Guest Post: Is the U.S. a Fascist Police-State?

Submitted by Gonzalo Lira

But with yesterday’s Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project decision (No. 08-1498, also 09-89) of the Supreme Court, coupled with last week’s Arar v. Ashcroft denial of certiorari (No. 09-923), the case for claiming that the U.S. is a fascist police-state just got a whole lot stronger.

First of all, what is a “fascist police-state”?

A police-state uses the law as a mechanism to control any challenges to its power by the citizenry, rather than as a mechanism to insure a civil society among the individuals. The state decides the laws, is the sole arbiter of the law, and can selectively (and capriciously) decide to enforce the law to the benefit or detriment of one individual or group or another.

In a police-state, the citizens are “free” only so long as their actions remain within the confines of the law as dictated by the state. If the individual’s claims of rights or freedoms conflict with the state, or if the individual acts in ways deemed detrimental to the state, then the state will repress the citizenry, by force if necessary. (And in the end, it’s always necessary.)

What’s key to the definition of a police-state is the lack of redress: If there is no justice system which can compel the state to cede to the citizenry, then there is a police-state. If there exists apro forma justice system, but which in practice is unavailable to the ordinary citizen because of systemic obstacles (for instance, cost or bureaucratic hindrance), or which against all logic or reason consistently finds in favor of the state—even in the most egregious and obviously contradictory cases—then that pro forma judiciary system is nothing but a sham: A tool of the state’s repression against its citizens. Consider the Soviet court system the classic example.

A police-state is not necessarily a dictatorship. On the contrary, it can even take the form of a representative democracy. A police-state is not defined by its leadership structure, but rather, by its self-protection against the individual.

A definition of “fascism” is tougher to come by—it’s almost as tough to come up with as a definition of “pornography”.

The sloppy definition is simply totalitarianism of the Right, “communism” being the sloppy definition of totalitarianism of the Left. But that doesn’t help much.

For our purposes, I think we should use the syndicalist-corporatist definition as practiced by Mussolini: Society as a collection of corporate and union interests, where the state is one more competing interest among many, albeit the most powerful of them all, and thus as a virtue of its size and power, taking precedence over all other factions. In other words, society is a “street-gang” model that I discussed before. The individual has power only as derived from his belonging to a particular faction or group—individuals do not have inherent worth, value or standing.

Now then! Having gotten that out of the way, where were we?

Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project: The Humanitarian Law Project was advising groups deemed “terrorists” on how to negotiate non-violently with various political agencies, including the UN. In this 6-3 decision by the U.S. Supreme Court, the Court ruled that that speech constituted “aiding and abetting” a terrorist organization, as the Court determined that speech was “material support”. Therefore, the Executive and/or Congress had the right to prohibit anyone from speaking to any terrorist organization if that speech embodied “material support” to the terrorist organization.

The decision is being noted by the New York Times as a Freedom of Speech issue; other commentators seem to be viewing it in those terms as well.

My own take is, Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project is not about limiting free speech—it's about the state expanding it power to repress. The decision limits free speech in passing, because what it is really doing is expanding the state’s power to repress whomever it unilaterally determines is a terrorist.

In the decision, the Court explicitly ruled that “Congress and the Executive are uniquely positioned to make principled distinctions between activities that will further terrorist conduct and undermine United States foreign policy, and those that will not.” In other words, the Court makes it clear that Congress and/or the Executive can solely and unilaterally determine who is a “terrorist threat”, and who is not—without recourse to judicial review of this decision. And if the Executive and/or Congress determines that this group here or that group there is a “terrorist organization”, then their free speech is curtailed—as is the free speech of anyone associating with them, no matter how demonstrably peaceful that speech or interaction is.

For example, if the Executive—in the form of the Secretary of State—decides that, say, WikiLeaks or Amnesty International is a terrorist organization, well then by golly, it is a terrorist organization. It no longer has any right to free speech—nor can anyone else speak to them or associate with them, for risk of being charged with providing “material support” to this heinous terrorist organization known as Amnesty International.

But furthermore, as per Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project, anyone associating with WikiLeaks—including, presumably, those who read it, and most certainly those who give it information about government abuses—would be guilty of aiding and abetting terrorism. In other words, giving WikiLeaks “material support” by providing primary evidence of government abuse would render one a terrorist.

This form of repression does seem to fit the above definition of a police-state. The state determines—unilaterally—who is detrimental to its interests. The state then represses that person or group.

By a 6-3 majority, the Supreme Court has explicitly stated that Congress and/or the Executive is “uniquely positioned” to determine who is a terrorist and who is not—and therefore has the right to silence not just the terrorist organization, but anyone trying to speak to them, or hear them.

