General Question

suejester's avatar

Why hasn't Bush or Cheney been impeached?

Asked by suejester (75points) January 2nd, 2008
Observing members: 0 Composing members: 0

61 Answers

segdeha's avatar

All politics is local. If a politician thinks it is a net political gain for her/him to pursue impeachment, s/he will do it. If not, s/he won’t.

omfgTALIjustIMDu's avatar

Contrary to common belief, impeachment is actually being charged with something by Congress/legislature, not being kicked out of office. Impeachment has always been followed by the charged perons leaving their position (speaking about past U.S. presidents) in the past.

segdeha's avatar

Actually, no, omfgTALIjustIMDu. Bill Clinton was impeached, but didn’t resign his office.

Perchik's avatar

To answer the question, I don’t know. They’ve broken the law many times, I just don’t think anyone wants to pursue it.

soundedfury's avatar

The bar to impeachment is high:

“The President, Vice President, and all other civil Officers of the United States shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.”

As much as I dislike the current administration, I can’t think of any independently verifiable thing that Bush or Cheney has done that rises to that level. Granted, there are things that deserve an independent counsel’s investigation that, if proven, could warrant official impeachment proceedings.

And Bill Clinton (like Andrew Johnson) was impeached but not convicted. Impeachment is not the removal from office, it is the formal charge of wrongdoing. After which there is a trial before the Senate and, if convicted, removal from office.

I think the question is better asked “why hasn’t there been more investigation into questionable, and possibly impeachable, activity?”

skfinkel's avatar

It should be Cheney. We don’t want him as President, and he’s the brains behind what’s been going on. (Bush would only get pardoned immediately anyway.) But impeachment must be based on breaking a law. In a recent discussions, talking about this, we realized that going into Iraq based on bad info (!) may have been bad judgment, but not law-breaking. Destroying evidence though is breaking the law. And destroying the CIA tapes may be the act that breaks him. Any news about what burned up in Cheney’s office fire a couple of weeks back? Not much publicity on that…

SquirrelEStuff's avatar

Didnt we charge and convict some Japanese officials for waterboarding a long time ago? Torture is war crimes no? That would be an impeachable offense wouldnt it?

Perchik's avatar

@chris, the waterboarding issue was probably the best chance to get either of them. After Daniel Levin made his memo that said waterboarding is torture, by ordering people to be waterboarded, the administration was committing a war crime. But Levin was forced to resign before he could make his full report, thus letting the administration walk.

Keith Olberman actually did a great rant about Levin and the administration.

SquirrelEStuff's avatar

Twenty-one years earlier, in 1947, the United States charged a Japanese officer, Yukio Asano, with war crimes for carrying out another form of waterboarding on a U.S. civilian. The subject was strapped on a stretcher that was tilted so that his feet were in the air and head near the floor, and small amounts of water were poured over his face, leaving him gasping for air until he agreed to talk

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/04/AR2006100402005.html

soundedfury's avatar

Waterboarding would only be an impeachable crime if it was ruled a form of torture AND there was evidence that the President or Vice-President directed the CIA to use waterboarding in full knowledge of it’s illegality.

Since the Department of Justice is sending out memos stating that it is legal and reasonable people disagree on whether or not it is torture, it would not constitute a high crime or misdemeanor.

omfgTALIjustIMDu's avatar

@segdeha: Thanks for the correction.

Michael's avatar

omfg, Andrew Johnson was also impeached, but did was not convicted and therefore did not leave office. Indeed, with Clinton and Johnson being the only two presidents to be impeached, there has never been a President forced, by law, to leave office. President Nixon resigned, but was not impeached, although conventional wisdom says he would have been.

atr408's avatar

its all I conspiracy

hossman's avatar

I think the “issue” of whether waterboarding is torture is a red herring to skirt around the REAL issue. As far as I can see, waterboarding qualifies as torture. The real issue is whether it is permissible to use torture to extract information from an “enemy combatant.” (I don’t like the term, but it seems to be the current usage).

I haven’t been able to find any details about the conviction of Asano, other than it was for waterboarding a U.S. civilian. I am curious as to the status of that U.S. civilian. Was it simply a civilian interned like many during the war? Or was it a civilian suspected of espionage or terrorism?

As the Geneva Convention does not protect the class of “enemy combatants,” I’m not sure there is any law prohibiting the use of torture against persons actively engaged in or conspiring to cause harm to U.S. citizens, when those persons are not serving in the military of a sovereign nation. If these “enemy combatants” were Iraqi, Iranian, Saudi, etc. military personnel, torturing them would be a war crime. If they were Iraqi, Iranian, Saudi, etc. civilians not engaged in terrorism or conspiring in terrorism, torturing them would be a war crime. However, there is substantial historical precedent for the use of torture on spies, saboteurs, partisans and terrorists who were civilians and not military personnel.

