Barry SCHWARTZ (Barijo ŜVARC) (chemoelectric) wrote,
Barry SCHWARTZ (Barijo ŜVARC)
chemoelectric

L'état, c'est moi !


http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2006/01/04/bush_could_bypass_new_torture_ban/


WASHINGTON -- When President Bush last week signed the bill outlawing the torture of detainees, he quietly reserved the right to bypass the law under his powers as commander in chief.

After approving the bill last Friday, Bush issued a "signing statement"—an official document in which a president lays out his interpretation of a new law—declaring that he will view the interrogation limits in the context of his broader powers to protect national security. This means Bush believes he can waive the restrictions, the White House and legal specialists said.



Anyone who imagined the Bushist Nazis would obey such a law is living in a different universe. But now something is different. Now the Bushist Nazis are moving to the next stage; they are as good as spitting in our faces that laws are their weapons against us, no longer to be our weapons against them.

We are in terrible trouble, and it only gets worse from here. Of course this is all expected.

As I grow more and more anxious about whether the establishment will stop Bush, I do want to say something about comparisons with our historical past. The other day a right-wing functional 'moron' called up the Mike Malloy show, and when asked to say what law allowed the Bushists to do what they are doing, started talking about the Civil War. Malloy hung up, which was quite a reasonable thing to do, because it's just an attempt to change the topic to something that makes our situation seem less dire.

However, it isn't even necessary to note this, for me to laugh off historical comparisons—because John Adams, Abraham Lincoln, Woodrow Wilson, even if they were close to dictators, were not attempting and probably could not dream of attempting to form a pan-global 'Pax Americana'. The Bushist plan is no less than global hegemony by military aggression; it is stated in PNAC writing, it is stated in official U. S. policy. There is simply no comparison; only Bush-Cheney, ahead of Nixon in gall, is a potential Hitler. Nor is this like the Cold War, in which we were the leader of a bloc of nations in a conflict we did not ask for. This conflict is asked for, we are aggressors.

Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, and John Bolton would look entirely natural in SS uniforms.

Readings:

'Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategy, Forces and Resources For a New Century', http://newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf. Excerpt:
America’s strategic goal used to be
containment of the Soviet Union; today the
task is to preserve an international security
environment conducive to American
interests and ideals. The military’s job
during the Cold War was to deter Soviet
expansionism. Today its task is to secure
and expand the “zones of democratic
peace;” to deter the rise of a new greatpower
competitor; defend key regions of
Europe, East Asia and the Middle East; and
to preserve American preeminence through
the coming transformation of war made
possible by new technologies.…

During the Cold War, America acquired its
security “wholesale” by global deterrence
of the Soviet Union. Today, that same
security can only be acquired at the “retail”
level, by deterring or, when needed, by
compelling regional foes to act in ways that
protect American interests and principles.


['Freedom' is on the March. The Armies of 'Compassion' are securing Zones of 'Democratic' 'Peace'.]

More reading:

The DoD document more or less making the above official policy (I don't remember which document).

The speech in which Bush announced the new DoD doctrine (again I don't remember which).
  • Post a new comment

    Error

    Anonymous comments are disabled in this journal

    default userpic

    Your reply will be screened

    Your IP address will be recorded 

  • 0 comments