Constant's pations

If it's more than 30 minutes old, it's not news. It's a blog.

Sunday, November 27, 2005

Fascism in America: What has it been like?

Mosaic theory is an excuse to rationalize RNC fascism.

Fascism under the RNC needs to be subjected to 42 USC 1983 claims. The National Security Letters need to be called what they are: Unconstitutional.

See: Pozen, David E., "The Mosaic Theory, National Security, and the Freedom of Information Act" . Yale Law Journal, Vol. 115, No. 3, 2005

* * *

Many days from now, when memories are short, some will wonder what it was like to live under fascism.

In short, it’s non-sense. Logic goes out the window.

* * *

The original constitution [OC] is one that observes the following assumptions:

  • People have the right to be informed of the laws so that they can use the laws to guide their lawful behavior;

  • People have the right to be left alone; or participate and stay engaged depending on their choice

    The OC also had the following assumptions, which were called Amendments, but were long ignored:

  • 4th Amendment protected the right of the people to be free from unreasonable searches

  • 5th Amendment stated that no person would be answerable for an infamous crime without due process

  • 6th Amendment stated that people had the right to a speedy, public trial

    The fascists threw all this away with the national security letters. We no longer have an original constitution.

    * * *

    42 USC 1983 Claims are contingent upon the individual proving that the rights were clearly established.

    It remains to be understood how many people who have been issued a national security letter will bring 42 USC 1983 claims against the specific law enforcement agents, corporate management, and government officials.

    Arguably, those who are issuing National Security Letters are doing so in a manner that violates the constitution. Yet, the public has no information to maintain confidence in the fascists.

    We see no evidence before us that states that a “promise to keep quiet about a national security letter” is enforceable – rather, it does nothing but ensure that arguably unlawful violations of the constitution continue.

    We see no evidence that a “promise to keep quiet about arguably unlawful, unconstitutional conduct” is enforceable.

    We see no difference between the “public discussions of the Bush-Blair discussion of bombing Al Jazeera.” Why would the UK court submit to US pressure, and not permit a public airing of the transcripts?

    Why are Americans required to follow a “requirement” that they keep quiet about government, corporate, and law enforcement conduct that arguably:

  • Violates the Constitution

  • Warrants 42 USC 1983 investigations

    No answer from the fascists.

    * * *

    The important thing to remember about the original Constitution -- that still exists, although it is ignored – was the idea that we would be free from tyranny and a police state.

    In theory, there would be a reasonable check on power; and that the public was presumed to be innocent until proven guilty.

    The problem with living in a fascist state is that the public is currently presumed to be guilty:

  • The fascists do not want to tell the public “how to stay within the narrow confines of the New Unlawful Constitution” [NUC]

  • The fascist do not want to let people know, who are simply trying to go about their business, how to fit in under the NUC

    If people are to “not be informed of what they are or are not doing” and how that relates to the law, then what basis is there to assert they are free?

    Nobody is free if they are monitored, but their conduct is not publicly compared to a clear standard that is understandable. That is arbitrary.

    * * *

    A police state exists when all are presumed guilty and “not worthy” of being informed of the laws, rules, and indicators that would subject them to increased police intrusions.

    * * *

    The courts state that one cannot rely on speculative damages or future harm in order for the court to act. Yet, the National Security Letters and government intrusions are conditioned on that very premise: Speculation.

  • Why is the government allowed to exercise the right to “speculation about potential harm” in order to have a national security letter issued; but the individual is unable to rely on that same construct before the same courts?

  • Why is one set of standards in re speculative future actions permissible for the government to rely on, but not good enough for the public?

    No answers from the fascists.

    * * *

    Have you ever heard of a corporation being tortured?

    That’s absurd. Yet, the corporations, despite it not being an individual, asserts it has the right “as an individual” to be free from government intrusion.

  • Why is the public required to assent to torture, but other individuals like corporations do not have to assent?

