93-7 Guantanamo Here We Come!

That was the margin of passage of the Defense Authorization bill (NDAA) in the Senate, the one that declares the whole world, including the United States, as a global battlefield (between Good and Evil?). This enables the military to take out, by assassination or indefinite detention and torture (therefore 'Guantanamo'), anyone, anywhere in the world, even American citizens in Peoria, if the President secretly declares them a danger to national security.

Remember those novels: The Tale of Two Cities and The Count of Monte Cristo? People were imprisoned indefinitely in dungeons, on the whim of a nobleman. That's what we are approaching today. Due Process? Forgeddaboudit. Innocent until proven guilty? Hah! Right to a jury trial and a lawyer? We lost both some time ago.

It's astounding what rights Americans have given up without a whimper! Because we're terrified of terrorists? Aside from 9-11--a terrorist's wet dream come true--there have been only a few hundred people killed by terrorists in this country and abroad. Many times that number are killed every year on our nation's highways, and nearly as many more are murdered in our cities and towns.

Modern societies, especially imperial ones, should be vigilant and able to protect themselves. But if everyone is to lose their rights, then there is nothing left to defend: we might as well elect the Taliban to a majority in Congress, or elect a dictator, who can order us shot at will, and have himself re-elected for life.

That's what ushered in the Roman Emperor, even though times were good. The Roman Senate's succession and election machinery didn't function: a dictator was better than civil war.

Why are we so scared, now, that we're so readily giving up our freedoms? Less than a hundred Americans may have gone off to fight for a branch of al Qaeda (in Somalia or Yemen), and we're terrified they'll come back and--what? Stage another 9-11?

Security here, already, is enough to stop all but the most determined individual maniac. No security will ever stop every fanatic.

A woman asked Benjamin Franklin, at the close of the Constitutional Convention, if the US would be a republic or a monarchy. "A republic, if you can keep it," he replied.

We've not crowned Obama, and we're unlikely to crown Gingrich or Romney, either (I hope), but we're headed towards elective dictatorship with the NDAA. Obama, by the way, has threatened a veto, because it "micromanages" war against al Qaeda. So, unlike Augustus, Obama may have little stomach to be Imperator. But Newt or Mitt? A salamander or a baseball glove?

The NDAA is a caricature of 1984! It's parallels 31 BC (when Augustus was crowned, replacing the Republic with the Empire), except that this empire is in decline, more like Rome's decades-long run up to 476 (when it "fell" in bankruptcy to the Goths).

We have to stop the NDAA any way we can.

Throw Bricks!

Throw bricks through their windows! Get rid of them!

Violence as a political tool is used in third world, or so-called developing countries; hatred, as well, as events like the Ruanda genocide demonstrate. Both were also used in "developed" states: Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy and the USSR.

But in democracies, politics is supposed to be more civilized. Representatives are supposed to represent our interests. Politics is supposed to be rational, debate is supposed to be about policy. It's also, inevitably, about emotion, but it's supposed to be kept civil enough that you don't have riots and revolutions.

When "mainstream" political parties condone violent action, the march towards totalitarianism has quickened. If Republicans condone violence and egg on extremist rhetoric, they are preparing the way for autocracy.

The violence is incited--has been for years--by right-wing talk radio, by the Rush Limbaughs and Glenn Becks, and violent language has escalated since Obama's election.

So have extremist right wing groups; their numbers have proliferated by almost a third since 2008. But extremist groups don't expect to gain control of the nation through elections: Republicans hope to.

Note: many "tea partiers" reject the GOP almost as bitterly as they oppose Democrats; a Third Party movement is gestating.

Republicans seem to reject rational discourse, however. The health care legislation is similar to Romney-care in Massachusetts and a Heritage Foundation-Republican-backed proposal; it has no public insurer (the poorly labeled "public option," which sounded too much like "public bathroom"). Yet, Republican Senators and Congressmen rant about a "government takeover"--except for those who rail against "socialism." Since the bill creates a (subsidized) market of 31 million new customers for private insurance companies, it's the Republican kind of socialism--for corporations, which is what they extended throughout government during W's reign; they call it "privatization."

Since the legislation isn't theirs, it's okay for Republicans to encourage others to threaten their opponents with hate mail, death threats, insults, racial or sexual slurs--but if someone actually shoots a Congressman, or Senator, or the President, then Republicans will be like the boy who taunts a bully into pummeling someone, and then whines, "it's not my fault!"

The violent turn in right-wing politics ought to stiffen spines. When anti-choice Congressman Stupak receives death threats for voting for health care, others should realize: they'll need the courage of their convictions, or they should quit politics.

If spines collapse, instead, I wouldn't hold much hope for even a civil plutocracy, let alone democracy: the US could become a failed state.

The political parallel to Rome here is the fall of the Republic, replaced by Emperor Augustus. But don't expect American hegemony to last 500 years: we can't afford it.