POST CONSTITUTIONAL AMERICA .

FIRST THEY CAME FOR YOUR BILL OF RIGHTS, THEN THEY CAME FOR YOUR
TELEPHONE PRIVACY, THEN THEY CAME FOR YOUR ANALOGIES. . .

MARK LEIBOVICH WASHINGTON POST - [Richard] Durbin's saga began June 14
on the Senate floor when he read from an FBI memo that described the
ordeal of a prisoner at Guantanamo who was allegedly chained to the
floor, forced to listen to loud rap music and subjected to extreme heat
and bitter cold, among other unpleasantness. Durbin said: "If I read
this to you and did not tell you it was an FBI agent describing what
Americans had done to prisoners in their control, you would most
certainly believe this must have been done by Nazis, Soviets in their
gulags, or some mad regime - Pol Pot or others - that had no concern for
human beings."

Republican Senators Mitch McConnell and John Warner condemned Durbin on
the floor two days later. They were followed by about two dozen
Republican senators (in news releases), Majority Leader Bill Frist (who
called on Durbin to apologize on the Senate floor), Vice President
Cheney, White House press secretary Scott McClellan and a host of
veterans groups and conservative commentators. After issuing a statement
of "regret" on Friday, the Illinois Democrat came to the Senate floor
yesterday to apologize in person. "Some may believe that my remarks
crossed the line," Durbin said. "To them I extend my heartfelt
apologies." Durbin also apologized to any soldiers who took offense at
his remarks. "They're the best. I never, ever intended any disrespect
for them," he said. . .

Abraham Foxman, the Anti-Defamation League's national director and a
reliable voice of condemnation whenever someone drops the N-bomb, says,
as a general rule, politicians should know better. "It's kind of sad,
because these are smart people who say these things," he says.

Foxman, a Holocaust survivor, says that the Nazi analogy is appropriate
when someone is talking about an alleged mass murderer -- say, Saddam
Hussein, whom supporters of both Iraq wars compared repeatedly to
Hitler. "It doesn't have to be taboo in all cases," Foxman says.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/21/
AR2005062101753.html?referrer=emailarticle


[We have written of the absurdity and danger of the above line of
reasoning before and so will only offer this one reminder]

SAM SMITH - Article 48 of the constitution of the Weimar Republic
stated, "In case public safety is seriously threatened or disturbed, the
Reich President may take the measures necessary to reestablish law and
order, if necessary using armed force. In the pursuit of this aim, he
may suspend the civil rights described in articles 114, 115, 117, 118,
123, 124 and 153, partially or entirely. The Reich President must inform
the Reichstag immediately about all measures undertaken . . . The
measures must be suspended immediately if the Reichstag so demands." It
was this article that Hitler used to peacefully establish his
dictatorship. And why was it so peaceful and easy? Because, according to
Childers, the 'democratic" Weimar Republic had already used it 57 times
prior to Hitler's ascendancy. There are eerie similarities between
Article 48 and George Bush's approach.

WHAT WE NEED TO KNOW ABOUT FASCISM
http:/prorev.com/fascist.htm