Daily Kos

Nazi Germany Right Smack Dab in the Middle of Vermont

Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 10:03:00 AM PDT

Back in October 2006, Keith Olbermann did a segment on his Countdown show that highlighted the loss of Habeas Corpus and many of our rights included in the Bill of Rights through the use of executive orders, presidential directives and signing statements written by George W. Bush.

KO nailed it; as usual, in his own unique [poignant] but humorous way. I’ll never forget how he talked about each individual right and how if you take even one of those rights away the others seem to fall by the wayside as well. It was heartbreaking to watch him crossing off each right on a chart until only one right was left. (at the moment, I forget which one it was) He then scribbled out the ‘s’ in "Rights."

Well, this time it’s [the cadaverous one] DHS Sec. Michael Chertoff who’s working hard to decimate our cherished Fourth Amendment.

According to a report from WCAX in Vermont, the Department of Homeland Security is seeking to setup a permanent internal checkpoint in the middle of Vermont so they can look for illegal immigrants, drug dealers and terrorists. Obviously, these types of checkpoints are a clear violation of the Fourth Amendment, which prohibits the government from conducting searches and seizures without a warrant.

It appears that the DHS is attempting to use the illegal immigration issue as a way to justify the establishment of this checkpoint.

To me, this is just another example of the Bush regime’s 3-step program to rescinding the U.S. Constitution -- Article by Article:

• create or ignore a problem that could threaten national security.
• capitalize on that problem by using a full media barrage for public consumption, all the while intimidating members of Congress.
• implement a diabolically-contrived solution that inevitably terminates a right [or rights] enumerated in our Constitution.

To use immigration as an excuse to eviscerate the Constitution is laughable at best. After giving illegal immigrants all the incentive in the world to come into this country -- and doing virtually nothing to enforce U.S. laws already on the book to prosecute employers who hire them -- to propose installing a Nazi-style checkpoint in the middle of Vermont is as ridiculous as building a wall on our southern border.

It’s preposterous, I say – prepost... er... wait – umm...... never mind.

From the WCAX story:

Homeland Security wants to build a permanent immigration checkpoint in central Vermont.

An exact location has not been revealed, but officials say it would be similar to this one that used to be on Interstate 91 in Hartford. Agents use the check points to search for illegal immigrants, drugs smugglers and terrorists.

Senator Patrick Leahy, D-Vermont, is blasting the idea, saying the checkpoints are useless and an inconvenience to Vermonters.

Leahy questioned DHS Secretary Michael Chertoff about the proposed checkpoint during his testimony in front of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary on Oversight of the Department of Homeland Security on April 2nd, 2008. Sen. Patrick Leahy chastised Secretary Chertoff Wednesday for his agency's plan to build a permanent immigration checkpoint in central Vermont, wryly exclaiming that Chertoff should just "federalize Vermont."

Here’s a relevant part of the hearing on the exchange between Leahy and Chertoff from the Brattleboro Reformer.  The interaction comes as the Bush administration is proposing a $4 million project to build fixed facilities within 100 miles of the Canadian border to conduct random vehicle checks for illegal immigrants, drugs and weapons, according to Leahy.

"So what you're saying is in a little state like mine everyone should be stopped going down that interstate, no matter whether they're going to visit a sick relative at the VA hospital?" Leahy prodded Chertoff in a Judiciary Committee hearing.

"We're all sort of presumed guilty until proven innocent," the Vermont Democrat added. "It sounds like Big Brother gone awry."

Chertoff said, "Here's the bottom line. Having checkpoints make sense."

He said drug dealers and child molesters have been captured at similar checkpoints.

Here’s a webcast of the hearing from the Senate Judiciary Committee on oversight of the Department of Homeland Security:

Are we in the Twilight Zone? To hear Chertoff Skeletor actually say that internal checkpoints are sensible when they are explicitly illegal and forbidden by the Fourth Amendment is truly bizarre. If this egregious violation of the 4th is allowed to stand in the courts, it means tyranny has indeed settled in America. (and the fact that this is happening at the close of the Bush era error is indeed an ominous development) The Nazis setup a system of internal checkpoints during World War II Germany and demanded citizens furnish the appropriate papers when questioned by government agents. The DHS is already attempting to setup a National ID card system through the implementation of the Real ID Act.

