Is Bush a Fascist yet?

Akrasia

In a new white house proposal, Bush announced his intention to greatly expand the juristiction of military courts and to change the conditions under which military trials would be conducted. These new proposals come after the U.S. supreme court ruled the trials at Guantanamo Bay unconstiutional.

A draft Bush administration plan for special military courts seeks to expand the reach and authority of such "commissions" to include trials, for the first time, of people who are not members of al-Qaeda or the Taliban and are not directly involved in acts of international terrorism, according to officials familiar with the proposal.

So basically, this law would apply to international terrorists, and absolutely everyone else.

The plan, which would replace a military trial system ruled illegal by the Supreme Court in June, would also allow the secretary of defense to add crimes at will to those under the military court's jurisdiction. The two provisions would be likely to put more individuals than previously expected before military juries, officials and independent experts said.

The draft proposed legislation, set to be discussed at two Senate hearings today, is controversial inside and outside the administration because defendants would be denied many protections guaranteed by the civilian and traditional military criminal justice systems.

Under the proposed procedures, defendants would lack rights to confront accusers, exclude hearsay accusations, or bar evidence obtained through rough or coercive interrogations. They would not be guaranteed a public or speedy trial and would lack the right to choose their military counsel, who in turn would not be guaranteed equal access to evidence held by prosecutors.

So basically the proposals will water down the burdon of proof, facilitate lengthy internment without trial and allow torture as a legitimate interview technique. So far, so fascist

Kris Kobach, a senior Justice Department lawyer in Bush's first term who now teaches at the University of Missouri at Kansas City, said he believes that the draft strikes an appropriate balance between "a fundamentally fair trial" and "the ability to protect the effectiveness of U.S. military and intelligence assets.

does this mean the law could be applied to the journalists who report on 'extraordinary rendition' or the U.S. policy of monitoring international bank transfers?

The plan calls for commissions of five military officers appointed by the defense secretary to try defendants for any of 25 listed crimes. It gives the secretary the unilateral right to "specify other violations of the laws of war that may be tried by military commission." The secretary would be empowered to prescribe detailed procedures for carrying out the trials, including "modes of proof" and the use of hearsay evidence.

The admission of hearsay is a serious problem, said Tom Malinowski, director of the Washington office of Human Rights Watch, because defendants might not know if it was gained through torture and would have difficulty challenging it on that basis. Nothing in the draft law prohibits using evidence obtained through cruel, inhumane and degrading treatment that falls short of torture, Malinowski said.

The U.S. official countered that a military judge "would look hard" at the origins of such evidence and that defendants would have to count on "the trustworthiness of the system."

To secure a death penalty under the draft legislation, at least five jurors must agree, two fewer than under the administration's earlier plan. Courts-martial and federal civilian trials require that 12 jurors agree.

This legislation may or may not pass as a law, and even if it does, it may well be ruled unconstitutional, but the very fact that these proposals are being put forward for serious consideration must demonstrate the extremism that now exists in the White House from the Bush/Cheney administration and the republican party in general

Hobbes

Akrasia wrote:

but the very fact that these proposals are being put forward for serious consideration must demonstrate the extremism that now exists in the White House from the Bush/Cheney administration and the republican party in general

I would of thought the fact that Bush has ignored over 750 laws so far and hasn't been pulled up on it would also be a hint.

Akrasia

yeah, there's more than one sign.

The Corinthian

Akrasia wrote:

So basically the proposals will water down the burdon of proof, facilitate lengthy internment without trial and allow torture as a legitimate interview technique. So far, so fascist

I would have said it sounded more Communist, tbh.

Akrasia

The Corinthian wrote:

I would have said it sounded more Communist, tbh.

Well, it's totalitarian, which is a feature of fascism. Bush's priority for big business over the welfare of his people means he is certainly not communist, and corporatism is a central feature of fascism.

tba

Not just yet, he has to start wearing military unifroms in public first

Thomas_S_Hunterson

Bush88 4eva

Zeeech Heil

The Corinthian

Akrasia wrote:

Well, it's totalitarian, which is a feature of fascism. Bush's priority for big business over the welfare of his people means he is certainly not communist, and corporatism is a central feature of fascism.

