There’s a reason that Godwin’s law exists. It’s because comparisons to Nazi Germany are purely to demonize your opponents, not to make a point. Hitler was democratically elected, and he didn’t open up a camp his first day in office. Does that mean every democratically elected leader who doesn’t open up concentration camps is on the path to being Hitler? Of course not, it’s just the ones we don’t agree with who are ready to relive Nazism.
I would never compare an opponent to Hitler unless that opponent does things that remind me of Hitler. In fact, I never considered the Bush Administration an opponent (although I disagreed with its fiscal policy) until after 9/11 when I saw the rights guaranteed to us beginning to vanish before my eyes.
Cheesesteak,
If we are the primary target (and I don’t disagree with you here), then why haven’t we had more attacks on our home soil? Perhaps my memory is bad, but other than the WTC towers (twice) how many terror attacks by foreign groups have occured in the US in the last decade? We’ve had a few home grown terrorists, but not a whole lot more. There were the folks that were caught on their way to bomb LAX or some such, but they were foiled. The basic idea here is that all things considered, our existing police structure has been good enough to limit terroristic attacks in the US. And, as it turns out, if our existing intelligence agencies were a bit more on the ball, we might have prevented the WTC bombings as well.
The principle is that we shouldn’t give up ANY freedoms at all if there is any alternative to doing so. This is especially important to keep in mind where the benefits to doing so are so hard to measure. The Franklin quote about those who give up freedom for security is correct. But we should be sure to understand that doing what Franklin advocates DOES require that we forego the loss of our freedoms at the price of some increase (or more likely, failure to decrease) the level of danger to ourselves.
Is it possible that some group or person is plotting another attack in the US? Very probable. Is it likely that our local/state/federal police will prevent the attack. Very likely. Is it possible that some heretofore unheard of power granted by the Patriot Act will be the ONLY key to preventing said attack. Given the already broad police powers existing before 9/11, I don’t think that this last possibility is too small to even quantify.
Again, if one is determined to save lives, there are more constructive ways to do so that by reducing out freedom, however small that reduction might be.
Oh, and I agree that the Hitler/Godwin stuff needs to go away.
CJ
Go for it. 
A point worth pausing over for a moment.
After all, Hitler woke up his first day as Chancellor, and he was in charge of the Weimar Republic, with a constutional structure and variety of legal and institutional barriers to the horrors he would eventually produce.
There needed to be a transformation of the Weimar legal system, to produce the mechanisms for totalitarianism.
It took (by my utterly ignorant calculation–someone more informed about the early reich help me out here), five years till the Reichstag fire, during which time you have the Nuremberg laws, etc.
On that schedule, if Bush gets the ok for indefinite disappearing of anyone designated “enemy combatant” (remember:they don’t even have to tell anyone that they have you let alone why they are holding you…)he’ll be right on time.
The assertion of the right to tap anyone on the shoulder and they are gone, is breathtaking in its scope and potential for abuse.
Like, I’ve been wearing the same underwear for the last 3 days and it hasn’t rained. :rolleyes:
It ain’t over
Naw…weren’t you paying attention? At his inauguration Hitler yanked on the big gold rope and the curtain dropped away from Treblinka.
Why do you hate America? Don’t forget…if you’ve done nothing wrong, you have nothing to fear!
-Joe, wonders if voting “wrong” means I’m an enemy combatant?
I hate to drag the conversation back to the OP, but the PATRIOT ACT was invoked in a case against Vegas strip club owners. I’m not sure this qualifies as a violation of civil rights, but it shows that the law for use against international terrorists is also being invoked for non-terrorist reasons.
Is it really necessary to revisit Logic 101 and explain the post hoc fallacy? :rolleyes:
Cite?
This thread’s been dead for a year, but since some provisions of the USA PATRIOT Act will sunset at the end of this year unless Congress renews them, and the whole matter is coming up before Congress again (http://msnbc.msn.com/id/7392967/; http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/04/05/news/patriot.html; http://www.aclu.org/SafeandFree/SafeandFree.cfm?ID=17798&c=206), I thought it would be timely to revive this thread. Has anything new happened in the past year that should give us alarm about the Act?
Bush was re-elected.
Yeah, but I blame that on Diebold,* not the USA PATRIOT Act.
-
http://www.inthesetimes.com/site/main/article/a_corrupted_election/ (Of course, we’ll never really know, will we? )
To be honest…yes I do think we will know some day.
But that day may come to late.