When we have a government agency that is trying to setup an internal checkpoint under the guise of searching for drug dealers, terrorists or illegal immigrants it is clear that America has turned a dark corner. There’s got to be more effective ways of dealing with the illegal immigration problem but the only solutions the government seems to bring forward are phony ones that serve their authoritarian agenda. Setting up an internal checkpoint in the middle of Vermont is insane. Chertoff should be removed from office for this attempt to violate the Constitution with this and countless other violations that the DHS has been involved in during his tenure as DHS Secretary.

Besides, anyone resembling "Skeletor" from the original, mid-1980’s cartoon "He-Man" is unfit for public office.

All Vermonters need to rise up!

Contact Senator Leahy here.

Peace (and Liberty Forever)

Tags: DHS, Michael Chertoff, Vermont, Fourth Amendment, WCAX, U.S. Constitution, Nazi Germany, Bush administration (all tags) :: Previous Tag Versions

Permalink | 64 comments

  •  Where's the next permanent checkpoint going... (24+ / 1-)

    to turn up?

    "It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong."- Voltaire - [François Marie Arouet] (1694-1778)

    by markthshark on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 10:03:29 AM PDT

  •  Important ... (1+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    ubertar

    ... but the references to the looks of someone -- anyone -- weaken your argument.

    You simply cannot tell the contents of a person's soul by the face and /or body they have.

    Two war crimes make 'the right', not 'a right'. Defeat the liar John McCain.

    by Yellow Canary on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 10:10:11 AM PDT

  •  Wow. (8+ / 0-)

    Obviously, these types of checkpoints are a clear violation of the Fourth Amendment, which prohibits the government from conducting searches and seizures without a warrant.

    This is false as a matter of modern constitutional law.  There are all sorts of warrantless searches which are allowable -- ever meet a drunk driving checkpoint?

    Now, whether this is good policy is a different matter, but your theories of constitutional law and overall hysteria (they were Nazis, dude?) are misplaced.

    •  Of course I have but this is a permanent... (3+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      SarahLee, KenBee, Clio2

      checkpoint, 100 miles from the border, and this type of checkpoint was not part of the debate back when they began the DUI type checkpoint.

      With a liberal high court this would never pass.

      "It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong."- Voltaire - [François Marie Arouet] (1694-1778)

      by markthshark on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 10:23:11 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  I drive through (2+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    Nulwee, CA Libertarian

    internal Border Patrol checkpoints every day in South Texas.  They have been here for decades.  I drive up, the Officer asks if I'm a citizen, sometimes a dog has a quick sniff, and off I go.

  •  Ok, I hate this idea (4+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    SarahLee, Adam B, Nulwee, bugscuffle

    And I am sickened by the evisceration of the 4th Amendment under the Bush Administration, and right-wing jurisprudence, but as an attorney I can tell you that this plan almost without question doesn't violate the 4th Amendment.  Perhaps it should, and that is another question, but it undoubtedly doesn't currently.  So while I think this plan is dumb-headed, and I despise it, it probably isn't unconstitutional.  Ever heard of DUI checkpoints?  This would operate much the same way I imagine.  There is this terrible exception to the 4th Amendment called the automobile exception.  Basically, it just says that you have no expectation of privacy in your car, so the 4th Amendment doesn't apply.  For that, and a host of other reasons, this, while idiotic, would not be constitutionally infirm.

    But in the unlikely story that is America, there has never been anything false--about Hope ~BHO -6.38/-7.08

    by OH 09 Dem on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 10:14:04 AM PDT

    •  I'm not an attorney (3+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      KenBee, markthshark, drbloodaxe

      but I work around some. Let me venture to put forward an argument that to me simply makes common sense.