Do you actually know what corporatism is?

Akrasia

tba wrote:

Not just yet, he has to start wearing military unifroms in public first

does this count?

Akrasia

The Corinthian wrote:

Do you actually know what corporatism is?

Yeah. I'm quite clever you know..
Corporatism is basically where institutions governed by corporations control large parts of government, and this is exactly what Bush has set up in the U.S. through his pattern of political appointments. He has handed almost every government department to the spokespeople for the relevant corporations.
It's all explained in detail in Greg Palast's latest book, 'Armed Madhouse'

Thomas_S_Hunterson

Akrasia wrote:

Yeah. I'm quite clever you know..

...even if you do say so yourself

The Corinthian

Akrasia wrote:

Yeah. I'm quite clever you know..
Corporatism is basically where institutions governed by corporations control large parts of government, and this is exactly what Bush has set up in the U.S. through his pattern of political appointments. He has handed almost every government department to the spokespeople for the relevant corporations.
It's all explained in detail in Greg Palast's latest book, 'Armed Madhouse'

You're confusing corporatism with corporation.

Historically, corporatism or corporativism (Italian corporativismo) is a political system in which legislative power is given to civic assemblies that represent economic, industrial, agrarian, and professional groups. Unlike pluralism, in which many groups must compete for control of the state, in corporatism, certain unelected bodies take a critical role in the decision-making process. These corporatist assemblies are not the same as contemporary business corporations or incorporated groups.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporatism

Akrasia

The Corinthian wrote:

You're confusing corporatism with corporation.

no I'm not. Do you want me to look it up?

Historically, corporatism or corporativism (Italian corporativismo) is a political system in which legislative power is given to civic assemblies that represent economic, industrial, agrarian, and professional groups. Unlike pluralism, in which many groups must compete for control of the state, in corporatism, certain unelected bodies take a critical role in the decision-making process. These corporatist assemblies are not the same as contemporary business corporations or incorporated groups.

from wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporatism

The Corinthian

Akrasia wrote:

no I'm not. Do you want me to look it up?

It might help if you read it. Also I would not entirely agree with Wikipedia entire analysis, but that's probably a seperate point.

Akrasia

which part do you believe i have misinterpreted?

The Corinthian

The bit in bold for a start. Also how you've misinterpreted that "civic assemblies that represent economic, industrial, agrarian, and professional groups" may only mean business corporations.

Akrasia

the corporate assemblies are not the same as the corporations, but they represent their interests exclusively.
And In bush's america, I'm not talking about lobby groups, i'm talking about the fact that Bush has appointed more than 100 corporate lobbyiests as industry regulators
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0523-02.htm

That is the essence of corporatism

The Corinthian

Akrasia wrote:

the corporate assemblies are not the same as the corporations, but they represent their interests exclusively.

Incorrect. Even in Fascist Italy of the twenties and thirties it was not as simple as that as it was influenced not only by industry but also the military, landowners and the Church. Other, later, incarnations of corporatism have drawn from differing groups including academia and trade unions. Indeed, corporatism is alive and well in the Seanad.

What you’re discussing is so-called neo-corporatism, which is at best plutocracy labelled as corporatism and at worst an anti-globalisation invention.

I suggest you read up further before throwing terms about.

Akrasia

The Corinthian wrote:

Incorrect. Even in Fascist Italy of the twenties and thirties it was not as simple as that as it was influenced not only by industry but also the military, landowners and the Church. Other, later, incarnations of corporatism have drawn from differing groups including academia and trade unions. Indeed, corporatism is alive and well in the Seanad.

What you’re discussing is so-called neo-corporatism, which is at best plutocracy labelled as corporatism and at worst an anti-globalisation invention.

I suggest you read up further before throwing terms about.

In America the military and the Church (or the christian right) play a huge part too.

