Tip of the iceberg. We've also "outsourced" detention all over the place. Nobody knows the extent of it.
I was reading Thom Hartman's article on the Common Dreams site (http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0110-33.htm) and when I read this I was frankly stunned.
"Tuesday, January 10, 2005, is the third anniversary of the opening of America's first concentration camp since Japanese Americans were shamefully interred during WWII. Since the first Guantanamo camp was opened, the Bush administration has built additional concentration camps - the latest known as Camp Five - in Cuba, and is asking Congress for $29 million to build concentration Camp Six."
Further in the article Mr. Hartman describes what's necessary to suspend writ of Habeas Corpus, basically an act of Congress. Yet Mr. Bush has effectively done so without even asking for Congressional approval. Mr. Hartman then goes to quote Antonin Scalia, here's what he wrote;
"Oddly, so far it's only been Justice Antonin Scalia, a man with whom I often strongly disagree. Scalia wrote in his minority dissent in the case of Hamdi v. Rumsfeld that the President does not have the power to suspend habeas corpus by executive decree. Instead, he wrote: "If civil rights are to be curtailed during wartime, it must be done openly and democratically, as the Constitution requires..."
How far does this trend have to go before we as a people speak out? This is not a liberal vs. conservative issue. This is a constitutional rights issue. Read Mr. Hartman's article, it's a fascinating account of the history of English Law on this subject. I'll be very curious to your read opinions.
Tip of the iceberg. We've also "outsourced" detention all over the place. Nobody knows the extent of it.
its a conspiracy and you shouldnt draw any parallels or make any connections
reality is what you say it is and what is , should not make you feel discomfort. That is my new theory and therapy for white consciousness, i am not pointing this at you steve but others who keep denying facts and hiding behinding concepts that ease their consicous
I'm afriad I didn't understand your response. What's a conspiracy? The way I see it there's no conspiracy, there's only our government's policy, which I disagree with.
Thom Hartman's article speaks of facts, the history of Habeas Corpus, it's use in US history and current political and judicial thought on the matter. I was unaware of Scalia's opinions on the matter and I was unaware that the US has 4 camps operating now (in addition to the one at Guantanamo) with a 5th on the drawing board.
The way I see it the US is reserving what were once referred to as unalienable rights (life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness) to US citizens. This seems to be at odds with the intent of the founding fathers and I can understand discomfort with these policies by people of any political persuasion.
But if you have to go to Drudge Report to know what to think on the matter, well.... that's pathetic. I'm not saying you did, but there are some who won't be able to form their own opinion. I don't even know of Drudge has an opinion on this.
sorry Steve its just my weird way of making connections, i read an article on how people will deny reality, and i was thinking of many on the right who simply deny facts , i wasnt really referring to you only that it seems to me no matter how many facts people will bring up there are a significant number of people who will not register the facts or make any connections or deny the connections all together
Hi Charles,Originally Posted by charles
I don't necessarily disagree with you. This is a situation that has drawn concern from both ends of the political spectrum and that's what I found interesting about it. When Thom Hartman is quoting Justice Scalia as support for his argument you know that it's not a liberal vs. conservative issue. How Mr. Hartman presented his arguments in the article would tend to appeal to the left, but being able to quote Scalia fairly extensively indicates to me that there are those on the right who share his concerns.
That Xanax, dcornutt and Brady have not weighed in on this issue indicates to me that either they all took today off from Northern Sounds or they don't know what to think (perhaps no one has told them what to think?). Hence my comment about the Drudge report in my last post. Or perhaps the conflicting information or simply the fact that Thom Hartman and Antonin Scalia agree on anything has them too confused to respond. The final possibility is that they are doing extensive research into the matter and will impress us with the depth and thoughtfulness of their responses when they are ready. Waiting with baited breath.
I recently finished reading The Iron Heel by Jack London. It was one of the first dystopian books written in the US, published 99 years ago.
The presentation is unique. It is essentially a diary written by Avis Everhard, wife of hero Ernest Everhard. It has footnotes written by scholars who discovered the manuscript - seven centuries into the future.
Ernest (London't alter ego) is a socialist who sees the problems inherent in capitalism. In 1905 he speaks out against it, during the following elections he campaigns against it, and by 1920 he fights against it.
As capitalism changes from competition to combination, it also changes from being led by capitalists to being led by the oligarchy - The Iron Heel. They set up the secret police - and detention camps with suspension of habeas corpus.
The amazing thing about the book is that it was written in 1905 - before the FBI, before Lenin, before Hitler, before Mao, before Castro. Cheap copies were banned in fascist Italy - but the upper classes were allowed to own the more expensive hardbacks.
With one hundred years of perspective, one can see that conditions have improved greatly for most people in the US and other developed countries, but harsh conditions remain for immigrant workers and workers in many foreign factories. Out of sight, out of mind.
But many of the situations presented in the book are close to home. It shows how easily our rights can be eroded in a series of small, but dangerous, steps.
Today the Iron Heel is alive and well in Guantanamo, Iraq ...and Washington, DC.
Sounds like a good book Jon will have to read it!