      There are situations where a quantitative change becomes a qualitative change. Even if it is not"unreasonable" to have a few stations checking immigrant status fairly near a problematic border (which I do not necessarily grant), setting up a larger number of them, farther from such borders could still be considered "unreasonable."

      For instance, to take an extreme hypothetical, I think most people would agree that if DHS were to set up checkpoints every 10 miles across the entire U.S., that would be "unreasonable" to common sense and a court quite likely might think so too.  

      The way case law works in this country -- with one case decision potentially becoming a thin edge of a wedge for further steps in the same direction -- does create a particular vulnerablility to the "boiled frog" syndrome, and I agree that the Bushites are exploiting this. Some people might even argue that in the search-and-seizure area, we as a country have already gone too far in what we consider "reasonable."

      But another feature of the case law system is that we can't really pronounce on the constitutionality of any "next step" until that next step is specifically tested in court.

      So those who predict that a checkpint in midstate Vermont would be found constitutional may be correct, but that is only their opinion. The thing may well be worth testing by, for example, the ACLU.

      I agree strongly that the system of internal checkpoints being established -- which diaries here have documented, includes "carding" people on trains and buses far from borders -- entails unreasonable (in the common-sense sense) harrasment of citizens and has far too much potential for abuse.

      That system needs to be cut back, as does DHS generally. DHS has developed an unhealthy corporate culture, a way of thinking and acting like an occupying power in its own country. And in the interests of self-preservation, most citizens have (wisely) cultivated a self-effacing attitude of making no waves and demanding no rights, recognition or respect in the face of "authority," however unreasonable or abusive. This is unhealthy also.  

      In my opinion, DHS should be reorganized out of existence and its functions redistributed, for the future health of the Republic. Whether a particular racheting up of the DHS "security" scheme is technically found constitutional matters less, in reality, than the sum total of its effects -- and potential effects -- on us all.

      Good luck to the diarist, whether technically correct or not. Recommended.

      •  Thank you -- well said, Clio2... (2+ / 0-)

        Recommended by:
        KenBee, Clio2

        To me, this type of checkpoint is simply absurd. (seeing how the real threat to America is from within)

        We need  to refocus on the Constitution. People are losing the perspective of the intentions of the Founding Fathers.

        "It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong."- Voltaire - [François Marie Arouet] (1694-1778)

        by markthshark on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 11:06:39 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  They might find it constitutional, (3+ / 0-)

          Recommended by:
          KenBee, markthshark, Clio2

          But i doubt they're going to find many illegals.
          The Canadian hordes stopped swimming across the border about the time the Loonie beat the Dollar.

          There is no way that catching illegals is seriously the intent of this, and it's not new - I've gone through several in the past years, even predating the Nightmare Years.

          However, as anyone who has traveled in war-torn or heavily militarized countries knows, there is something awfully powerful about armed men at mandatory checkpoints that encourages meek conformity.

          On Liberation Day, 1/20/09, Americans will greet us with flowers and candy

          by kamarvt on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 11:35:03 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  Clio2 (0+ / 0-)

        I want to make clear that I am not defending the program.  But any legal determination as to the Constitutionality of the program is going to be analyzed under modern 4th Amendment jurisprudence.  Unfortunately, 4th Amendment jurisprudence has been limited to a degree that ordinary Americans would be shocked to discover.  The key analysis is not whether the search is "reasonable" within the meaning and understanding of the words of the Constitution.  Rather, it is the test employed by the Court to determine reasonableness.  The first question asked to answer this question is "was there a reasonable expectation of privacy"?  It is extremely difficult to say that there is a reasonable expectation of privacy when you are driving down the highway in your car.  The Court just doesn't think there is.  If you didn't expect your drive to be private, then you can't complain when you are searched.  Mind you, I don't agree with that conclusion, but that's the way it is.  You do have an astute observation however.  If they central question in 4th Amendment search and seizure cases is whether there was "a reasonable expectation of privacy" then quantitative changes in people's expectations, in turn lowers the 4th Amendment Bar.  With all of daily invasions that everyone accepts as par for the course in the wake of 9/11 (and before by the way, this is not a new problem) we lose the right when we need it most.