  • Why are some individuals, like corporations, allowed to assert rights which individual individuals cannot assert as a defense to intrusion?

    No answers from the fascists.

    * * *

    The idea of the laws is to provide guides. Then we can live in harmony. It is a separate issue whether others follow those laws.

    What is curious, living under fascism in the United States is how the state, in its desire to impose order, fails to communicate what the rules are.

    National Security Letters get issued, but the fascists state that they cannot “give away” the information that might “tip off” others.

  • How are people supposed to learn about the rules if they are not informed of them?

    No answer from the fascists.

    * * *

    The idea of the rules is to inform people of what are appropriate ways to behave.

  • Why are fascists giving them self a green light to commit torture; but those who question that torture are subjected to investigations?

    No answer from the fascists.

    * * *

    One of the ideas of “publishing the rules” is so that people can follow them.

    But the fascists like to have secret rules; then detain people and issue national security letters without letting them know what is wrong.

  • What’s the point of “not telling people” what is wrong, unless you expect them to “not learn” from others mistakes?

    The fascists answer: “We don’t want to let the terrorists know. . . “

    So, let’s consider this: What exactly do the fascists not want the public to know?

  • The fascists do not want the public to know that their logic makes no sense.

    At one point, there were allegedly 10,000 AlQueda running around; but they’ve issued over 30,000 National Security Letters. That means that there are at least three-times as many NSLs out than there are specifically identified-accused-assumed people linked.

    This means that the number of NSLs is unrelated to a specific number which the government has admitted is speculation.

    That is arbitrary.

    That is arguably not constitutional.

    * * *

    If someone says, “We can’t talk about the indicators related to that activity,” how is anyone supposed to learn “what is the right thing to do?”

    The fascists counter, “We can’t tell you want the indicators are, because that would tip off the bad people.”

    This incorrect presumes that only bad-people read the statutes with the intent to ignore them; yet what about the innocent people who are simply hoping to go about their lawful business “without having unreasonable intrusions?”

    No answer from the fascists.

    * * *

    The idea of the law is to inform people of what they are supposed to do, not do, or how to help them stay out of trouble.

    In short, the law is there to guide people.

    But what use is a government, when it fails to inform people of what they need to do to “not get into trouble”?

    The fascists have no answer.

    They want to communicate to the public saying, “We are here to protect you,” but they cannot be specific with:

  • What they want us to do

  • What they want us to not do

  • What they are protecting us from

  • What they are doing

  • How we are to evaluate whether they are succeeding or failing

    These are the conditions that are no different than for the Iraqis. The American approach, to the same problems facing America, has failed in Iraq.

    Why should we believe that the fascist approach, which self-evidently doesn’t work in Iraq, should be believed as something ‘that works” under equally dubious information:

  • What is going on

  • What are the rules

  • Who is being detained

  • What is the basis for their detention

    A government which fails to communicate fails to govern.

  • How do the fascists reconcile this?

    No answers form the fascists.

    * * *

    One of the ideas of the rule of law is to ensure that people live in harmony; and that the benefits of living under that system self-evidently justify public support for that system.

    Yet, today, we are asked to be quiet about the national security letters.

  • What basis is there to evaluate the performance of the government when the fruits of that “action taken on our behalf to protect us” cannot be discussed?

  • How do the fascists expect to generate public support when the “benefits” of that unconstitutional conduct are suppressed?

    It makes no sense to assert, without proof, that there are speculative benefits related to unconstitutional conduct.

    But the fascists have no other option. They cannot point to specifics. They can only point to a speculative threat.

    This is the very system which the Iraqis have been subjected, and that approach has failed in Iraq.

    Why is America worried about “ensuring the rule of law prevails in Iraq” yet the rule of law, when practiced at home, is the basis to detain someone?

    No answer from the fascists.

    * * *

    The idea of the rule of law is to guide behavior.

    Now the fascists want to keep the rules secret. “We can’t talk about the National Security Letters.”