Another issue would be jurisdiction. If a Saudi national is captured in Iraq by U.S. soldiers while engaged in an act of terrorism against British military personnel, then taken to Egypt and waterboarded, whose law applies? The Geneva Convention suggests it is up to the diplomatic efforts of the sovereign nation to which these “enemy combatants” claim citizenship to protect their own nationals. What isn’t being discussed is that the home countries of these detainees generally aren’t interested in getting them back (since they are potentially destabilizing to their home governments, or some have already committed crimes in their home country), or their home country would itself subject these “enemy combatants” to far worse treatment then they are receiving from the West. Although it isn’t discussed much, a number of the Saudi detainees we have released were released directly back to the Saudi government, which gave them a trial in a day or two and executed them. I’m betting some of them would rather stay at Guantanamo than face being turned over to their home governments.

segdeha's avatar

@hossman, If I get you right (and correct me if I’m wrong, as if I need to say that…), your argument here amounts to: it’s a crime to torture civilians, but not enemy combatants, in fact, there are lots of examples of bad guys being tortured throughout history, and anyway, if we didn’t torture them they’d be tortured worse at home, therefore no foul. I just can’t stomach that. Whether or not allowing torture is technically illegal, I believe it makes Bush and Cheney unfit to govern. Impeachment is the remedy we have for removing from office those who are not fit to govern.

Perchik's avatar

@seq and hoss, It seems to me that over the course of the last couple years the term enemy combatant means that “laws no longer apply towards them.” (no habeus corpus, wiretapping, etc) So I believe hoss is right about that. If they tortured enemy combatants, then it’s too bad, but nothing we can do.

The thing that bothers me the most is that the definition of enemy combatant keeps getting looser. Pretty soon anyone who is saying anything bad about the US could be an enemy combatant.

segdeha's avatar

There’s nothing we can do about it when our elected officials are torturing people in our name? That sounds like tyranny to me. You know what the Declaration of Independence says about tyranny….

”[W]henever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”

SquirrelEStuff's avatar

not just that perchik, google hr 1955 aka violent radicalization and home-grown terrorism prevention act. It is the icing on the cake.

SquirrelEStuff's avatar

here’s a quick lil recap of the laws. They spy on us, know very much about us using the NSA and patriot act, they can declare martial law( at bushy discression) using the john warner national defense authorization act, then use hr1955(when passed through the senate and signed into law) to call u a homegrown terrorist, then throw you in jail indefinitely using the MCA, leaving you with only the “good Germans” to support killing half the middle east.

segdeha's avatar

This is a big part of why I moved to New Zealand. Yeah, I don’t have anything to worry about, I’m not a terrorist, but it still scares me, the thought of living in a police / surveillance state.

SquirrelEStuff's avatar

Uh oh. Here he is. Mr optimistic

hossman's avatar

This is another one that is hard to answer briefly. Is torture ever a good thing? I’d say no, just as I argued in another thread that lying is always bad. Is it a bad thing that could prevent a greater bad thing? Yes. I’m glad I’m not the guy who has to make those decisions. Perhaps this comes close to home because I know someone currently serving in Iraq who is training to be an interrogator.

Just because I suggest something may be lawful does not suggest I believe it is desirable. There are many things lawful that are not necessarily desirable. Perhaps one of the reasons I doubt torture would ever be the basis of impeaching any of our elected officials is because the governments of the world (and our own) want to preserve the torture of “enemy combatants” as an unfortunately necessary tool. If you think our intelligence people have not used torture during every administration of both parties since World War II, with the full knowledge of the appropriate people in the administrations and Congressional leadership and appropriate committee staff, then you are kidding yourselves. In fact, the Bush administration has caught a lot of heat from the intelligence community, not because the administration used this tool, but because they ADMITTED they were using it. Just as Clinton’s administration was using investigators and surveillance techniques to invade the privacy of U.S. citizens, not just those who threatened national security but also those who threatened the political viability of the Clintons, the reason Bush has received so much criticism is because his people were honest enough (or foolish enough, depending on your viewpoint) to admit it and enact the legislation to permit it, rather than backdooring it through executive orders. For former Presidents like Clinton and Carter to criticize Bush (and lets remember past Presidents like Nixon, Ford and Bush Sr. were always polite enough to avoid criticizing the apparent stupidity of their successors) for admitting to using the same tools their own administrations used is hypocritical at best, treasonous at worst.

As far as citing the Declaration of Independence, let’s keep in mind the torture and execution of “enemy noncombatants” was not unknown to our Founding Fathers. John Andre, the British Intelligence officer that worked with Benedict Arnold, was given a hasty military tribunal and hung.

Wikipedia explains: “Spies and terrorists may be subject to civilian law or military tribunal for their acts and in practice have been subjected to torture and/or execution. The laws of war neither approve nor condemn such acts, which fall outside their scope.”

The reason spies and terrorists are not given the protections of military personnel or civilians is quite simple, logical, and arguably, moral and ethical. Those acting as military personnel, engaged in hostilities against the citizens or military of a sovereign nation, are required to openly wear uniforms and identify themselves as hostile military. Thus, they are disclosing their hostile status, so they may be treated accordingly. Since they voluntarily accept the risk of that honest disclosure, their rights are protected in exchange for their “fair play,” following the rules of war.

