On Speaking Truth About Dictatorship

It is said that those who do not remember history are doomed to repeat it. But sometimes, those with a thirst for power at all costs set out to repeat it.

In a memo to the president, written on January 25, 2002 when he was still White House counsel, Gonzales warned prophetically that the U.S. adoption of the Third Geneva Convention as a part of the U.S. criminal code in 1996 made violation of the convention a "war crime" under U.S. law, which he said was defined as "any grave breach" of the Third Convention such as "outrages against personal dignity." He noted that this law applied whether or not a detained person qualified for POW status, and added that punishment for violation of the law "include the death penalty." But then he went on to say Bush could "substantially reduce" his risk of domestic criminal prosecution under the War Crimes Act by making a presidential determination that the Third Geneva Convention "does not apply to al Qaeda and the Taliban."

Clearly, Gonzales here was behaving like a mob lawyer, not like an honest counselor. He was telling the president not what was right and legal, but how to dodge prosecution.

We can't say we weren't warned.

No people ever recognise their dictator in advance. He never stands for election on the platform of dictatorship. He always represents himself as the instrument of Incorporated National Will....When our dictator turns up, you can depend on it that he will be one of the boys, and he will stand for everything traditionally American. And nobody will ever say "Heil" to him, nor will they call him "Fuhrer" or "Duce". But they will greet him with one great big universal, democratic, sheeplike bleat of "Okay, Chief!" (Journalist Dorothy Thompson, who did groundbreaking work in Germany in the 30's.)

Thankfully, there are still some who will speak out for the truth, even within the Republican Party.

Our undeclared wars over the past 65 years have dragged on without precise victories. We fight to spread American values, to enforce UN resolutions, and to slay supposed Hitlers. We forget that we once spread American values by persuasion and setting an example – not by bombs and preemptive invasions. Nowhere in the Constitution are we permitted to go to war on behalf of the United Nations at the sacrifice of our national sovereignty. We repeatedly use military force against former allies, thugs we helped empower – like Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden – even when they pose no danger to us.

The 2002 resolution allowing the president to decide when and if to invade Iraq is an embarrassment. The Constitution authorizes only Congress to declare war. Our refusal to declare war transferred power to the president illegally, without a constitutional amendment. Congress did this with a simple resolution, passed by majority vote. This means Congress reneged on its responsibility as a separate branch of government, and should be held accountable for the bad policy in Iraq that the majority of Americans are now upset about. Congress is every bit as much at fault as the president.

...The major obstacle to a sensible foreign policy is the fiction about what patriotism means. Today patriotism has come to mean blind support for the government and its policies. In earlier times patriotism meant having the willingness and courage to challenge government policies regardless of popular perceptions.

Today we constantly hear innuendos and direct insults aimed at those who dare to challenge current foreign policy, no matter how flawed that policy may be. I would suggest it takes more courage to admit the truth, to admit mistakes, than to attack others as unpatriotic for disagreeing with the war in Iraq.

Remember, the original American patriots challenged the abuses of King George, and wrote and carried out the Declaration of Independence. (Ron Paul (R-TX) Statement to Congress 1st July 2006)

I'm sure Rep. Paul chose his historical analogy carefully here. It's a good comparison but I am sure he was aware that comparing the Bush administration to the nascent dictators of the early 30's would have meant scorned poured upon his head to the point where the impact of his speech was lost. It is commonplace for the militant right to ridicule the use of comparisons with Hitler's Germany when talking about the Bush administration. So common that even the left fights shy of it, afraid of being accused of violating some spurious "Godwin's Law".

But what else can we do when the comparison becomes not only apt, but frighteningly so? After all, there were no concentration camps, it wasn't a total police state, no attempt at world conquering had begun, in 1935 - but look what followed.

There is no "Godwin's Law", it is a fiction - so stop being afraid of it. Speak truth about dictatorship and those things it has in common with past dictatorships.

Lest we forget.