Neo-Corporatism is only possible in a country with highly organised labour, and america is certainly not that country, it requires tripartite negotiations between the State, Labour and Corporations. In todays america, Unions have been defeated and the state only exists to give corporations a veil of legitimacy and an army through which to enforce their demands. All functions of a state are being turned over to corporations, Education, Healthcare, Social Security etc. And the pace of this transition has accelerated massively since Bush took power. (social security could be privatised by 07 http://thinkprogress.org/2006/07/31/boehner-privatization/)

Tom65

OP, do you have a link for all that?

The Corinthian

Akrasia wrote:

In America the military and the Church (or the christian right) play a huge part too.

Are you now changing your argument? A moment ago you were claiming that it was all down to business corporations.

As I said, I suggest you read up further before throwing terms about.

Akrasia

The Corinthian wrote:

Are you now changing your argument? A moment ago you were claiming that it was all down to business corporations.

As I said, I suggest you read up further before throwing terms about.

I'm not changing my position, your objections are based on semantics and not the substantive issue. The Military industrial complex is basically the privatisation of the U.S. military, And in America, there is no powerful church like there was in Italy or Fascist Spain, evangalist christians are decentralised to local churches who are exploited by the Politicians and corporate evangalists like Pat Robertson and his 700 club and 'Christian Coalition'

The situation in america is not going to be an exact copy of anythin that went before it, but that doesn't mean it's not Corporatism.

Mick86

Is Bush a Fascist yet?

In 2009, GWB will be an ex-President. That never happens to fascists.

The Corinthian

Akrasia wrote:

I'm not changing my position, your objections are based on semantics and not the substantive issue.

Not semantics - facts. You’ve actually yet to refute any of them, I may add.

The Military industrial complex is basically the privatisation of the U.S. military

The very opposite of corporatism, oddly enough.

And in America, there is no powerful church like there was in Italy or Fascist Spain, evangalist christians are decentralised to local churches who are exploited by the Politicians and corporate evangalists like Pat Robertson and his 700 club and 'Christian Coalition'

Irrelevant. Pressure and lobby groups do not denote a corporate state and unless you want to show us where these religious groups are being put in direct charge of government, you are simply ranting.

The situation in america is not going to be an exact copy of anythin that went before it, but that doesn't mean it's not Corporatism.

That it is not actually corporatism is what makes it not. I’ve already pointed out how this is the case repeatedly.

Frankly, I don’t think you have a clue what you’re talking about.

Dave!

It's off-topic, the thread is asking "is Bush a fascist", not "how would you define corporatism"... and you've spent 7 posts doing the latter.

The Corinthian

DaveMcG wrote:

It's off-topic, the thread is asking "is Bush a fascist", not "how would you define corporatism"... and you've spent 7 posts doing the latter.

This thread is based upon a sweeping statement that is being challenged, so while it may be pedantic to debate corporatism, it’s certainly not off-topic.

If, on the other hand, this thread had been titled “let’s whine about how much we hate Bush for a few pointless pages” you would be correct.

The mods will decide what is and isnt off topic here.
Any more in thread discussion on what is or isnt off topic will get a 1 week ban.
Use the report the post function if you want to complain.

As for the debate so far,it's drumming along nicely.
If people arent able to address Tc's points,then say so.
Comparatives are being used and are quite valid from what I can see.

Akrasia

The Corinthian wrote:

This thread is based upon a sweeping statement that is being challenged, so while it may be pedantic to debate corporatism, it’s certainly not off-topic.

If, on the other hand, this thread had been titled “let’s whine about how much we hate Bush for a few pointless pages” you would be correct.

so what do you think about Bush's proposed legislation. Is it just whining to be alarmed at the direction he is pursuing?

The Corinthian

Akrasia wrote:

so what do you think about Bush's proposed legislation. Is it just whining to be alarmed at the direction he is pursuing?

Certainly people, Americans in particular, should be very much alarmed by much of the legislation he’s putting through.

Calling him a Fascist is whining though.

Akrasia

The Corinthian wrote:

Certainly people, Americans in particular, should be very much alarmed by much of the legislation he’s putting through.

Calling him a Fascist is whining though.

I would suggest that calling other people whiners for pointing out the totalitarian tendancies of the so called leader of the free world is also a form of whining

oscarBravo

Enough. Discuss the topic at hand, not whether other posters are whining.