Spies and terrorists, however, are actively hostile “enemy combatants” who engage in perfidy, violating the rules of war by not openly identifying themselves as hostile forces. Since they thus have an unfair advantage by not playing by the rules, they are not accorded the rights of a noncombatant citizen or military personnel. It is considered the logical, ethical and moral consequence of their decision to not “fight by the rules.” If terrorists wish to receive treatment as legitimate prisoners of war, they would have to openly wear hostile uniforms and be the armed services personnel of a sovereign nation. Since we are fighting guerilla fighters who conceal their hostile intent and are not sanctioned by any sovereign nation, they do not receive the protections of being the official representatives of a sovereign nation. If they don’t like it, then they need to engage in whatever political process is available in their home country to stimulate that country to declare war against the U.S. Simply, if you don’t play by the rules, when you get caught cheating, you don’t get to insist the other guy play by the rules. Cowards and cheaters don’t get treated the same, nor should they be entitled to ask for a “do over.”

Of course, the danger, as several of you have recognized, is the risk of the powers that be starting to extend the class of “enemy combatants” from foreign enemies to domestic threats to national security, then to threats to political power. Perhaps that is one of the questions we should be asking ourselves when we vote this year. Do I trust Obama making this decision? I can’t be sure, as we don’t know enough about him, and he lacks the experience to suggest he would be judicious. Do I trust either Clinton making these decisions? Definitely not. Considering the individual rights abuses they employed against their political enemies, I doubt Hilary would refrain from torturing someone who was inconvenient to her. Do I trust McCain? Probably, on this issue, more than anyone, because as the only candidate (I think) who has himself been tortured, he knows better than anyone the actual stakes here.

I think, however, you may be exaggerating the danger of this extending into the U.S. itself, as there are laws other than the Rules of War and the Geneva Convention that make torture illegal within the U.S. and anywhere in the world if conducted by U.S. military personnel. That is why they play these games with conducting torture on foreign soil, using civilians.

I’m just glad I don’t have to make the decision to use torture to extract information. Hypothetically, if one of you refused to disclose information that would save the life of one of my children, I would begin by skinning you and packing you in pretzel salt, and if that didn’t work, we’d start with the really painful stuff. If one of you refused to disclose information that would save the lives of U.S. military personnel, I would certainly consider it. If a national of say, Saudi Arabia or Syria was caught in Iraq, conspiring to destabilize the government and people of Iraq, and had information that would save lives of Iraqis or U.S. or allied citizens or military, I would certainly be tempted to view their presence in Iraq as an acceptance of the high stakes of potential torture, and be tempted to use it.

The suggestion our use of torture on spies and terrorists would encourage torture of U.S. military is logically misplaced. First, we know from their own released propaganda that these terrorists do not hesitate to take hostages, use torture and execute not only military, but innocent civilians, thus our use of torture isn’t going to change their practices. Second, other countries already themselves traditionally reserve the “right” to torture spies and terrorists, our use of that tactic on spies and terrorists is not likely to provoke them to expand their use of torture to military.

Does this make any of it right? No. Does the fact that it is wrong make it unnecessary? No. It is a pragmatic reality. It is going to happen. I am glad I am not the one who has to make or carry out those decisions, but I am also glad that when the lives of innocent civilians are weighed in the balance with the lives of criminals who have accepted certain risks by in essence waging war without following the customs and niceties of war, somebody is willing to make that hard decision. Do I believe this can be abused? Certainly. Do I believe it is being abused now? As far as I can tell, in my opinion, no, but I certainly don’t have access to all of the information, and neither does the American people, nor will we.

segdeha's avatar

So, if Bush/Cheney have spied on Americans, they’re spies, right? Then, it’s OK if we torture them?

segdeha's avatar

BTW, @hossman, I flagged your previous answer as a great one, very well reasoned and presented. Thanks for contributing to the conversation.

hossman's avatar

Somewhere else on another thread we had a discussion about the legal distinction between actively invading an area where someone has a “reasonable expectation of privacy,” such as planting a bug in your residence, and the interception of broadcast transmissions, like e-mail, cellphone conversations, etc.

And while I certainly enjoy the logical twist and humor of your suggestion, there is probably a distinction between government officials authorizing surveillance using the justification of the protection of their citizens (and as we’ve discussed, at least having the cojones to admit they’re doing it) and someone spying in order to either place citizens in jeopardy, or to aid a hostile organization or another sovereign nation.