        But in the unlikely story that is America, there has never been anything false--about Hope ~BHO -6.38/-7.08

        by OH 09 Dem on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 10:00:19 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  This isn't the automobile exemption (0+ / 0-)

      rather the Customs authority spelled out in the Constitution, extended to 100 miles in Reagan era drugwar cases.

      Running against Herb "WIRETAP" Kohl in 2012. $1/year. Cash preferred.
      Masel4Senate 1214 E. Mifflin, Madison, WI 53703

      by ben masel on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 12:07:24 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  By they way.... (7+ / 0-)

    What the hell does this have to do with Nazi Germany?  Just askin'-- hyperbole hurts credibility.

    But in the unlikely story that is America, there has never been anything false--about Hope ~BHO -6.38/-7.08

    by OH 09 Dem on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 10:16:13 AM PDT

  •  When will it stop?? (3+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    markthshark, drbloodaxe, Clio2

    Someone, somewhere...please make it stop. I abhor the idea of any of this crap from the DHS....the Nazis are alive and well.  Checkpoints. National ID Cards.  Auuuggghhh.  From Chertoff's point of view, apparently there need to be checkpoints on ALL of the Interstates on ALL of the highways in the whole freakin' country.......well, we "might" catch a criminal at one of them.......(bangs head on keyboard..%$#@@*^@$%@&**(* !!!!!.....hears music..."Requiem for the Fourth Amendment" ).

    "What, Me Worry?"...King George Walker Alfred Eusless Newman Bush

    by RantNRaven on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 10:20:26 AM PDT

  •  Recommended (2+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    markthshark, Clio2

    Hello, Banana Republic!

  •  OT - jotter Appreciation Day (0+ / 0-)

    I know there is a lot going on in the world of critical importance.  Still I would like to ask everyone in this community to take just a moment, if you have not already, to go to jotter's High Impact Diary and recommend it and post at least one comment, thanking jotter for the invaluable service he provides to the Daily Kos community every single day, all year long.

    It won't take anything away from issues you think are more important.  If you have not done so already, please join us in saying ""Thanks, jotter!."

  •  I find it amazing that almost no one catches... (2+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    Clio2, shortgirl

    the similarities that permanent checkpoints [a hundred miles from an international border] share with fascism.

    Not the reaction I expected at all.

    "It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong."- Voltaire - [François Marie Arouet] (1694-1778)

    by markthshark on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 10:32:29 AM PDT

    •  Me either. n/t (2+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      markthshark, Clio2

      "Think. It ain't illegal yet." - George Clinton

      by shortgirl on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 10:35:23 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  I get it (2+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      markthshark, Clio2

      permanent check points are very different from DUI sweeps. I've never had to stop for one of those, anyhow.

      It's beside the point, but Vermont seems like a silly place to have one, which is even more suspicious. At least Texas makes more sense according to the stated motivations for having checkpoints.

      -7.75, -6.05 The point of the war in Iraq is that there IS a war in Iraq- Keith Olbermann

      by nicolemm on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 10:40:44 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Permanent checkpoints are bad, (3+ / 0-)

      and the rest of the diary is good, but the Nazi comparison is not only entirely invalid, it is incredibly offensive.

      Not all obtrusive government = fascism, and fascim does not = naziism, much less what the Nazi government of Germany actually did.

      Done with politics for the night? Have a nice glass of wine with Two Days per Bottle.

      by dhonig on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 11:16:21 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Not all but this is what fascism looks like in... (0+ / 0-)

        its nascent form.

        "Nazism" was Hitler's appellative for "national socialism."

        "It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong."- Voltaire - [François Marie Arouet] (1694-1778)

        by markthshark on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 11:31:43 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  You just don't get it, do you? (1+ / 0-)

          Recommended by:
          Adam B

          There are people here whos families were slaughtered at the hands of the Nazis.  Your decision to pick Nazi Germany, out of every despotic and/or oppression government in the history of the world clearly invokes, not merely oppression, but everything else that goes with "Nazi Germany."  Comparing checkpoints to everything that goes with "Nazi Germany" is offensive and hurtful.