    On the contrary, what lawful foundation exists to justify secrecy about conduct that is arguably unlawful?

    The fascist have no answer; they have not proven that the law mandating secrecy is constitutional.

    It is one thing to argue for secrecy about a grand jury proceeding.

    But it is a separate matter to demand there be absolutely no discussion about the fruits of those proceedings:

  • What happened

  • What are the charges

  • What is the evidence

  • How did the government prove that they were guilty

  • What is the public to learn from the public discussion

    We have no information from the fascists.

    But we are supposed to remain confident in the system that imposes silence, but demands loyalty.

    Why are we loyalty to fascists?

    There is a difference between the Original constitution – which these fascists ignore, and are arguably subject to under 42 USC 1983 – and the existing non-sense prattled around as if it were constitutional.

    * * *

    The idea of the rule of law is to tell people, in advance, what the rules are.

    The fascists argue that we can’t talk about indicators.

    If the innocent are doing something that is potentially unlawful, but it is not actually unlawful, why can’t we talk about that?

    One cannot simply assert there is a list of indicators, but no crime.

    Yet, the fascists want to point to their list of indicators as the excuse to be silent.

  • Where is the public trial with evidence?

    To argue that this nation “cannot have a public trial” as it would “give away the information to someone else that we can’t point to” is an excuse for a police state.

    The “enemy” [whoever they are, if they exist] already know what they’re doing.

    It is clear the fascist know what they’re doing: Ignoring the constitution.

    Why is it not OK to talk about what is actually going on:

  • What the enemy, if it exists, is doing

  • What the “good guys” [if they still follow the constitution] are achieving?

    But the fascists don’t want to talk about that.


    The fascists don’t trust the people.

    They treat the public with more disdain than the enemy.

  • Why is that?

    The fascists have no answer.

    * * *

    The idea of the rule of law is to let people know what the rules are.

    Then they can stay out of trouble. Then we have a more peaceful society.

    That is harmony.

    But what happens when the government denies people the chance to “not do” what leads to “reasonable suspicion”?

    The fascists argue, “That would tip people off, and let them commit crimes.”

    This incorrectly presumes that all people are presumed to be guilty, so long as they meet a number of indicators – which they won’t tell us what they are.

    Wouldn’t it save a lot of time if they let the public know what the problems were so that the innocent would “not do” what is theoretically “wasting” the law enforcement’s time?

    Self-evidently, they have 30,000 NSL issued against 10,000 people; but nothing to show for it.

    If we are in this “big war against whatever you want to call it this week” – wouldn’t it do more to rally the people to the side of the forces of good . . . If the public knew what to look out for, what not to do.

    Then, when the people get an idea of what the government is proposing, we could have a debate, and discuss whether we like those rules, or disagree with how that system is operating.

    You know, it might be something like this:

  • These are the indicators of bad people

  • These are things you should do to be good people

  • We could ask whether “doing those things that are indicators of good people” are really want we want to sponsor

  • And if we are “incentivizing good conduct” that actually leaves us in a worse condition, we could “not do that good thing” and call it what it is: Unhealthy.

    * * *

    The frustration of living in fascism is that no matter what you do, you are liable to step on someone’s toes, but not be given fair notice:

  • What the rules are

  • How you should behave

  • Why you should believe management training is credibly linked with what your real responsibilities are

    Rather, what it appears is the opposite:

  • The rules are created to trip people up

  • Management is tipped off to what the rules are, but not the public or employees

  • Law enforcement is given a heads up how to trip people

  • The public, just trying to do their job, is set up to trip and everyone knows it

    That’s not simply “unfair.” That’s stupid. It’s a waste of time.

    That’s kind of like being told, “You can trust the American constitutional system – just don’t rely on any of the participants in that system because: . . .

  • They lie

  • They do not do their jobs

  • They are not reliable

  • They create situations to make problems, not solutions

  • They are the source of confusion, and fail to implement a solution

  • They fail to communicate, but they demand compliance

    In short, fascism is based on one idea: That the state, not the individual, is the source of all logic.

