Bill To Be Voted On Would Allow The Military To Sweep Up US Citizens At Home Or Abroa

[ВАЛТЕР]

I posted a thread on this a few weeks ago but nobody noticed. Anyways, here it is again.



Either Monday or Tuesday the Senate will vote on a bill that allows the US military to imprison civilians with no formal charges and hold them with no trial. The ACLU reports (http://www.aclu.org/blog/national-security/senators-demand-military-lock-american-citizens-battlefield-they-define-being) even US citizens wouldn't be immune as the legislation aims to declare national territory part of the "battlefield" in the War on Terror.



http://www.businessinsider.com/secret-bill-to-be-voted-on-today-would-allow-the-military-to-sweep-up-us-citizens-at-home-or-abroad-2011-11#ixzz1f26NsyIv

[IndependentCitizen]

Bet republicans love this, despite its anti-constitutional agenda.

[ВАЛТЕР]

Bet republicans love this, despite its anti-constitutional agenda.


Apparently so


In support of this harmful bill, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) explained that the bill will “basically say in law for the first time that the homeland is part of the battlefield” and people can be imprisoned without charge or trial “American citizen or not.” Another supporter, Sen. Kelly Ayotte (http://www.businessinsider.com/blackboard/kelly-ayotte) (R-N.H.) also declared that the bill is needed because “America is part of the battlefield.”

[Ocean Seal]

Where are the patriotic bromides about stopping authoritarianism and what would the founding fathers do now? The libertarian rhetoric that the right uses is as it always is: empty rhetoric.

[ВАЛТЕР]

This is actually a very frightening thing that is happening. We are seeing the US slowly transition towards fascism.

Which if I remember correctly, my very first post on this entire forum when I joined was a prediction that Capitalism will undoubtedly result in some form of fascism eventually.

[Ocean Seal]

This is actually a very frightening thing that is happening. We are seeing the US slowly transition towards fascism.

Which if I remember correctly, my very first post on this entire forum when I joined was a prediction that Capitalism will undoubtedly result in some form of fascism eventually.
I don't think that this is evidence that fascism is coming to the United States in the form of an Orwellian government top-down type of way though. Political crackdowns are part of every capitalist regime. It is characteristic of capitalism to behave in this authoritarian fashion and it is quite distinct from fascism. Moreover, I would say that fascist authority would have to supplant the state from outside (with consent from inside) but ultimately not an auto-coup.
And yes, capitalism will eventually devolve into fascism, unless a powerful militant worker's movement stops it.

[Kamos]

I must say, this is the most frightening law I've seen this year.

[RadioRaheem84]

Tyranny in a capitalist society is generally legalized corruption like in most third world nations.

It doesn't have to be a top down command structure like we see in Pinochet's Chile or Suharto's Indonesia, but a shaky corrupt faux democracy like in the New Indonesia is just as brutal.

The US is headed in that direction. I don't even think it will muster a chance at forming the new authoritarian "stable" capitalism of the East like in Singapore, Dubai or Taiwan.

[Red Rabbit]

What are the chances of this bill being passed, though?

[ВАЛТЕР]

What are the chances of this bill being passed, though?

I personally don't see it being passed. However, the fact that it is even being brought to the floor is worrying at least.

[ВАЛТЕР]

Also, could this new law be in fact a response to the OWS movement? It would be a surefire way to crack down on them and simply declare any protests which are deemed too reformist/revolutionary are illegal since the United States would officially be declared a "battlefield" in the war on terror.

[sulla]

Please explan to me why current western nations ae not fascist?

[piet11111]

I must say, this is the most frightening law I've seen this year.

I just love the "this year" bit.

Clearly they are busy setting up the legal framework to crack down and criminalize dissent.

[xub3rn00dlex]

I am moving to Antarctica. Why? Because I may one day be afraid to live inside this country. Antarctica is nice, empty, no gubbmints to terrorize me... just those suspicious penguins! The bills being proposed are becoming more and more batshit each session.

[Belleraphone]

I am moving to Antarctica. Why? Because I may one day be afraid to live inside this country. Antarctica is nice, empty, no gubbmints to terrorize me... just those suspicious penguins! The bills being proposed are becoming more and more batshit each session.
>Implying the US government wont melt Antarctica into oblivion with all of its pollution

laughingenvironmentalists.jpg

[Apoi_Viitor]

What's the big deal... can't they already do this?

[RebelDog]

Also, could this new law be in fact a response to the OWS movement? It would be a surefire way to crack down on them and simply declare any protests which are deemed too reformist/revolutionary are illegal since the United States would officially be declared a "battlefield" in the war on terror.

I would imagine this is what its really for. The US security services and the government were well aware that the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq would increase the likelyhood of domestic terror attacks, so it seems terror attacks on US citizens are low on their list of concerns. This bill probably means they could sweep up anyone they deem a 'terrorist' and that could mean anyone.

[socialistjustin]

One of the people supporting this is Carl Levin, a democrat, so this bill could pass. I guess Obama has threatened a veto though. Remember that only a few Dems need to support it to pass the bill so I think it passes, but some of the detention provisions will be taken out to avoid a veto.