          Shall I tell my father in law that a checkpoint is the same as the years he spent in a Nazi extermination camp (Obadovka, in Transnitra- the camp had typhus, so people were just locked in and left to die.  Over 10,000 were there when it was locked up, about 200 survived)?  Or that it is just like the decision his father had to make - which child to pick up and carry, and which child would die?  

          Do you have even an inkling how offensive is your comparison?

          Done with politics for the night? Have a nice glass of wine with Two Days per Bottle.

          by dhonig on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 11:39:51 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  And what other reference would you make? (0+ / 0-)

            Stalinism?

            If people don't wake up soon and recognize what effect these types of moves by a government have on a so-called "free" society in the aggregate, this country will begin to resemble Hitler's Germany or Stalin's Russia -- and it won't be all that long in coming.  

            "It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong."- Voltaire - [François Marie Arouet] (1694-1778)

            by markthshark on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 11:52:46 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Neither (2+ / 0-)

              Recommended by:
              Adam B, Jeffersonian Democrat

              Stalinism slaughtered millions.  Why must you leap to the height of hyperbole?  The British in Colonial America took steps to control people's movement.  The British in Ireland did the same, and in India as well.  We did it with Native Americans.  Tsarist Russia was oppressive as hell, using secret police to control populations.  Louis XIV wasn't exactly a civil libertarian.  Heck, Rudy Giuiliani in Times Square is more comparable to a checkpoint than Hitler and Himmler. But you, you have to go straight to the greatest mass murderers of all time.  So let me try to make it clear.  Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, and a few others are unique.  They slaughtered whole countries full of people.  Checkpoints might well be a first move toward less civil liberties, but far more is necessary than merely that to even pretend it is a move toward Germany 1933-1945.

              Done with politics for the night? Have a nice glass of wine with Two Days per Bottle.

              by dhonig on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 12:05:26 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  and the people who died at their hands were the (1+ / 0-)

                Recommended by:
                markthshark

                people who early on said "let's wait and see."  They might have survived had they acknowledged the evil early on.

                Over the past 7 1/2 years we've seen the President of the United States authorize the use of torture, the select suspension of habeas corpus, and a number of other things not seen in this country since the War between the States.  It's a continuum.  How far down the road do you have to get to acknowledge it?

                America - FUBBBAR (Fucked Up By Bush Beyond All Repair)

                by George Gould on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 12:35:23 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

  •  wonder what all this will look like (1+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    markthshark

    20 years from now (and the responses to this diary!)

  •  that Hartford checkpoint (1+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    markthshark

    is not permanent
    and interesting that it's Vermont

    •  From the article it seems that the Hartford... (0+ / 0-)

      checkpoint doesn't even exist anymore.

      Homeland Security wants to build a permanent immigration checkpoint in central Vermont.

      An exact location has not been revealed, but officials say it would be similar to this one that used to be on Interstate 91 in Hartford. Agents use the check points to search for illegal immigrants, drugs smugglers and terrorists.

      Homeland Security Wants to Install Permanent Checkpoint

      "It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong."- Voltaire - [François Marie Arouet] (1694-1778)

      by markthshark on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 10:45:32 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Also inconvenient journalists, (1+ / 0-)

        Recommended by:
        markthshark

        whistleblowers, well-known or not-so-well-known critics of those currently in power, parole-breakers, tax defaulters, people with unpaid parking tickets, political rivals, bearers of liberal bumper stickers or T-shirts, interracial couples, non-English speakers, cars not displaying a Jesus fish, individuals driving while black -- or brown -- women traveling unescorted by a responsible male, etc., etc.

        Part snark, part not...draw your own lines.

        If you do not think that some such potential misuse and abuse of power warrants attention when deciding whether to grant various functionaries yet more powers to play Mother-May-I with their fellow human beings, then your view of human nature is far more sanguine than mine.  