    Yet, the state is actually illogical: It does nothing to inspire based on reality or logic.

    Its sole goal is to inspire confidence in the State, without regard to logic, reason, self-esteem, or the rule of law.

    Rather, it relies on games, keeping people in the dark, and making people believe, without proof, that they are in a fine system.

    Yet, self-evidently, look at the failed results in re Katrina and Iraq:

  • Corruption without accountability

  • Lies without impeachment

  • War crimes without sanctions

    The fascists are focused on one goal: Serving the state, without regard to the constitution.

    They use perverse logic to justify more non-sense.

    It is a cancer.

    And they use threats against the public and the media to compel compliance with that absurdity.

    * * *

    Some say that the government is free to issue National Security Letters in silence.

  • Why is the government allowed to spread lies without fear of sanction or comment?

    No answer from the fascists.

    * * *

    Living under fascism has been curious.

    We are told the public must be quiet, but the law enforcement is free to spread lies.

  • Why the double standard on who can talk and who must remain silent?

  • Why are some allowed to speak about lies with favor; but those who want to talk about reality must do so with fear?

  • Why isn’t the public allowed to talk about conduct that would arguably warrant a 42 USC 1983 lawsuit for violations of clearly established rights?

  • What method is used to ensure the law enforcement national decertification database is correct, up to date, and accurate if the public is not allowed to discuss arguably unlawful and unconstitutional conduct under these national security letters?

  • If the courts have “no role” in overseeing law enforcement conduct under the national security letters, why is there a national decertification database?

    No answers from the fascists.

    * * *

    It is a curious thing living under fascism.

    The public is denied the right to talk about National Security Letters.

    But government is free to accuse based on non-sense.

    National Security letters are facts.

  • Why are facts above what the people can discuss, but the government can freely spew forth lies?

  • Why is the public denied the ability to discuss reality, but the government is free to accuse based on innuendo?

    No answer from the fascists.

    * * *

    We are free people. Allowed to talk about reality.

  • Where are our signatures that show we have agreed to let these violations of the law go unchallenged?

  • Where are our signatures that show we have agreed to remain silent about arguably unconstitutional conduct?

  • Where can anyone point to that says it is lawful for any of us to be silent about denying people the right to a public trial, or to have their personal papers searched?

    We have not assented to have the constitution ignored.

    Nor have we assented to permit unreasonable searches and seizures.

    DoJ’s numbers do not add up. They say there are 10,000 AlQueda; yet they’ve issued 30,000 National Security Letters.

    This does not include the number of National Security Letters DoD has issued.

    And they want more: To let DoD Counter Intelligence Field Activity engages in “counter-economic espionage.”

  • What does that have to do with DoD or CIFA?


  • What about Posse Comitatus?

    No answer from the fascists.

    >* * *

    Living under fascism is interesting. The state justifies tipping the scale against the constitution.

    The state points to a speculative benefit to deny the protections.

    Yet, the speculative benefit is the foundation of fascism.

  • What is the self-evident benefit of fascism?

    More fascism.

    * * *

  • Why is the public told to assent, without comment, to unconstitutional conduct?

    No answer from the fascists.
    * * *

  • Why is the public denied the right to have injunctions against future law enforcement abuse based on speculative damages or harm; but the law enforcement is allowed to rely on speculation to ignore the constitution?

    No answer from the fascists.

    * * *

    Living under fascism is absurd. We hear more excuses to ignore the constitution.

    The fascists use more excuses to tip the scale to the advantage of the fascists.

    They tip the scale to:

  • The advantage of the government

  • Deny rights

  • Not inform

  • Assert guilt

  • Justify unconstitutional acts

    * * *

    We are free people. We have the right to come and go without explanation.

    To go about our business. To be free from unreasonable searches.