Which places me in the somewhat ridiculous position of making this analogy: the Bush administration authorizes the monitoring of the cellphones of someone in the U.S. with someone outside the U.S. (and the NSA assures us they are only monitoring communications with persons outside the U.S., not purely domestic communications, for whatever that assurance is worth), no violation of U.S. law, no, we can’t torture them (although I’m not sure if their media coverage doesn’t occasionally rise to the level of cruel and unusual punishment). On the other hand, if George W. is visiting Putin at the Kremlin, and gets caught rifling through Vlad’s file cabinets, Putin’s torturing Bush is OK by the logic I’ve given. And does anyone else find it mildly creepy the leader of our 1st or 2nd most powerful rival nation shares the same first name as Count Dracula?

hossman's avatar

And another reason I don’t think anyone is going to impeach anyone for torture, is that the defense would start calling Congressman of both parties and forcing them to admit under oath that they were aware of the use of torture and did nothing, for many of them, well before there was a Bush in the White House.

hossman's avatar

And I guess I have to change my analogy, as there is also a historical tradition of not detaining, prosecuting or torturing diplomatic personnel and heads of state, even when caught spying. So I guess I’d have to make that some anonymous intelligence official not subject to diplomatic protections, rifling through Putin’s file cabinets.

hossman's avatar

Here is an interesting dilemma. Mr. Bush is clearly a devoutly religious Christian. He has authorized, or permitted to be authorized, the use of torture in what he apparently believes was the best interest of the American people. Just because he believes he had to make that decision as part of his executive duties does not also mean he believes he gets a spiritual “pass” on the sin of that decision. While certainly there is room in his Christian faith for redemption and salvation from that sin, perhaps that is one of the reasons why he told his biographer he his frequently on his knees in the Oval Office, crying and praying for American and guidance for his execution of his duties.

I think I prefer the possibility that a President has that kind of remorse about those decisions than a President simply checking the polls to see if making that decision is politically feasible.

segdeha's avatar

@chris, That link doesn’t work. Perhaps the article was removed by the NSA?? :-)

segdeha's avatar

@hossman, I’m curious why you don’t trust Obama to make good decisions about this stuff. He strikes me as far smarter and more compassionate than Bush with more capacity for understanding the deep implications of his decisions. Lack of experience? Sure, but didn’t Bush come into office with zero foreign policy experience as well?

For the record, I don’t trust Shillary as far as I can throw her.

SquirrelEStuff's avatar

This is weird. The site is there, but the link wont work.

SquirrelEStuff's avatar

ok that works

segdeha's avatar

@chris, Yes, that link worked and that’s what I’m talking about, a complete surveillance state. It’s insidious and most Americans have no idea, or even if they do, no idea why it’s bad. Liberty? Justice? For all? It’s a joke at this point.

SquirrelEStuff's avatar

Yes sir, it is. Have you checked out HR 1955? I have been talking about the NSA, Patriot Act, Military Commissions Act, and John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for about a year and a half. Everyone always tells me Im too paranoid. I always asked them to think about what would happen if there was another Timothy McVeigh type attack. Sure enough, HR1955 got passed by flying colors. I compare these laws to Hitler type stuff. Each one on its own might not be too bad, but all we need is one more terror attack and voila, all new Enabling Act. I look at it like this: approx. 3500 people have been killed in terror attacks in the US. It is very unfortunate dont get me wrong. 50,000 people A YEAR die from drunk drivers, 400,000 a year from cigarettes, how come we arent passing laws like these against these people. I dont think we should, Im just looking at it from a statistical point of view. You are more likely to walk out of your house and get killed by a drunk than a terrorist. Wake up you good Germans. Stop being sheep and going along with all of this BS.

segdeha's avatar

@chris6137, You’re preaching to the choir here, man. I agree with you enough to have left the U.S. nearly 10 months ago. My goal was to get out before the Real ID thing went into effect, but really privacy and other protections have been seriously eroded over the last 6 or 7 years (and before, as others have pointed out). Others may choose to stay and try to change the system, I opted to take my young family and get out of Dodge.

SquirrelEStuff's avatar

I am four months away from getting my journeymans card as an electrician. Leaving has crossed my mind several times. After 5 years, and getting this close, I have to finish my apprenticeship before I go anywhere. I do have one last hope… Ron Paul. If he does not get elected, or at least the nomination, come April, I might be joining ya. Dont know where I wanna go. Amsterdam seems to have a very similar Constitution to ours. Hopefully they follow it.

segdeha's avatar

Well, I wouldn’t count on Ron Paul going anywhere from within the system. Maybe he’ll run as an independent.

segdeha's avatar

BTW, here’s some propaganda against Real ID.

Perchik's avatar

@chris
HR1955 scares the shit out of me. Mostly because I’m in the same paranoia boat as you. What happens when I host an anti war protest? I’m speaking against something our country is doing…does that make me a terrorist?

And I agree about the numbers. When I go out on new years eve, my biggest fear is getting hit by a drunk driver, not getting blown up by a car bomb, because I know drunk driving is a legitimate problem facing our cities.

In the grand scheme of things I think they keep using terrorism as an excuse. We can get into Iraq and take their oil..if we can link it to terrorism.