And let's just say that, after jumping through years of judicial hoops, one finally manages to prove that one wasn’t then and isn’t now a terrorist, the Arar denial of certiorari makes it irrelevant. Even if it turns out that a person is definitely and unequivocally not a terrorist, he cannot get legal redress for this mistake by the state.

So! To sum up: The U.S. government can decide unilaterally who is a terrorist organization and who is not. Anyone speaking to such a designated terrorist group is “providing material support” to the terrorists—and is therefore subject to prosecution at the discretion of the U.S. government. And if, in the end, it turns out that one definitely was not involved in terrorist activities, there is no way to receive redress by the state.

Sounds like a fascist police-state to me.

Comments

[Obiwan]

"i wonder if the federal government cut off federal funds to a state to force that state to give up its constitutional rights,  could not that state outlaw all direct tax payments to the fed but collect them themselves and hold them?

starve the beast"

Correct, this is where a standoff would lead to.

The whole paradigm of everyone sending taxes to the Feds, and the States thereby held captive by the Feds to get a few scraps of it's citizen's money back, would have to abandoned.

A seceding State would have to outlaw the sending of tax reciepts to the Feds, thus keeping the resources within the State.

The amounts then forwarded to the Feds would then be up for negotiation.

All the States could concievably renegotiate thier "Union" in this manner, reshaping the country along the lines originally intended.

[wesa]

I don't disagree with the idea that we are slowly losing a lot of our liberties.  However, the court's ruling does include this qualifier:

"Such activity may be banned only if it is coordinated with or controlled by the overseas terrorist group."

This appears to narrow the scope of the ruling so that our ever helpful government couldn't summarily declare, say, the Rotary Club, a terrorist group.

[DosZap]

wesa,

"Such activity may be banned only if it is coordinated with or controlled by the overseas terrorist group."

Amen...........

[i.knoknot]

that's encouraging.

[toto]

YES.

And unfortunately the entire world.

Sorry you had to hear it from me.

[seventree]

There has been a lot of talk all over ZH about whether US police or soldiers would fire on their 'fellow citizens' in the case of a large scale revolt. Here are some hard facts to chew on:

• Things look a lot different behind a wall of body armor and face shields. These defenders will not see their friends and families in that justifiably angry crowd; instead they will see a faceless, lawless mob and a threat to their country, including their friends and neighbors.
• ZH members are a self-selected group, and it is sometimes hard for them to imagine the indifference felt by the majority American sheeple toward abstractions like rule of law, inalienable rights, or unhindered free speech (including whom one can speak to).
• In the event of a deadly clash between government and citizens who 'won't take it any more' the citizens will be slaughtered. Our leaders have learned a lot about insurgent suppression over the last 10 years, and how to spin the ugly results of that suppression.
• Anyone who does join what they believe to be a righteous uprising should be prepared to feel lonely. Most of your fellow citizens will be in their basements with a bag of Cheetos, thrilling to all the excitement on their big screens.
• Finally, in the aftermath of a citizen revolt, don't expect a backlash of official outrage or justice. After the Kent State incident mentioned above, a civilian panel eventually ruled the whole thing a case of panicky guardsmen defending themselves from a stone-throwing mob; this despite the fact that not a single student shot was within throwing range (or even involved in the demonstration), and not a single guardsmen was hit by so much as a pebble. As for Ruby Ridge, while a bereaved man received a civil judgment for the killing of his wife and children, the only official punishment resulting was to senior officials not at the scene, and not for anything that happened but for trying to cover it up.

[Mr Lennon Hendrix]

OK everybody, I can not tell you what to do easier than I can tell you how to think, but I have a little project for everyone.  I have already started it, and if anyone else can continue it, I believe we could have a mass awakening. 

Obviously ZH is picking up steam.  The MSM is taking note, and the servers are down even while the Adolf Astoria and Nike and Chase throw doelarrs at Tyler, which means there are more and more hits.  But may we never get complacent!  May we continue forward! 

So, the first rule of Fight Club and the second rule of fight club are in place for multiple reasons.  I imagine anyone on the MSM's tongue falls into their throat when they think, 'Should I bring up how ZH is so on point?  No, I would get chastised and the producers will not ask me back.'  Although there will be a point with or without our efforts where Tyler and the rest of the contributors are hailed as Minutemen of our era, I still think grass roots are in order.  So, the Project...

The other day, while filling up jugs of clean filtered water outside my local grocer, I saw a "Lost Dog" flier still up that had been changed to "Found" (I had watched the woman scribble "Found" a few days previous when she asked about the water I was drinking).  I decided to turn it over and write ZEROHEDGE DOT COM on it.  Then I wrote "Financial Collapse?  FIAT Failure?"  and some other choice terms.  So please join me in posting fliers of ZH at random in public places.  It may awaken curiosity, and further enhance our snowball into an avalanche.