    It is a ruse to assert, without proof, that because someone has an indicator, that they are guilty, or required to explain.

    No, the government still has the duty to prove the basis for that detention; not simply assert that someone is possibly associated with something, and then detain them hoping to find the evidence.

    * * *

    We can remain silent.

    Yet, a “lack of explanation” is not a presumption of guilt.

    However, the fascists demand the public explain; but the fascists want to “exercise their individual right to silence.”

  • Why do the fascists get to enjoy rights they deny others?

  • If individuals cannot get access to lawyers, why are fascists allowed to keep their conversations with lawyers secret?

    No answer from the fascists.

    * * *

    Fascists have been running this country. They have trashed the constitution.

    They have created non-sense arguments to justify ignoring those Amendments.

    The fascists need to brought to account under 42 USC 1983.

    The rights were clearly established, but those rights were ignored.

    The rights were outlined in the constitution, but the fascists have said those Amendments are not to be followed.

  • Why are the fascist saying they are fighting for “our way of life,” but they refuse to follow the rule of law?

  • Why are we believing “they are doing anything for us,” when all they’ve done is destroy the rights they rely on to do more harm to us?

    No answer from the fascists.

    * * *

    The fascists have overstayed their welcome.

    They fail to give fair notice.

    Their training is worthless.

    They ignore the constitution.

    They are no help, simply offering excuse and lies.

    They are not to be trusted.

    They deserve to be challenged, scrutinized, and subjected to the intrusions of checks and balances.

  • Why do the fascists assert, without proof, that the system of checks and balances gives them the right to ignore the Constitution?

  • Why do the fascists assert the system of checks and balances gives them the power to ignore the Amendments protecting us against unreasonable searches?

    No answers from the fascists.

    * * *

    There is a pattern: The fascists have no answers.

    Yet, they are in power.

    We have a constitution.

    It still exists.

    That the fascists are ignoring it doesn’t mean the constitution is gone.

  • Where are the 42 USC 1983 claims?

  • When will the American Bar Association take a case to argue these National Security Letters are unconstitutional?

    No answer from the fascists inside the ABA.

    * * *

    The idea of a system of checks and balances is to do just that: Check and balance power.

    Yet, the fascists within the Senior Executive Service have turned this on its head.

    They assert, without proof, that the checks and balances is right of government to check the population from:

  • Asking questions

  • Talking about reality

  • Evaluating their performance

  • Brining 42 USC 1983 claims for unconstitutional conduct

    Arguably, any law that mandates silence bout unconstitutional conduct is not enforceable.

    Yet, the fascists want silence about the CIA torchture in Eistorn Yurop.

  • Why do the fascists want silence about unlawful acts?

    No answer from the fascist.

    * * *

    It is time to subject the fascists to lawful intrusions.

    42 USC 1983 claims.

    Let’s get the evidence from the national decertification base.

    Let’s have a public hearing about the abuses.

  • Are the law enforcement officers ignoring clearly established rights?

  • What methods is law enforcement using to intimidate those who dare speak out about misconduct?

  • How is law enforcement leaking information to the perpetrators of crimes in order to ensure the whistleblowers are targeted?

  • What methods do law enforcement use to silence those who dare speak about law enforcement’s 42 USC 1983 violations?

  • How are the “lessons of Abu Ghraib” and “what really goes on in prison” and “how guards will tell rumors about other prisoners” used in the US to get perpetrators of crimes to go after those who know law enforcement is taking a cut of the crime profits?

    No answers from the fascists.

    * * *

    The only thing the fascists know how to do is tell more lies. But that is not government. That is just fascism.

    * * *

    America has a problem. It is called fascism. It will either be stopped, or it will get worse.

    The abuses are already self-evident.

    But the fascism continues.

    Clearly, the nation, through inaction, wants the level of evidence required for 42 USC 1983 claims to be higher.

    This means that there are people who know what is going on, but remaining silent. They are gathering evidence.