@seq, I plan on fleeing the country as well, but I’m in college now, so I’d prefer to stick around for a couple years. God help us.

hossman's avatar

We’ve kind of strayed off the original topic here, but in response to your link, I guess we’ll have to wait to see if the courts decide you have a privacy interest in the phone numbers you call (note the solely domestic calls are supposedly only tracked by number called, not content of call). Since phone bills for cell phones now routinely list each phone number called, I’m betting the courts will say this is not an abuse of executive power when national security is cited as the justification. I know this information has not been difficult for law enforcement to obtain in the past. It wouldn’t surprise me if there wasn’t a lot more information being tracked that even the President isn’t being told about, or doesn’t wish to be told about. Given how poor Bush is at speaking, I doubt he’d be a very good liar. In fact, that’s one of the reasons I believe he is telling the truth as he knows it, I don’t think he’d be good at telling a lie, like, say, Bill Clinton.

And segdeha, if you think New Zealand is far enough away to be safe from surveillance, may I recommend rural Nepal instead? See the third sheep over, the one with the black ear? Kiwi stringer for the NSA.

And Real ID? Again, you’re being scared by the wrong thing. . . or haven’t you noticed credit cards are now going to embedded transponders. . . wonder how far away those can be picked up?

I don’t trust Obama because he hasn’t been around long enough for us to have a good feel for his judgment. If Jack Ryan hadn’t wanted his wife to go to swingers’ clubs, Obama would still be an unknown Illinois state senator. And it didn’t take Obama long to be in a shady real estate deal with Tony Rezko. . .

Hey, it’s really not as bad as you guys think. How about looking at the part of the glass that’s still half full? This is still the best deal going (although I admit I don’t know much about New Zealand except it is evidently populated by hobbits who don’t bathe very frequently).

segdeha's avatar

FWIW, George McGovern thinks they should be impeached.

SquirrelEStuff's avatar

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/economics/article3137506.ece

Is the US still the best deal going? I thought we should be moving foward not backwards. It looks like the terrorists are winning.

damianmann's avatar

fear and loathing

SquirrelEStuff's avatar

Please read this. It is from the book, They Thought They Were Free, by Milton Mayer.

He writes about how if he were to die tonight, at least he could look back on some good he had done. But his Nazi friends would never be able to die in peace, knowing the evil they had participated in, if even by acts of omission, could never be wiped clean. And he dreaded that Americans would ever feel the same for the acts we may one day commit as a nation.

Now I see a little better how Nazism overcame Germany – not by attack from without or by subversion from within, but with a whoop and a holler. It was what most Germans wanted – or, under pressure of combined reality and illusion, came to want. They wanted it; they got it; and they liked it.

I came home a little bit afraid for my country, afraid of what it might want, and get, and like, under combined pressure of reality and illusion. I felt – and feel – that it was not German Man that I met, but Man. He happened to be in Germany under certain conditions. He might be here under certain conditions. He might, under certain conditions, be I.

If I – and my countrymen – ever succumbed to that concatenation of conditions, no Constitution, no laws, no police, and certainly no army would be able to protect us from harm.

One of his closing chapters, “Peoria Uber Alles,” is so poignant and prescient that were Mayer still alive today I doubt he could read it out loud without his voice breaking. It’s the story of how what happened in Germany could just as easily happen in Peoria, Illinois, particularly if the city were to become isolationistic and suffered some sort of natural or man-made disaster or attack that threw its people into the warm but deadly embrace of authoritarianism.

The [Peorian] individual surrenders his individuality without a murmur, without, indeed, a second thought – and not just his individual hobbies and tastes, but his individual occupation, his individual family concerns, his individual needs. The primordial community, the tribe, re-emerges, it’s first function the preservation of all its members. Every normal personality of the day becomes an ‘authoritarian personality.’ A few recalcitrants have to be disciplined (vigorously, under the circumstances) for neglect or betrayal of their duty. A few groups have to be watched or, if necessary, taken in hand – the antisocial elements, the liberty-howlers, the agitators among the poor, and the criminal gangs. For the rest of the citizens – 95 percent or so of the population – duty is now the central fact of life. They obey, at first awkwardly, but, surprisingly soon, spontaneously.

Among Mayer’s stories are some of the most telling aspects of how the Nazis came to take over Germany (and much of Europe). I first quoted them a year ago in a Common Dreams article linked from BuzzFlash titled The Myth of National Victimhood. I noted that Mayer told how one of his friends said:

What happened here was the gradual habituation of the people, little by little, to being governed by surprise; to receiving decisions deliberated in secret; to believing that the situation was so complicated that the government had to act on information which the people could not understand, or so dangerous that, even if the people could understand it, it could not be released because of national security….

As a friend of Mayer’s noted, and Mayer recorded in his book:

This separation of government from people, this widening of the gap, took place so gradually and so insensibly, each step disguised (perhaps not even intentionally) as a temporary emergency measure or associated with true patriotic allegiance or with real social purposes. And all the crises and reforms (real reforms, too) so occupied the people that they did not see the slow motion underneath, of the whole process of government growing remoter and remoter. ...

To live in this process is absolutely not to be able to notice it – please try to believe me – unless one has a much greater degree of political awareness, acuity, than most of us had ever had occasion to develop. Each step was so small, so inconsequential, so well explained or, on occasion, “regretted,” that, unless one were detached from the whole process from the beginning, unless one understood what the whole thing was in principle, what all these “little measures” that no “patriotic German” could resent must some day lead to, one no more saw it developing from day to day than a farmer in his field sees the corn growing. One day it is over his head.