Another theme in the book is that people who oppose the oligarchy are declared insane and sent to asylums. The first example was of a priest who spoke out about the difference between Jesus' actions and the actions of the capitalists.
By chance, I just received this...
Opposing Bush - A Form of Mental Illness?
By Kurt Nimmo
It's not the stolen election or the war crimes committed in my name. It's
not the fact Bush is a liar and a criminal. It's not the Strausscons in the
White House and the Pentagon, plotting multiple wars in the Middle East and
elsewhere. It's not Congress, sold out to neolibs, multinational
corporations, and Wall Street loan sharks.
I'm suffering from "political paranoia" and need Paxil, a prescription drug
for the treatment of anxiety and depression. It's not the 100,000 dead
killed by my government in Iraq. It's not torture or loose talk of nuking
enemies. It is a serotonin imbalance in my brain. I suffer from any number
of possible maladies - depression, Generalized Anxiety Disorder, Obsessive
Compulsive Disorder (thus writing this blog every day), and Posttraumatic
Stress Disorder. I suffer from mental illness and need help.
Congress may come to the rescue - and soon.
"When the 109th Congress convenes in Washington in January, Senator Bill
Frist, the first practicing physician elected to the Senate since 1928,
plans to file a bill that would define 'political paranoia' as a mental
disorder, paving the way for individuals who suffer from paranoid delusions
regarding voter fraud, political persecution and FBI surveillance to receive
Medicare reimbursement for any psychiatric treatment they receive," writes
Hermione Slatkin (http://swiftreport.blogs.com/news/20...vatives_p.html),
Medical Correspondent for the Swift Report. "Rick Smith, a
spokesman for Senator Frist, says that the measure has a good chance of
passing as "something that can only help a portion of the population that is
suffering significant distress."
"If you're still convinced that President Bush won the election because
Republicans figured out a way to hack into electronic voting machines,
you've obviously got a problem," says Smith. "If we can figure out a way to
ease your suffering by getting you into therapy and onto medication, that's
something that we hope the entire 109th Congress will support."
Characterizing political dissent as a form of mental illness is the hallmark
of authoritarian government.
In China, for instance, forensic psychiatrists label dissent "political
lunacy" (see Jacob Sullum, Head Games: What are the rules for defining mental
illness? http://www.reason.com/0301/cr.js.head.shtml) and in Soviet Russia
political dissenters were routinely cosigned
to mental hospitals. Nowadays, with modern pharmacology, mental hospitals
are no longer required - the mental hospital is internalized through chemical
No need for FEMA camps or "preventive detention" when we have a "medical
armamentarium" of serotonin uptake inhibitors. All that is needed now is for
Frist and the Republicans to devise a law defining "political paranoia" and
determining that "political paranoiacs" are a threat to society.
You will take your Paxil or something far more debilitating, and by court
order. Recall Bush's effort to screen the entire population for mental
illness, i.e., the New Freedom Initiative
Bush's commission found that
"despite their prevalence, mental disorders often go undiagnosed" and
recommended comprehensive mental health screening for "consumers of all
Naturally, Frist and the Republicans are mostly concerned about the
"political paranoia" form of mental illness, as the above news item
As a "consumer," is it possible I am suffering from "political paranoia." or
is the whole thing a product of my feverish imagination and the result of
reading too many news items on the web?
Finally, note that I could not find mention of Frist and the classification
of "political paranoia" after a lengthy Google news search. Mention of it
only appeared on the Swift Report website. Rick Smith's above quote returned
no results. Of course, this does not mean that Bill Frist and the
Republicans do not consider the opposition (including more than a few
Democrats) as mental cases and tinfoil hatters. Rush Limbaugh calls us
nutters every day and millions of gullible Americans take what he says as
Originally Posted by pantonality
How nice---an insult. Typical.
Anyway, here we go again. Throwing everybody who deviates from the Official Handbook (Manifesto?) into one pile, as if our views on every single issue are interchangeable. Guess what---they're not. But then again, nuanced thinking and the accurate interpretation of information isn't exactly what you guys are known for.
Here's my take on it:
The very first thing that caught my attention was that the author of the piece immediately attempts to deceive the reader by drawing a false parallel between the internment camps of Japanese-Americans during WW2 and the prisoner-of-war camps in Cuba. If he were discussing camps that were intended to incarcerate US citizens, then the comparison would be applicable. As is, it's completely irrelevant.
Secondly, and I say this from a position of not fully understanding the US Constitution (since I'm not American, so correct me if I'm wrong), but I don't believe the Constitution was intended to safeguard the rights of enemy combatants.
Now, you may believe that every single last one of those people being held is innocent. If so, you might look at this new $29 million camp as a way of improving conditions for the prisoners.
I can't comment on the guilt or innocence of those being held, or by extension any of the larger issues concerning the morality or justice (or lack thereof) of this situation, since I am not privy to the full scope of information concerning these prisoners. And neither are you.
Just to spell it out for you:
Did I defend the camps? No.
But that certainly won't stop you from claiming I did. I guess it's just easier for you that way.