    Yet, what do the fascists do:

  • They intimidate the witnesses

  • They make up stories about Murtha

  • They change arguments to imply immediate, when that is not the case

  • They shift the burden of governance and accountability to the public

    This is unreasonable.

    For fascism will only continue if the opposition assents to this non-sense.

    The burden rests on the fascists to explain:

  • Why should we be loyal?

  • Why is this sensible

  • What is the position

    The fascists have failed. Their only option is to shift the burden of governance to those they have tormented, ignored, and intruded upon.

    This is absurd, and this is what fascism is all about.

    * * *

    David Broder, Washington Post columnist, wrote an editorial, “Dems close to having an Iraq Policy.”

    Perhaps a better title would have been, "RNC still has no solution.”

    We should applaud Broder for falling into the fascist trap: Of shifting the burden of governance from the ruling party, the RNC, onto those who are in the opposition.

    It remains to be understood why the burden of “making positions” and “ensuring consensus” falls on the minority.

    Rather, self-evidently, the RNC has failed to make their positions known: They want silence and have no consensus other than, “Let’s have more fascism.”

    The responsibility for leadership falls on the fascists. They have failed. We have ineffectual people in the RNC.

    The responsibility for ensuring there are reasonable mechanisms for debate fall on the fascists. They have failed. We have rubber stamping legislation based on fear, imprudence.

    The burden for standards, accountability, and consistency fall on the fascists: The RNC. Self-evidently they have failed. The fascists ignore the constitution, are unresponsive, and are inconsistent with the rule of law.

    Broder has done one thing: Correctly asserted the standards which should be applied to the fascists in the RNC:

  • Sensibility

  • Prudence

  • Reason

    We see nothing before us to suggest Broder has imposed this standard on the fascists in the RNC.

    Broader speaks of the “emotional” and “not carefully reasoned analysis” of Murtha. Yet, Broder fails to discuss Murtha’s reasoned approach: To have a force in place, and a phased withdrawal. Fascists like to change the argument of their opponent, then argue the wrong point. Broder is an honorable man.

    Fascists skillfully shifts the burden to those who have been ignored. Broder is an honorable man.

    There is no responsibility for Democrats, in 2005, to provide any leadership. But, despite the fascists in the RNC still being in charge, it appears the only ones capable of providing any leadership is the DNC.

    This is not something to be applauded: Rather, it is something to be worried about – it has taken the media this long to start pointing fingers of accountability, and they’ve failed to point the finger where it belongs – in the chest of the RNC fascists. But Broder is an honorable man.

    Broder makes a weak case to justify confidence that the DNC has or has not done something in a timely manner. Rather, it is the fascists in the RNC who have timely trashed the constitution, and the media failed to stand up. But Border is an honorable man.

    Broder makes a weak case in asserting the DNC has a deadline to achieve some sort of common ground”. Rather, it is the fascists within the RNC who asserted, without proof, that “everyone agreed” there was WMD, yet we were not given the full story. But Broder is an honorable man.

    Broder fails to capture the real problem. The DNC does not have the burden to be consistent under fascism. Rather, the burden is on the RNC to justify why it should ever hold power. The RNC is at odds with the rule of law. The fascists in the RNC flouted their positions of power despite the public concerns about the basis for war. But Broder is an honorable man.

    Broader uses flamboyant language to mischaracterize Congressman Murtha. It is absurd for Broader to assert, without proof, that Murtha relies on “gut-level instincts” while admitting that Murtha makes trips to Walter Reed – to make an informed decision about the war, one must visit those who have served, not simply write about it from the protection of the green zone. But Broder is an honorable man.

    Broder misstates Murtha’s position. Broder incorrectly asserts, without proof, that Murtha called for the immediate withdrawal. This is incorrect. Murtha called for a phase withdrawal, and wants a regional task force in the Middle East. There is little difference between Obama, Biden, and Murtha. But Broder is an honorable man.

    The burden of proof does not rest with the DNC. It rests with the RNC.