In this conversation, Mayer’s friend suggests that he wasn’t making an excuse for not resisting the rise of the fascists, but simply pointing out an undisputable reality. This, he suggests, is how fascism will always take over a nation.

“Pastor Niemoller spoke for the thousands and thousands of men like me when he spoke (too modestly of himself) and said that, when the Nazis attacked the Communists, he was a little uneasy, but, after all, he was not a Communist, and so he did nothing: and then they attacked the Socialists, and he was a little uneasier, but, still, he was not a Socialist, and he did nothing; and then the schools, the press, the Jews, and so on, and he was always uneasier, but still he did nothing. And then they attacked the Church, and he was a Churchman, and he did something – but then it was too late.”

“Yes,” I said.

“You see,” my colleague went on, “one doesn’t see exactly where or how to move. Believe me, this is true. Each act, each occasion, is worse than the last, but only a little worse. You wait for the next and the next. You wait for the one great shocking occasion, thinking that others, when such a shock comes, will join with you in resisting somehow. You don’t want to act, or even to talk, alone; you don’t want to ‘go out of your way to make trouble.’ Why not? – Well, you are not in the habit of doing it. And it is not just fear, fear of standing alone, that restrains you; it is also genuine uncertainty.

“Uncertainty is a very important factor, and, instead of decreasing as time goes on, it grows. Outside, in the streets, in the general community, everyone is happy. One hears no protest, and certainly sees none. You know, in France or Italy there will be slogans against the government painted on walls and fences; in Germany, outside the great cities, perhaps, there is not even this. In the university community, in your own community, you speak privately to your colleagues, some of whom certainly feel as you do; but what do they say? They say, ‘It’s not so bad’ or ‘You’re seeing things’ or ‘You’re an alarmist.’

“And you are an alarmist. You are saying that this must lead to this, and you can’t prove it. These are the beginnings, yes; but how do you know for sure when you don’t know the end, and how do you know, or even surmise, the end? On the one hand, your enemies, the law, the regime, the Party, intimidate you. On the other, your colleagues pooh-pooh you as pessimistic or even neurotic. ...

“But the one great shocking occasion, when tens or hundreds or thousands will join with you, never comes. That’s the difficulty. If the last and worst act of the whole regime had come immediately after the first and the smallest, thousands, yes, millions would have been sufficiently shocked – if, let us say, the gassing of the Jews in ‘43 had come immediately after the ‘German Firm’ stickers on the windows of non-Jewish shops in ‘33. But of course this isn’t the way it happens. In between come all the hundreds of little steps, some of them imperceptible, each of them preparing you not to be shocked by the next. Step C is not so much worse than Step B, and, if you did not make a stand at Step B, why should you at Step C? And so on to Step D.

“And one day, too late, your principles, if you were ever sensible of them, all rush in upon you. The burden of self-deception has grown too heavy, and some minor incident, in my case my little boy, hardly more than a baby, saying ‘Jew swine,’ collapses it all at once, and you see that everything, everything, has changed and changed completely under your nose. The world you live in – your nation, your people – is not the world you were in at all. The forms are all there, all untouched, all reassuring, the houses, the shops, the jobs, the mealtimes, the visits, the concerts, the cinema, the holidays. But the spirit, which you never noticed because you made the lifelong mistake of identifying it with the forms, is changed. Now you live in a world of hate and fear, and the people who hate and fear do not even know it themselves; when everyone is transformed, no one is transformed. Now you live in a system which rules without responsibility even to God.” ...

Mayer’s friend pointed out the terrible challenge faced then by average Germans, and today by peoples across the world, as governments are taken over by authoritarian, corporatist—fascist—regimes.

“How is this to be avoided, among ordinary men, even highly educated ordinary men?” Mayer’s friend asked rhetorically. And, without the benefit of a previous and recent and well-remembered fascistic regime to refer to, he had to candidly answer: “Frankly, I do not know.”

This was the great problem that Mayer’s Nazis and so many in their day faced.

As Mayer’s Nazi friend noted, “I do not see, even now [how we could have stopped it]. Many, many times since it all happened I have pondered that pair of great maxims, Principiis obsta and Finem respice – ‘Resist the beginnings’ and ‘consider the end.’ But one must foresee the end in order to resist, or even see, the beginnings. One must foresee the end clearly and certainly and how is this to be done, by ordinary men or even by extraordinary men?”

And here we are.

damianmann's avatar

Look…bush and Cheney are very bad people. I would classify them as criminals and traitors. But, Nazis is taking it to an extreme is that laughable and ridiculous.

segdeha's avatar

@damianmann, I don’t agree. The point that chris6137 is making is that we have people in power who are employing similar tactics to those used by the Nazis to aggregate more and more power and authority. Each step they take towards a “unitary executive” seems not too bad, but when you look at where the presidency is now compared to where it was in 2000, there is far more power centralized in that one office. And, that’s just one example.