  •  the remaining right (4+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    markthshark, willb48, Clio2, Neon Vincent

    was about not having to let soldiers have sleepovers in your home :-)

    -7.75, -6.05 The point of the war in Iraq is that there IS a war in Iraq- Keith Olbermann

    by nicolemm on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 10:42:26 AM PDT

  •  Nazi? (2+ / 0-)

    Checkpoint:

    Nazis:

    Get some perspective, will you?

    Done with politics for the night? Have a nice glass of wine with Two Days per Bottle.

    by dhonig on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 11:12:02 AM PDT

    •  How gratuitous of you - not to mention sickening. (0+ / 0-)

      Did Nazi Germany start out like the pictures you posted?

      Europeans didn't see it coming back in 1938 either.

      Fascism is an insidious type of governance.

      "It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong."- Voltaire - [François Marie Arouet] (1694-1778)

      by markthshark on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 11:22:09 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  GRATUITOUS? ME? (4+ / 0-)

        you've got to be kidding!  YOU'RE the one who invoked Nazis, and all they entail.  

        Done with politics for the night? Have a nice glass of wine with Two Days per Bottle.

        by dhonig on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 11:29:12 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  actually, Europeans did see it back in 1938 (0+ / 0-)

        Walter Benjamin, Bertolt Brecht, Hannah Arendt were already writing about it.  Fascism took root in Italy in the early 20s.

        But now you write of Fascism while the diary states National Socialism.  These are two very distinct things.  One thing people don't realize, if they haven't studied intellectual history or German literature, is that every right political movement appeals to nationalism.  That is, it appeals to a very specific cultural identity of a particular nation.  For the Nazis, it was a myth of "Pan Germanism" that started in the Romantic movement of the early 1800s.  It was completely different from Franco or Pinochet.  Fascism by necessity takes different forms in different nations.

        If you wanted to use hyperbole, it may have been more credible to speak of the Berlin Wall and the DDR checkpoints.  Not every authoritarian movement or government are Nazis.  In fact only the Nazis are Nazis.  There seems to be a confusion or downright intellectual dishonesty in cherry-picking commonalities of all authoritarian movements to insinuate the very particular form of National Socialism.

        That is not to say that there are not present-day Nazis, but they are not in Vermont.  They are actually literally down the street from me, here:

        It looks just like a Telefunken U47...you'll love it! - with leather...?

        by Jeffersonian Democrat on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 12:26:46 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  It's true that (0+ / 0-)

      a brick foundation is not a house, a ball of wool is not a sweater, and an acorn is not an oak tree. Still, they embody certain potentials.

      That is obviously the nature of diarist's reaction to the proposed DHS action -- not just focused on where we stand at this moment in time, but the very bad destination to which this action and many others seem to be leading us as a nation.

      Instead of berating the diarist, I suggest trying to appreciate that he is more-than-normally aware of history and wants desperately to prevent the kinds of things you have depicted above from ever happening here in the future.

      Bear in mind: The metaphorical "smell" of the death camps -- the combined "stink" of totalitarian authority-worship, nationalist egoism and ethnic hatred -- was metaphorically "in the air" of Germany for a long, long time before the first death-camp oven ever polluted the actual air.

      If enough Germans had "smelled that smell" in time, and known its meaning, they might have had a chance to restrain the headlong plunge into disaster.

      Those who tell us they can now "smell that smell" here in America today are trying to warn us all of a similar potential.

      It has been the way of prophets throughout the ages to use the strongest possible language in an attempt to get the attention of (typically) hard-headed people. Take exception if you will, but do not miss the point.  

      •  Nope (2+ / 0-)

        there have been oppressive governments through the ages, government that trod on the rights of the people.  Not every act of oppression is Naziism, and the decision to go straight there, without recognizing what makes Nazi Germany so unique, is so hyperbolic as to be both offensive and sapping of credibility.  

        I do not miss the point.  The point, though, is invalid.  Nazi Germany did not start out with checkpoints. It started out with brownshirts rioting on the streets, fighting communists and oppressing Jews.  From its inception it was far more than mere control or oppression, and the absurd leap so many make from "something I don't like" to "NAZIS" would be comical, but for the tortured ghosts of so many millions.