    The fascists in the RNC have successfully encouraged some to shift the burden from whether the White House staff should be indicted for war crimes; to whether the DNC should be trusted with power.

    Self-evidently, the fascists have shown that they cannot be trusted.

    The DNC, still in 2005, have not been given a chance.

    The time limit is on the fascist.

    The requirement for “sensible common ground” rests with the fascists.

    The fascists in the RNC have not understood why, despite the reasonable public concerns in Iraq, why a change was not warranted earlier. We should not be surprised why the RNC has ignored the American public – they ignore their own party members, keeping them out of the information loop.

    The problem with “gut-level instincts” is a failing of the RNC fascists.

    The problem with “emotional protest” falls on the RNC fascists.

    The burden of consistency between the rule of law and actions is a burden that falls on the RNC fascists.

    The issue of what is or is not “out of the question” is something that should have been debated in 2002, not in hindsight, argued as a burden on the minority or public. But the fascists did not want that.

    The issue of “what can or cannot be embraced” is a matter of constitutional law: Why should the 42 USC 1983 claims not be imposed swiftly without fear of interference by the government, fascists, or law enforcement?

    The fascists have no answers. Only excuses.

    * * *

    The goal of free people is to remain free. And enjoy the blessings of that liberty.

    This nation under fascism has convoluted thinking.

    The goal of the fascists has been to mobilized the masses and stupid law enforcement and buffoons in the military to act without regard to the Constitution or laws of war.

    The Geneva Conventions are real. As are the UN Charter against human rights abuses.

    42 USC 1983 is the law. As are the clearly established rights in the Constitution.

    It remains to be understood, as the cloud of fascism is heated away, to what extent the American civilian population has been manipulated to assent to lawlessness merely because they chose to do what the Iraqis want – to live in freedom.

    The fascists in the RNC have trashed the American society and constitution. They have used every hint of free thinking as an excuse to trod down the American population.

    A free people simply wants to know what it needs to do to remain free. Self-evidently, it cannot rely on the fascists or the RNC.

    The fascists want to keep the rules vague. To keep things in the dark. To justify conduct that violates the law. To justify National Security Letters despite their arguably unconstitutional status.

    An informed, free citizenry should know

  • what to do

  • what is a model

    Yet, these fascists in the RNC do what is arguably a violation of the Constitution and warrants 42 USC 1983 action:

  • Accusations in secrecy

  • No information

  • Threat of sanctions for engaging in lawful discussion of arguably unconstitutional conduct

  • Witness intimidation to keep silent about knowledge of what is arguably unconstitutional conduct

    The fascists in the RNC have no answers.

    And the media has failed to ask the pointed questions.

    The fascists have convinced the nation that asking questions is dangerous.

    Yet, it is only when we have people like Congressman Murtha asking questions and saying what is self-evident that the fascists then run around and pretend “they were the ones who thought of it.”

    Broder got it right: The Democrats have a vision and a voice.

    The RNC fascists have got it wrong: They have no vision, and they have no solutions.

    Their only goal is to perpetuate more fascism, more non-sense, and more excuses.

    It is time to bring the fascists to justice. To have 42 USC 1983 claims. And to have a full accounting of what non-sense the fascists in the RNC have done under these National Security Letters.

    Nothing adds up, just as nothing in the RNC party adds up.

    They are fascists. They can only rely on illusions, not facts, as the basis for their power.

    * * *

    Innocent people should not have to explain themselves. Nor should they have to change their behavior simply so as to “not upset the fascists.”

    Bluntly, the problem is law enforcement is stupid: They rely on simple checklists and indicators, but do not understand what happens when free people simply go about their business:

  • Observing

  • Asking questions

  • Learning

    IT is curious that law enforcement spends so much time training their own on the laws, but they do so much to justify violating those laws and testilying. They lie all the time. It is, on the stand in court, called testilying. They fabricate evidence.