I think the biggest danger of them all is when Americans to think “It can’t happen here!” We interned Japanese people during WWII. We rounded up thousands of Arabic folks after 9/11. No, we didn’t kill millions of them, systematically. But, we did torture some of them. We have imprisoned a whole mess of people without charge, without access to legal counsel, without the right to challenge their detention.

Don’t be so naive to think that the people in our own government wouldn’t do some pretty evil things to further their agendas. It’s the whole reason the founders put in place checks and balances. People in power (especially people who want to be in power) tend to want more power. If there aren’t systems in place to keep that tendency in check, power gets too concentrated and the temptation to abuse that power grows.

The Bush/Cheney administration has gone far beyond any in American history in attempting to completely skew this balance of powers in favor of one branch. It actually is impeachable because their first oath is to uphold the Constitution. Do you think Franklin, Adams, Jefferson, et al. would approve of the last 7 years???

SquirrelEStuff's avatar

I just find it funny, ok not funny, scary, that Bush told us that the Muslim extremists hate us because we are free and prosperous, yet it seems like the terrorists are winning by the freedoms we lost. I know many of you are gonna say, “but Chris, we havent lost any freedoms, they are trying to keep us safe,” but I guarantee that if there is another terror attack, you will see the biggest change in this country that most of us have never dreamed of. Like Benjamin Franklin said, “Any society that gives up essential liberties, for temporary security, deserve neither.”

damianmann's avatar

Bush and Cheney aren’t fascists. There…I said it…

READ ON. DON’T JUMP TO CONCLUSIONS (If that’s even possible)

These people are about money.They aren’t interested in wiping out any racial or social class They’re more interested in exploiting them. (gotcha…you know I’m right.

(THIS IS THEEE FUCKING MAN WAKING YER FUCKING SLEEPY HEAD UP)
The REAL fascists aren’t them. They just read and interpret what America wants…using polls and stuff like that., and they package it accordingly.

WE are the fascists, WE are the racists.

Don’t take it personally. The last part is clearly a generality.

It’s the facts that hurt the liverwurst.

SquirrelEStuff's avatar

You really think its about the money?? These people have had more money than all of us every will. Its all about the power. When you have any money all your life and everything is handed to you, all you want is power. Take the Halloween Massacre for instance. These guys definintely know what they are doing, they have been in the Executive branch for a long time.

And you say that they arent interested in wiping out any racial or social class, Some estimates put the total Iraqis killed at over 1 MILLION.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-naiman/us-media-ignores-estima_b_60396.html
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/09/14/3839/

Now of course we can dispute this number, but the bottom line is that the government is not being honest with us. They stopped reporting civilian and non US troops(blackwater, etc.) a long, long time ago. Do you think Hitler was reporting how many Jews he was killing?

And to say that they read and interpret what America wants, how about the 70% something that have wanted us out of Iraq for the last couple years?

SquirrelEStuff's avatar

And damiann, have you seen this law??

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c110:4:./temp/~c110oEIiSJ:e1080:
http://www.counterpunch.org/smith10252007.html

Please read some of those definitions. This doesnt sound like it is supposed to stop terrorism, it sound like they are trying to stop dissent.

segdeha's avatar

I have to say I agree with damianmann on his last point. It is about money. Power is a vehicle to accumulating more money, which gives you more power, which helps you get more money, etc. ad infinitum.

Now, I don’t agree with him that this means they aren’t fascists. In fact, fascism is the marriage of corporate and political power. That is exactly what is going on right now in the good ol’ U. S. of A.

SquirrelEStuff's avatar

@segdeha

I was under the same impression as you about fascism (especially the quote, “When fascism comes to America, itll be wrapped in a flag, carrying a cross.”) I feel Bush fits that quote perfectly. But Ive had this discussion on fluther before, and here was a great response from Hossman.

Fascism is generally defined as a governmental system where the needs of the State are viewed to exceed the needs of the individual, thus all power is centralized in an authoritarian government, usually but not necessarily led by a dictator. Individual rights are wholly subservient to government needs and policy. While fascism, communism and socialism may have very few differences in practical application and are all usually totalitarian, fascism at least admits that power is derived from the government elite or nationalism, whereas communism and socialism usually at least pretend power is derived from the populace, but directed by supposedly populist leaders and a bureaucracy.

I believe many Americans use the term “fascism” when what they really mean is “socialism” or “dictatorship.” First, because fascism has, because of the examples of German Nazism and Italian Fascism, developed a historical negative connotation that in its pure form may be a bit more than it deserves (could you have benevolent fascism? possibly, but I doubt it is likely). Second, because liberalism has linked itself historically with support of socialism and communism, and thus is reluctant to give it as much of a historically negative connotation as it deserves (the Soviet Union’s and China’s excesses far exceed Hitler or Mussolini, yet many liberals are still hesitant to criticize the Soviet Union, China, socialism or communism). Perhaps a third reason is fascism is generally viewed as “right-wing” while socialism and communism are generally viewed as “left-wing,” and it is far more fashionable in this culture to use negative right-wing labels than negative left-wing labels.