        Done with politics for the night? Have a nice glass of wine with Two Days per Bottle.

        by dhonig on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 12:01:39 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  "From its inception" (1+ / 0-)

          Recommended by:
          markthshark

          it was the dream of a psychopath, who made concerted use of many tools, including the existing political and legal system, the self-interest of the business class, nationalism, the accidents of history, an aggressive war, new information-processing technology, an age-old ethnic hatred, the natural weaknesses and defects of human nature, and a cadre of other psychopathic individuals to bring about a horror and a national debacle that probably no other could have imagined in the worst of nightmares. Critical to bringing about this nightmare was the progressive restriction and suspension of human rights and liberties. It would be nice to think nothing this bad could potentially happen here, or that if it did, it would have to follow exactly the same course of historical development. But I don't think we can count on that.

          •  Of course we can't, but (1+ / 0-)

            Recommended by:
            bugscuffle

            to compare every act of a government you don't like to Nazi Germany is simply absurd.  It is also incredibly hurtful and offensive, and should not be done.

            Done with politics for the night? Have a nice glass of wine with Two Days per Bottle.

            by dhonig on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 12:32:55 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  How is what's happening right now in this country (0+ / 0-)

              and what it's bound to bring about in the long run, any less offensive [in its nascent stage] than what happened in Germany in the beginning -- and then in its later abhorrent manifestation -- when history shows that the former usually leads to the latter?

              You can't have mass internments and genocide without first suspending Habeas Corpus, setting up permanent checkpoints, and rescinding Posse Comitatus.

              If more people got offended by what's slowly happening in this country we wouldn't be in this retrogressive state to begin with.

              And, as for the donut...

              I'll be sure to remember your gesture the next time I don't agree with one of your diaries.

              "It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong."- Voltaire - [François Marie Arouet] (1694-1778)

              by markthshark on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 01:22:56 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  You are simply wrong (1+ / 0-)

                Recommended by:
                bugscuffle

                when history shows that the former usually leads to the latter?

                WHAT THE FUCK??!!?  Really?  Every time a government starts to limit the right of its people it leads to Nazi Germany?  Do you not see the absolute absurdity of your argument?

                As for the doughnut, if you can't tell the difference between disagreeing with a diary and being horribly offended by a completely inane comparison between roadblocks and the slaughter of millions, from a family member of a survivor, well, knock yourself out.

                Done with politics for the night? Have a nice glass of wine with Two Days per Bottle.

                by dhonig on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 01:54:18 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  I am not wrong... (0+ / 0-)

                  WHAT THE FUCK??!!?  Really?  Every time a government starts to limit the right of its people it leads to Nazi Germany?

                  Yeah, what the fuck?

                  "... starts to limit the rights of its people."

                  Incredible. This has been going on for over 7 years -- drip, drip, drip. Whether you realize it or not, we could very well be near the proverbial "end game" RIGHT NOW.

                  And, don't give me that crap about offending Holocaust survivors or their families. You know damn well that wasn't my intention. And, the fact that you were the only one to HR me reaffirms my intentions. That's the first time I've ever been HR'd since joining Dkos two years ago. So yeah, knock yourself out.

                  I'M TRYING TO WAKE COMPLACENT AMERICANS LIKE YOU UP!!

                  ... before something like "Nazi Germany" does happen here in America.

                  Bush is already committing genocide in Iraq for crissakes! (and soon in Iran if we don't stop it) How long before it begins here after we start resisting his brand of tyranny?

                  Do you really think Bush or Cheney [or their GOP successors] have/will have any compunction [at all] against doing it here? Or, do you think he just hates Muslims? Like I said before, it's time for Americans in general to feel offended by what's staring at us in the face.

                  "It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong."- Voltaire - [François Marie Arouet] (1694-1778)

                  by markthshark on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 03:15:23 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

  •  Nazis (2+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    Adam B, bugscuffle

    Testimony at Neuremberg, for those who don't understand the difference between "oppressive" and "Nazi Germany."

