Monday, September 23, 2002

Something is Happening Here -- What it is Ain’t Exactly Clear.. Something is Happening Here  -- What it is Ain’t Exactly Clear..   -- Stephen Stills  Buffalo Springfield   There has been a lot of huffing and puffing from republicans about the German Justice Minister Herta Daeubler-Gmelin comparing Bush’s actions to Hitler’s.  Pressure from the U.S. has forced her to resign.  Her actual statement was innocuous, "Bush wants to distract attention from his domestic problems. That's a popular method. Even Hitler did that." as quoted in Salon.  She could also have added that Ronald Regan and Bill Clinton did it too.  So why did this touch a nerve?   Because the question lingers as to whether it is accurate to compare Bush’s actions with actions taken in Nazi Germany.    First, the clear distinctions:  Hitler was a murderous megalomaniac whose drive for power served only himself.  He co-opted and used the German industrialists and landowners who thought they could control him.  Bush is more akin to a lazy frat boy trying to please, so any comparisons personally between Bush and Hitler are ridiculous and counter productive.  They obscure the truth, they do not promote it.   But the larger question of Nazi Germany and its relationship to changes in American politics have relevance, because Nazi totalitarianism did not emerge in Germany in full flower.  Instead it grew, with leaders asserting power here, changing laws there, using thugs on the streets, making political arrests, getting stronger through fear and intimidation.  At each point, the Nazis were fearful of overreaching.  They would try something and see if there was significant opposition.  If not, they would try something bigger.   Totalitarianism does not come to a democracy like a storm, with a dictator surrounded by thunderbolts.  It is more like a rising tide that first affects only people at the bottom of society.   Who has to fear arrest in our society?  Think of a fear index that measures susceptibility to arrest.  Arrest without protection is the essence of totalitarianism.   I certainly don’t have much to fear.  A white middle-aged man, educated, homeowner—I have complete confidence walking the street,  putting my name on line, expressing my opinions—participating in politics.   But a black person?  He or she has to be more careful in the physical world, because they are more liable to be stopped by police, to be looked at, followed, questioned.   What about a young black or Hispanic person?  They are subject to such disproportionate arrest and sentencing compared to whites that one out of eight black men is either on probation, or has done time.  The police state is a lot more real for them.   What about Arab medical students?  Three were stopped in Florida, held for 17 hours, their personal belongings blown up on television?  What about a brown skinned Indian doctor traveling in first class, arrested, handcuffed, and held incommunicado for hours by air marshals who thought he looked at them wrong.  How does this man feel about his personal safety and security? What about immigrant families made up of citizens and non-citizens, as many are.   The point is that a large fraction of our population is already living in fear of arbitrary arrest.   What else describes a rising tide of totalitarianism? Secrecy in government Lack of accountability  Disrespect of people who have opposing views  Manipulation of events  Widespread arrests of unpopular groups  Attacks on immigrants  The view that the U.S. right, the rest of the world is wrong  The view that all the world is a potential enemy   And of course, war to unite the population.              “Something is happening here, what it is ain’t exactly clear..” 11:37:06 PM   comment []    Casualties of War or Casualties of Stupidity? Casualties of War or Casualties of Stupidity? I was in Philadelphia this weekend, visiting my son and his girlfriend in medical school, and one of the things we did was poke around Independence hall – the meeting rooms where both the declaration of independence and the constitution were first written.  At the visitor center, the National Park Service had on display one of the oldest surviving copies of the Magna Carta, signed and sealed by King John in 1215.   The exhibit highlighted two key points established in the Magna Carta:  That no ruler was above the law, and that every “freeman” had the right to a trial by his peers, and could not be subjected to arbitrary death or punishment. The exhibit then went on to detail how this foundation from English civil law was critical for the framers of the constitution.   I couldn’t read this without marveling at how cavalierly Pres. Bush has trampled on nearly 800 years of established English common law.  Specifically, when he holds American citizens such as Jose Padilla in indefinite detention, without charges, without trial and without disclosing evidence—he is recreating the abuse of power that led to the Magna Carta.  My first thought was his audacity is breathtaking.  Then I thought, maybe it was stupidity.  He may not realize how firmly embedded in our legal system and society is this fundamental right to trial in open court.    Either way, we are the losers.  We lose by allowing Bush to define “War” in such broad terms that he claims the power to classify American citizens as enemies for what are little more than thought crimes.  Or we lose by having in power an administration of such arrogance and ignorance that it is blind to the consequences of its actions. We all will feel the consequences.  Last summer, in a widely reported comment, Bush’s new right wing appointee to the U.S. Civil Rights Commission Peter Kirsanow, told a largely Arab audience in Detroit "If there's another terrorist attack, and if it's from a certain ethnic community or certain ethnicities that the terrorists are from, you can forget civil rights in this country," said Kirsanow as reported in the Detroit Free Press.  The paper quoted more of the speech. "Not too many people will be crying in their beer if there are more detentions, more stops and more profiling," said Kirsanow. He then went on to say "I think we will have a return to Korematsu."   Koremetsu refers to the Supreme court case that in 1940’s ruled the detention of Japanese to be legal.  What Kirsanow failed to say, perhaps because he was too ignorant, was that in 1983 Fred Koremetsu’s conviction was overturned in a case that proved the government lied and fabricated information about the Japanese Americans used to justify the detentions.  Subsequently, the government has paid compensation. Case law in fact says the opposite of what Kirsanow claimed.  Many people at the time demanded Kirsanow’s resignation. Stupidity? Or dangerous arrogance with little understanding or care for the consequences.  You be the judge.  Either way, we lose. 1:05:56 AM   comment []

© Copyright 2002 Toby Sackton. Last update: 12/26/2002; 9:30:20 PM.