Given the more positive view given socialism than fascism in this country (for poor reasons, I find both equally abhorrent), I find it far more likely this country would become socialist than fascist, although essentially the practical result of either system is almost identical. I also find it odd there is so much support for an increasingly socialist government in the U.S., when the rest of the world apparently views socialism as a failure and moving toward free-market economies (China, Russia and other former Soviet governments, France, many small 3rd world nations). We seem to forget we really do have less to complain about than most of the world, and are so intent on creating a cloud in our silver lining we are willing, to mix my metaphors, to kill the golden goose.

SquirrelEStuff's avatar

I am curious though, and it might be a good fluther question, what would it take for people to think the govt is getting out of hand with its control and spying?

hossman's avatar

Of course, if they really were Nazis, you’d all be getting a knock on the door right about now. . .

Although I am not the type to get offensive about such things, I do know some Holocaust survivors. I have relatives who survived Japanese prisoner of war camps. For any of you to be making serious comparisons between this country, as bad as you think it is, and totalitarian Germany or Japan, or the Soviet Union, China, North Korea or Cambodia, for that matter, is ludicrous (the concept, not you), and I can see how those who have survived a truly totalitarian regime would be offended.

You have the freedom to engage in this hyperbole, which makes you freer than most of the world. Sure, we keep straying toward socialism, but that’s a long way away. And the Presidency is not nearly as totalitarian today as it has been in the American past.

If Bush and Cheney really were the Nazis or fascists you claim, would they politely accept the constant abuse that has been directed their way? I disagree with a lot they do, but calling any of our Presidents, even my least favorite, an idiot or a criminal, without something better than our own big mouths or opinions to support it (and I include myself in this, as I have done it myself) is at best disrespectful, and at worst harmful to our Republic. I think we can preserve our rights to expression while still bringing the quality and graciousness of our discord up a tad.

SquirrelEStuff's avatar

I dont think we are at the tipping point yet. Im not trying to compare us to Nazi Germany, it is more the steps being taken, little by little, to erode our freedoms that im concerned with.
From the book They Thought They were Free (The title is what really got me)
“You see,” my colleague went on, “one doesn’t see exactly where or how to move. Believe me, this is true. Each act, each occasion, is worse than the last, but only a little worse. You wait for the next and the next. You wait for the one great shocking occasion, thinking that others, when such a shock comes, will join with you in resisting somehow. You don’t want to act, or even to talk, alone; you don’t want to ‘go out of your way to make trouble.’ Why not? – Well, you are not in the habit of doing it. And it is not just fear, fear of standing alone, that restrains you; it is also genuine uncertainty.

And as far as them knocking on my door, it might not be too far off.
http://rawstory.com/news/2007/US_drafting_plan_to_allow_government_0114.html

Between that and the HR 1955, they might legally be able to do that. Here is a couple definitions from that bill.
`SEC. 899A. DEFINITIONS.

`For purposes of this subtitle:

`(1) COMMISSION- The term `Commission’ means the National Commission on the Prevention of Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism established under section 899C.

`(2) VIOLENT RADICALIZATION- The term `violent radicalization’ means the process of adopting or promoting an extremist belief system for the purpose of facilitating ideologically based violence to advance political, religious, or social change.

`(3) HOMEGROWN TERRORISM- The term `homegrown terrorism’ means the use, planned use, or threatened use, of force or violence by a group or individual born, raised, or based and operating primarily within the United States or any possession of the United States to intimidate or coerce the United States government, the civilian population of the United States, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.

`(4) IDEOLOGICALLY BASED VIOLENCE- The term `ideologically based violence’ means the use, planned use, or threatened use of force or violence by a group or individual to promote the group or individual’s political, religious, or social beliefs.

I am not a lawyer, as you are, but these definitions seem very vague to me. What do you think?

I think that if Bush and Cheney were to not accept the abuse, there would be a serious revolt. Instead, they use the fearmongering and 9/11 to slowly pass laws, and like I said before, I think if there is another terror attack, they will gladly and justifiably use each and every law they passed.

segdeha's avatar

I agree with a lot of what you’re saying, chris6137 (and, as usual, hossman you make some good points as well), except for the part about how discredited is socialism. Of the 10 countries with the highest standards of living, most of them have more “socialist” policies than the United States. Norway and Sweden rank #s 1 and 2 and the people there pay (what Americans would consider) outrageous taxes and enjoy many more free and subsidised services than do residents of the U.S.

hossman's avatar

Typically they’ll clean up the definitions when they convert the legislation to statute. I haven’t read the rest of that act, the definitions above seem reasonable for definitions, but I’m wondering what this act changes that isn’t already covered by federal and state law.

flipper's avatar

Because the people who would impeach them were complicit in everything they have done, including Hillary.

Answer this question

Login

or

Join

to answer.

This question is in the General Section. Responses must be helpful and on-topic.

Your answer will be saved while you login or join.

Have a question? Ask Fluther!

What do you know more about?
or
Knowledge Networking @ Fluther