    Because someone has an “indicator” of something, it doesn’t mean that they are guilty; rather, the burden of proof rests on law enforcement.

    Yet, the problem with the national security letter is, unlike the constitutional requirement that mandates a warrant only be issued upon evidence, law enforcement is given a green light to do “what they think is best.”

    Self-evidently, we’ve seen what law enforcement “things is best” in Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib, and Eastern Europe.

    It remains to be understood how many national security letters have been issued to keep the public quiet about the misconduct within the RNC or abuses by law enforcement against a civilian population.

    It would save a lot of time if people were told “what they need to do to obey the law,” as opposed to keeping this secret.

  • But why expect the fascists in the RNC or law enforcement to do what is prudent, when the self-evidently are imprudent when it comes to fact finding, investigations, or responding to actual indicators of a real disaster: 9-11, and explosives placed in the World Trade Center?

    The fascists have no answers.

    It’s time they get some: And present those to the court during the 42 USC 1983 actions.

    * * *

    It’s been four years since 9-11. That’s the same time after Pearl Harbor.

    Four years after 1941, they were imposing surrender terms on the Japanese and Germans.

    Today, it appears as though the White House is surrendering, finally, to the rule of law.

    What took so long?

    * * *

    If this nation is fighting an “evil ideology” what is being done to inspire with something else?

    The fascists have no answers.

    They just want to talk about freedom, but jail anyone who exercises it.

    And they wonder why the Iraqis are fighting.

    One of Senator McCain’s children got it right: “Duh.”

    * * *

    What is the US going to do to “win”? For starters: Do what you preach at home:

  • Follow the Constitution

  • respect human rights and the rule of law

  • Have public trials

  • Let people learn from the trials

    But the fascists don’t want facts. They want silence, fear, and ascension to what is absurd.

    Self-evidently, American wants more disasters so that it will be self-evident that the RNC fascists have failed.

    Self-evidently, the DNC has done the right thing: Remaining silent and letting the RNC fascists make a mess of things to the point where the RNC fascists cannot get out of, unless they rely on the DNC.

    The RNC has failed. It is fascism. It is nothing else.

    If America wants more absurdity and non-sense, embrace the RNC fascists. Protect them. Put them above the law. Do nothing about the violations of the Constitution.

    If America wants prudence, as is the objective of the Constitution, then rely on reason and the rule of law.

    No party or religion has a monopoly on the rule of law.

    But all people can trust that the rule of law will ultimately prevail.

    Let’s hear it for the 42 USC 1983 actions against the Senior Executive Service, the fascist in the RNC, the alleged war criminals in DoD and the Joint Staff, and the reckless law enforcement that ignores the American Constitution.

    When the rule of law is asserted over those who have trashed the Constitution, then American will have leadership.

    Then America will have something to be proud of.

    Then America will, by example, show that the rule of law, and strict enforcement of those standards, is something which Americans, not just Muslims, should be willing to fight for at home, not simply impose abroad.

    What rules and laws you make is a separate matter.

    But it must fall under the umbrella of the American Constitution, not some RNC fascist non-sense that justifies everything other than the equal application of the rule of law for all.

    The fight must be for the rule of law, prudence, and debates based on facts, not silence, fear, or favor.

    The RNC fascists know only silence, fear, intimidation, and favors. They must be retrained on the rule of law.

    Let them suffer the full wrath of 42 USC 1983 claims, and violations of the laws of war. Yes, Nuremburg was about imposing the rule of law on civilians.

    As it should be: On the civilian fascists in the RNC who show contempt for the American Constitution.

    Show them the respect they deserve: The full American justice system, with investigations, public fact finding and trials so the entire world can see they are brought to account under the fine American system of justice.

    Let them pay the price, according to the law, for their alleged war crimes and let them suffer for their alleged violations of the US Constitution, as can be found under 42 USC 1983 claims.

    It is time for lawful justice.

    As has been woefully absent under these past four years of fascism in America.