    In the evening when the Germans had left, I went to the hospital and found my wife in tears. It seems that when she had had her baby, the Jewish doctors of the hospital had already received the order that Jewish women must not give birth; and they had hidden the baby, together with other newborn children, in one of the rooms. But when this commission with Muhrer came to the hospital, they heard the cries of the babies. They broke open the door and entered the room. When my wife heard that the door had been broken, she immediately got up and ran to see what was happening to the child. She saw one German holding the baby and smearing something under its nose. Afterwards he threw it on the bed and laughed. When my wife picked up the child, there was something black under his nose. When I arrived at the hospital, I saw that my baby was dead. He was still warm.

    "Special hospitals, surgical blocks, histological laboratories, and other departments were set up in the camp. But they were intended not for the treatment but for the extermination of people. Here German professors and doctors carried out mass experiments on men, women, and children who were in perfectly good health. They carried out experiments on sterilization of women, on castration of men, experiments on children, artificial infection with cancer, typhus, and malaria, of masses of people who were afterward subjected to observation. They tested the action of poisonous substances on living persons."

    What was in store for the sick people was carefully concealed from the medical staff. After that, special cars arrived at the hospital. The sick people were pushed into them, some 60 to 70 persons into each car. Everyone could see these atrocities which were perpetrated in front of the ward windows. The patients were pushed into the cars and murdered there. Their corpses were thrown out on the spot. This awful deed went on for two days, during which 365 patients were exterminated. The patients who had not completely lost their minds soon realized the truth. There were heart-rending scenes. Thus, a young girl, patient Y, in spite of all of the efforts of the doctor, understood that death was awaiting her. She came out of the ward, embraced the doctor, and quietly asked him, 'Is this the end?' Pale as death, she went to the car and, refusing any assistance, climbed inside. The entire staff was told that any criticism or any expression of displeasure would be completely out of place and would be regarded as sabotage."

    I noticed then a woman in the last month of pregnancy. It was obvious from her appearance. This woman, together with the others, had to walk 10 kilometers to the place of work and there she toiled the whole day, shovel in hands, digging trenches. She was already ill and she asked the German superintendent, a civilian, for permission to rest. He refused, laughed at her, and together with another SS man, started beating her. He scrutinized her work very strictly. Such was the situation of all the women who were pregnant. And only during the very last minutes were they permitted to stay away from work. The newborn children, if Jewish, were immediately put to death.

    A few minutes after delivery the child was taken from the mother, who never saw it again. After a few days the mother had to return to work. In 1942 there were no special blocks in the camp for the children. At the beginning of 1943, when they started to tattoo the internees, the children born in the concentration camps were also branded. The number was tattooed on their legs.

    MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Why on the leg?

    SHMAGLEVSKAYA: Because the child is very small and there was not enough room on their tiny arms for the number, which contained five digits. The children did not have special numbers but bore the same numbers as the grown-ups; that is to say, they were given serial numbers. The children were placed in a special block and after a few weeks, sometimes after a month, they were taken away from the camp.

    SHMAGLEVSKAYA: Yes, sometimes, by doctors, too. During such a sorting, the youngest and the healthiest Jewish women in very small numbers entered the camp. Women carrying children in their arms or in carriages, or those who had larger children, were sent into the crematory together with their children. The children were separated from their parents in front of the crematory and were led separately into gas chambers.

    At that time, when the greatest number of Jews were exterminated in the gas chambers, an order was issued that the children were to be thrown into the crematory ovens or the crematory ditches without previous asphyxiation with gas.

    MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: How should we understand that? Were they thrown into the ovens alive or were they killed by other means before they were burned?

    SHMAGLEVSKAYA: The children were thrown in alive. Their cries could be heard all over the camp. It is hard to say how many there were.

    Done with politics for the night? Have a nice glass of wine with Two Days per Bottle.

    by dhonig on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 11:47:08 AM PDT

  •  Comparing stand-off (1+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    dhonig

    INS checkpoints to Nazi policy is dishonest or ignorant.  There is no other choice.

Permalink | 64 comments