7/20/06, from a World Can’t Wait supporter
One thing
that both blinds and inures people to the growing fascism is the appearance of
a relative normalcy in society co-existing with and feeding off the constant
invocation of the fear of terrorism. The
War on Terror provides the rationale that sets in motion much of the dynamic
through which the Bush Regime has advanced their fascist program.
Every
time that the Bush regime has been exposed for promulgating a lie to justify
any of their measures, even when caught red handed in total fabrication of
reality, even when shown to be in absolute violation of law and the
constitution, they respond by making even more far reaching changes, and going
on the offensive. They do this in two
ways. One, they don’t stop – they continue with what they were doing
surreptitiously – such as with the massive government spying; and two, they get
on the hustings with Orwellian doublespeak, invoke the grave danger to the
country, demonize all opposition, including charging treason, and wage an all
out battle to have the very measures being questioned, and then some, codified
into new law. And, except for the
initial cry of indignation, sometimes coupled with a petty amendment and an
admonition that they should have been consulted because they could have
administered this better, the Democrats go right along.
It may
seem ironic, but the veil of normalcy is justified by the constant invocation
of being in a state of emergency. The
War on Terrorism, conducted for the “safety” of Americans, which the
administration and their sycophants in the media drum into peoples’ heads,
requires the assertion of extraordinary executive power. Any and every violation of basic principle – such
as the right not to be tortured – can be, and is, justified under this
paradigm.
A German
political theorist, Carl Schmitt, a major academic figure whose theories
provided intellectual cover and justification for Nazism in the 1930’s, particularly
its anti-semitism, developed a doctrine of the “State of Emergency” which justifies the
necessity of the state’s executive to essentially suspend and change law in the
name of law, the “total Fuhrer state.”
Whether
or not Bush’s legal aides from Attorney General Gonzales or his academic
advisors such as John Yoo have read Schmitt or not, they are right in line with
it. On the one hand, the state of
emergency (the war on terrorism) can leave existing laws “on the
books” and provide a perfectly legal work around – i.e.: the executive
power of the sovereign (Bush) requires him to act in the emergency as he sees
fit in defense of the nation; and, on the other hand, this same rationale is
then argued to demand that the law itself be changed, to conform to the new
reality, the new state of emergency, as defined, of course, by him.
Have we
not seen this repeatedly over the last 5 years?