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.

Government "Overreach" and Powerless Emperor

My friend told me: "We are not an Empire. Empires were ruled by one man called Emperor. We are a Democracy, however flawed and inefficient."

It depends on one's definition. An empire, to me, is any state entity that attempts to rule over other states, or peoples, with or without their consent. A Democracy, on the other hand is a state ruled by the people. I suppose that's still formally the case, as it was even after Augustus took over in Rome, but the two are not mutually exclusive, again true in both the early Roman Empire and today. Augustus was formally elected. So was Obama. In the latter case, it was a genuinely democratic election, but that doesn't make much difference: the military apparently has the last say, anyway.

In the US, we have a President who made a great effort to go against "military wisdom," and decide that American troops should begin withdrawing from Afghanistan in the summer of 2011, and that the US would abide by the treaty signed by Bush to withdraw from Iraq in the same period.

Yet, already, General Petraeus and Secretary Gates are undercutting those stated policies. Petraeus is pushing for the President to back down on his Afghan commitment, and Gates told the Iraqis that "we" would happily stay longer if they asked. In addition to the rhetoric, actions on the ground speak louder: the huge, imperial-like embassy in Baghdad, and the huge embassy now to be built in Kabul do not bespeak withdrawal; they express an expectation that we will stay, as do the huge, self-sufficient "permanent" US bases.

We can spend three-quarters of a billion dollars to construct these imperial edifices and employ thousands in both Iraq and Afghanistan to build them (and $1,000,000 per soldier/year) but we can't spend money for jobs at home: that's government "over-reach" say the newly elected GOP Congressmen and Senators.

The "emperor" will not be able to spend money at home to stimulate job creation, or to green grow the economy; that's only possible in a non-imperial nation, like China?

So, instead, the Fed attempts to re-stimulate the economy through "quantitative easing," but everyone from bond speculators to the "mad-and-can't-take-it-anymore" crowd think this will roil the dollar into an inflationary spiral. On the other hand, what should policy-makers do? Let the nation--and probably the world--slide into a double-dip recession, and not only recession, but a new Great Depression, complete with trade war?

Note: there is no inflation, despite price rises in energy and commodities, which probably means that there is deflation in a lot of economic sectors.

Unless the President/Emperor can act decisively to stop the slide, we will descend into misery, and beggar the world, too. Will the US Empire collapse?

An emperor without power is the worst of all possible alternatives.

US Empire, Inc.

My previous blog dealt with a video released by Wikileaks. The importance of a service like wikileaks has been underscored by the denials of Pentagon and pro-defense bloggers about the meaning of the Iraq helicopter video. Wikileaks' crucial role has also been demonstrated by the recent Appeals Court decision that the FCC doesn't have the power to enforce net neutrality.

Comcast, AT&T and Verizon all claim that net neutrality will not fairly recompense them for their services, that they need to be able to charge more for high band-width users, in order to adequately invest in continued improvements in the Internet.

Gee, 80% profits (for Comcast) aren't enough?

What really is at issue is: who controls the Internet. The FCC has been like the cop in the patrol car; nobody controls where you go, but you have to abide by the speed limits. In the case of the Internet, the FCC was attempting to insure that everyone had equal access.

The companies want control. Their spokespeople claim they wouldn't charge more except for high-bandwidth users, but if there is no cop on the beat, why wouldn't they charge more? After all, a corporation's officers are legally required to maximize profit.

So, if there is premium access, then those not paying the higher fees will end up getting lower quality (lower cost) services, or they could be blocked unless they pay more.

Providers could also block users if their content promotes ideas or policies that could threaten their bottom line. This brings us back to Wikileaks: the Iraq video would not be in the interest of any corporation which makes profits from our war efforts, since it has profoundly anti-war implications. With no cop on the beat, it could have been blocked.

The same might be said for certain candidates: anti-corporate positions could therefore become even more difficult to bring to public attention. Not only would they be handicapped by receiving no corporate money now that corporations can spend unlimited money directly on elections, but in addition, the carriers could block meaningful access to a campaign.

There are two ways out: one is for the FCC to find another way to regulate the Internet to insure net neutrality: it's exploring its options. The other is to pass net neutrality laws in Congress, but the opposition of the large cable providers meshes with anti-regulatory zeal, largely Republican, though other corporations, like Google and Yahoo might encourage pro-regulation Congress-people if they push back.

The Appeals Court decision is like the second of a one-two punch, the first being the Supreme Court ruling that corporations have free speech rights as "corporate persons."

This looks like a silent corporate coup. Forget about Democrats and Republicans: corporations are gaining control--unless we stop them. Goodbye democracy, goodbye the United States. Hello US Empire, Inc. Is Augustus waiting in the wings? Is her name Sarah Palin?