> This law fits the liberal definition of dictatorial ( andie ?), maybe even
> fascist. It purports to give the President dictatorial powers, and that is
> not an exaggeration. Those here who claim that "fascist" is "overused" and
> thereby "meaningless" are playing a game that is increasingly dangerous. I
> suggest you all think very long and hard about the law the U.S. Congress
> just passed.
As many in the LBO orbit have pointed out, talk of this step as an unprecedented break from a legal tradition going back to the Magna Carta is historically inaccurate, and we've certainly not seen the last judicial word on the matter either.
But this open ratification of what a year or two ago was cause for denials, coverups and fall gals like Lynnie England has a freshly rotten feel to it just when I've stopped learning anything new from reading stories about FBI whistleblowers from Gitmo, conservative stalwarts pleading for decency, creeping imperial catastrophe in Iraq and Afghanistan, and unfazed drives for further chaos and ruin. No need to mention the home front.
I recall mentioning around the time of the invasion to an attorney friend of mine plans I'd heard of to strip people of their citizenship without due process. My friend, an environmental lawyer living on a shoestring and no stranger to what's on the end of the fork, dismissed the notion out of hand. Couldn't happen, it would be illegal. Outrages that have been getting normalized have now been legitimized.
While I see the value of having the torturer pull the electrodes and pliars out of the closet and proudly hold them up for all the world to see, I can't shake the feeling that a line has been crossed, and that we're a long way from bottoming out.
-- Andy