that she was threatening to overdose and kept them at bay with a knife, but the civil suit brought before Oklahoma City Courts by her grandson makes no mention of this.
story here

If you think that there must be more to this story or that the police version of accounts should be considered, let me frame this thread by saying that you're braindead and should donate your husk to a brain that should live on.


So do we live in a fascist police state? Share your police brutality stories here if you are also so inclined.

Jam it back in, in the dark.
No. Hard Pass.
Salty for Salt's Sake


Member 27

Level 61.14

Mar 2006


Reply With Quote
Old Jun 25, 2010, 05:03 PM Local time: Jun 25, 2010, 04:03 PM 1 #2 of 5
ka-boom.

There's nowhere I can't reach.


John Mayer just asked me, personally, through an assistant, to sing backup on his new CD.

Radez
Holy Chocobo


Member 2915

Level 31.81

Mar 2006


Reply With Quote
Old Jun 25, 2010, 10:51 PM #3 of 5
I got a speeding ticket last year on the way to Maine. That was pretty brutal.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.
Bradylama
Banned


Member 18

Level 51.14

Feb 2006


Reply With Quote
Old Jun 30, 2010, 05:00 PM Local time: Jun 30, 2010, 05:00 PM #4 of 5
NY cops beat up an Iranian professor for no good raisin!

NY police 'beat up' Iranian professor
Quote:
A US-based Iranian university professor and senior political analyst, Kaveh Afrasiabi, says he has been brutally beaten up by police officers in New York.

Speaking to IRNA on Tuesday, professor Afrasiabi explained about the unusual manner in which he was arrested, saying that he was handcuffed and sent to jail under the pretext that he had not paid his traffic ticket.

"While handcuffed I was pushed to the front. Then my head hit a metal rod and I was seriously wounded. I was then sent to the hospital in an ambulance due to severe injuries," said Afrasiabi who could hardly speak.

After he was discharged from the hospital, the police took him to court where the judge ordered his release.

Afrasiabi said his arrest came over a traffic ticket which he had to pay 25 years ago.

Afrasiabi has taught political science at Tehran University, Boston University, and Bentley College. He has also been a visiting scholar at Harvard University, UC Berkeley and Binghamton University.

The Iranian professor, who is a former consultant to the UN program of Dialogue Among Civilizations, has appeared on numerous television talk shows, including Press TV, CNN, MSNBC and Al-Jazeera. He has also worked as a consultant to CBS's 60 Minutes program.

He has also authored the book After Khomeini: New Directions in Iran's Foreign Policy and is a co-author of Reading in Iran Foreign Policy After September 11.
heh, it's not our fault he looks Mexican

Additional Spam:
DOUBLE SUPER CANADA BONUS! pigs are pigs wherever you go
YouTube Video


I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

Last edited by Bradylama; Jun 30, 2010 at 05:04 PM. Reason: This member got a little too post happy.
Reply

Thread Tools

Exploding Garrmondo Weiner Interactive Swiss Army Penis > Garrmondo Network > Political Palace > Is the United States a Fascist Police State?

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Human Rights Record of the US in 2008 Zergrinch Political Palace 2 Mar 1, 2009 09:47 AM
33 States Have Banned Internet Hunting Bradylama General Discussion 33 Aug 11, 2007 10:35 PM
We Must Unite Atland Political Palace 1 Apr 16, 2007 02:26 AM


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:14 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.