[i.knoknot]

small start, but i gots me a mug... (gold bitchez...)

simple - nice rebel feel to it. i'm in.

[ozziindaus]

I have a business that almost collapsed due over expansion beyond our control. Our aggressive marketing tactics attracted those with the money but without the vision and motivation we originally demanded and so our image was extremely diluted. ZH does not need any marketing. It's quality speaks for itself. If this site becomes too popular, the skeptic in me will yell later days dude.  

[Mr Lennon Hendrix]

Now see, what will be what will be, and our influence will be what will be, ya dig?

This ain't a business friend, this is a revolution; it is an awakening.  For many anyway.  Funding is a bastard concept, but to take down the parimeter we must enter the oracle. 

And grass roots marketing is in no way a manipulation of our spirits.  Be free dude!

[Dr. Sandi]

Sorry to disagree JimmyJohn, but when we spread 'em wide for the average turd, this place will no longer be worth visiting.

If you can't find it on your own, as I did a month or two ago, you really have no business here.

If I want to rub shoulders with clowns and asshats, I'll post with Huffington.

[eccitante]

This is most important--spread the ideas...."ultimately the course of history is determined by ideas, be they good or bad"... well, its time for the bad ideas to go, they have done too much harm.

Post articles like this to your facebook page, forward them to friends, spread the word!!!!

[Dr. Sandi]

Yeah, ZH should be the source, not the destination!

[hooligan2009]

huh? (goes dizzy wondering how you can get to the source without it being a destination).

[Weimar Ben Bernanke]

 the United States will be left stranded in isolation to contemplate its own destruction and demise.

[tony bonn]

does a bear shit in the woods? is the pope catholic? was obama born in kenya?

of course the usa is a fascist police state.....and mao tse obama has his picture plastered over every video electron on the planet....

[Paul Bogdanich]

I know a dead parrot when I see one and I am looking at one right now.

[blindman]

http://maxkeiser.com/2010/06/27/ote60-on-the-edge-with-michael-hudson-26-june-2010/

.

and this too.

[DosZap]

Could this start the NEW "STATE?".................

This is B_I_G!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

http://oilprice.com/Environment/Oil-Spills/Government-Insiders-Get-Ready-for-the-Gulf-Dead-Zone.html

[mkkby]

Just ask 100,000 japanese americans if they think this is a police state.  Any time there is stress, the elite are allowed to grab power and most people will just shrug it off.  When capital takes flight, you won't be allowed to take your money out of a bank.  When food, gas or any other resource becomes scarce, what ever you have stored will be "shared".  And when the political parties are seriously challenged, the new parties will be declared terrorists or foreign conspirators.

Just imagine the stress and you know what the reaction will be.  That is why you have to be prepared ahead of time.

[DosZap]

http://www.prisonplanet.com/obama-can-shut-down-internet-for-4-months-under-new-emergency-powers.html

[TwoShortPlanks]

The US Facist Homeland Security Policies are simply a Facist Foreign Policy that's 'Come Home to Roost'. It's the opposite side of the same coin.

And just like the US public turned to face the other way when their Foreign Policy reeked havoc around the world, so too will the rest of the world turn and face the other way when Homeland Security Policies reek havoc within the US.

[blindman]

terrorists are those who self identify as

terrorist by using violence or threats of violence against

other people to inlfuence behavior or to achieve outcomes

they could not otherwise accomplish without the threats

or acts themselves.  everyone should be able to make the

identification and determination.    

....or, those who initiate violence, or the threat of, for political or economic gains

are terrorist,  of course with the exception of "ourselves".   that would be

an unproductive mental exercise that we are not qualified to undertake,

just like thinking about economics as a tool to commit acts of terror, or

talking about economic issues without a phd.    terroristic.  thinking is

actually part of terrorism and should only be done in an approved and

matriculated environment.   

?

ps. these elites think everyone else in the world is imbecilic and a dangerous

potential terrorist bent on destroying their illusions and infrastructure dependent

lives.  sheesh.

they are terrorist!  they are so boring and that is their disquise as any observer

would be unable to identify anything so dead and boring as terrorism. 

i quess it is a trait evolved over generations and centuries of cultural

development. 

.

http://harpers.org/archive/2010/07/0083022

.

The food bubble:
How Wall Street starved millions and got away with it

By Frederick Kaufman

Frederick Kaufman is a contributing editor of Harper’s Magazine. His last article for the magazine, “Let Them Eat Cash,” appeared in the June 2009 issue.

The history of food took an ominous turn in 1991, at a time when no one was paying much attention. That was the year Goldman Sachs decided our daily bread might make an excellent investment.