[the last donut of the night]

lol they've been doing this for about 500 years now, just ask any working-class brown person

[the last donut of the night]

Bet republicans love this, despite its anti-constitutional agenda.

i'm sure dems are behind this, if not openly, certainly giving support in some way. and why is this idea that the american constitution is some holy limit imposed on bourgeois governments? defending property is the congress's constitution, nothing else.

[Tim Finnegan]

Please explan to me why current western nations ae not fascist?
Because they meet few if any of the criteria for identifying fascism? :confused:

[fatpanda]

The "West" "USA" or "Nato" does have characteristics that remind of Fascism and those are

- Militant Anti-Communism
- White Supremacy (anti immigration, the "Free West" )
- Corporatism or Welfare for the Banks and Industrialists
- Enemy Stereotyping or Creation of Bogeymen (" Evil Russians" "Commie Chinks/Gooks" "Dirty Towelheads" "Criminal Immigrants"...)
- Imperialist Wars (Iraq,Afghanistan,Lybia,Yugoslavia,Vietnam,Palesti ne and many more)
- Support for Right Wing Dictatorships (Indonesia' Suharto, Argentine's Videla, Chile's Pinochet, South Africa's P.W. Botha, Haiti's Duvalier , Zaire's Mobutu, Nigeria's Abache and many more !!!)
- The Concept of Genocide (Native Americans, British massacring Indians, French Imperialism, Apartheid, East Timor...)
- The curbing of Social Rights in the name of "Anticommunism" "Antiterrorism"

[Tim Finnegan]

You've really got it backwards, there. Those are characteristics of bourgeois authoritarianism, and are thus present in fascism, but they're not particularly characteristic of fascism itself. If the word has any useful meaning, then it has to refer to a particular typology of political movement, taking into account the unique aspects of historical fascism such as mass-movementism, the fascist model of the nation-state, the palingenetic fixation, and so on. Otherwise the word becomes almost trivial, and our ability to identify fascism as such becomes neutralised.

Aside from anything else, it would take only a few minor modifications to apply your list to the Soviet Union- the only real exception I can see there is racism, which isn't actually intrinsic to fascism either- which strays closer to the nonsense theory of totalitarianism than I would really care to.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

Obama said he'd veto ... if he does just one worthwhile thing in his whole first term, it would be vetoing that law were it to pass.


The "West" "USA" or "Nato" does have characteristics that remind of Fascism and those are

- Militant Anti-Communism
- White Supremacy (anti immigration, the "Free West" )
- Corporatism or Welfare for the Banks and Industrialists
- Enemy Stereotyping or Creation of Bogeymen (" Evil Russians" "Commie Chinks/Gooks" "Dirty Towelheads" "Criminal Immigrants"...)
- Imperialist Wars (Iraq,Afghanistan,Lybia,Yugoslavia,Vietnam,Palesti ne and many more)
- Support for Right Wing Dictatorships (Indonesia' Suharto, Argentine's Videla, Chile's Pinochet, South Africa's P.W. Botha, Haiti's Duvalier , Zaire's Mobutu, Nigeria's Abache and many more !!!)
- The Concept of Genocide (Native Americans, British massacring Indians, French Imperialism, Apartheid, East Timor...)
- The curbing of Social Rights in the name of "Anticommunism" "Antiterrorism"

The US doesn't have the essential facet of a fascist society however (although in some respects it's on its way)-it lacks a singular organizing body which declares on behalf of all Americans what it means to be "American". The centralization of the narrative under a singular charismatic authority (usually a political party) is the essential aspect of fascism.

Take the anti-immigrant tendency in the US population. The elites who control the US actually like immigration because the immigrants are an expendable and cheap labor source. It is the conservative middle classes which oppose immigration. For a society to be fascist it needs a single authoritarian body to negotiate contradictions like that to create a single cohesive political program, which does not exist in America right now (as evidenced by the total and utter failure or any institution to govern properly). Democrats, Republicans and America's corporate leaders are too competitive amongst one another right now and lack any real charismatic unifying force.

What made the fascists so dangerous was their ability to unite an otherwise divided population. However no political body in the US has yet been able to take up the role of a fascist party.


- Corporatism or Welfare for the Banks and IndustrialistsJust a clarification, bank bailouts were not "corporatist" in the sense that fascists used the term. In that context, corporatism refers to the ability of the aforementioned authoritarian party to work with corporate and union leaders to create a "planned capitalist" economy. On the contrary, the bank bailouts showed that the central government was not in control. Welfare for the Banks is an accurate description however.

[ВАЛТЕР]

http://rt.com/usa/news/senate-detention-battlefield-defense-613/

Looks like Senate will pass it. :cursing:

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

The Udall amendment proscribing the indefinite detention of U.S. citizens was rejected by a vote of 38-60 - https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=112&session=1&vote=00210

[Fopeos]

Doesn't the "patriot act" already provide legal cover for the government to arrest and detain anyone they deem a threat? Does this law somehow expand that cover?