The Rule of Law and Fascism in the United States

Fascism hits home. The other day, as I encountered various news items, it became more and more clear to me that we are moving deeper and deeper into fascism in the US.

It has been clear to me for some time that the law in this country is being enforced more and more arbitrarily. In the course of being disillusioned as to the nature of my government and my country, I thought I had become adjusted to the emerging reality of fascism. Even so, in the course of the last 24 hours, 4 items came to my attention that disturbed me. One of these items is of concern in relation to essential morality, the second, the US Constitution, and the third, local politics and economic concerns, and finally, corporate control over every aspect of our lives. These four events define our legal context at 4 levels so as to give a pretty broad picture of the direction our society is taking.

The first event was reported in a New York Times article yesterday, (9/20) about the case of a couple of soldiers being tried for the murder of an Afghan national. I have not noticed this event mentioned anywhere except the NY Times article where I saw it. The soldiers, along with other American soldiers came to this man's farm. They surrounded it, then knocked on the door. They were congenial with other people in the area. When the unarmed man came out to speak to them, one of the soldiers on trial shot him in the face from 100 ft away. The article said that high level military people questioned why the incident had resulted in charges at all. The description of the event is not disputed. Their point is that the man was labeled an 'enemy combatant', therefore the act of luring him from his home, then shooting him in cold blood was actually appropriate. For myself, I was aware that 'enemy combatants' are not covered by the Geneva Convention, or the American legal system. It has been clear for some time that no one questions sending suspects off to be tortured in locations around the world or keeping them prisoner without access to a legal process for an indefinite period of time. But, silly me, it just hadn't occurred to me that the label 'enemy combatant' made a person eligible for summary execution. I was still back worrying about imprisonment without habeus corpus and due process. Now we have execution on the fly. Why bother with prisons and courts when you can just gun them down on their doorstep?
The Constitutional issue that arose was the case of a young man who asked an inconvenient question at a talk John Kerry was giving. Apparently the student stood and asked his question after Kerry had said he was finished answering questions. However he did have the mike going around the audience, and the question was annoying, but not hostile. Kerry actually showed a willingness to answer the question, but before Kerry could even respond, seveal policemen tackled the young man, dragged him struggling and loudly declaring his innocence, then pressed him to the floor and tasered him several times. Apparently, Kerry protested, but the scuffle was so intense that the police did not respond to him. Earlier this week, Reverend Lennox Yearwood was accosted by police while peacefully waiting in line to see the Crocker/Petraeus report in Congress. They wrestled him to the ground and sat on him so violently that they broke his ankle, then charged him with 'assault'. A year ago, a student at UCLA was dragged out of the library and tasered because he didn't have his student ID on him. So much for free speech and the right to personal security!

Then, a local story. I heard on the news today, that a court has mandated that the Rochester Public Schools can no longer use Rochester Public Transportation to transport students to and from school. The reasoning is that it is 'Unfair' to other bus companies. Since when is it 'unfair' to do business with one's associates and friends. Since when is it 'unfair' to have municipal services rely on municipal resources. My mother said there was a flap about quality of service. Since when would a judge make this decision, and what does it have to do with fairness to other businesses? City school students have been riding City Buses to school for at least 50 years. Now, the public services are not allowed to integrate their resources so as to serve the public interest and get the best use of taxpayer subsidized resources. Instead, they must all be opened up to parasitism from corporate interests. Costs will rise. Those who can no longer afford the services will loose access to them.

Speaking of services, I heard Ed Schultz speaking with an 'expert' about Hillary Clinton's health care initiative, and I don't understand why anyone supports it. Perhaps I am missing something. But, here is what I understand her to be proposing. Everyone will be required to pay a certain amount for health care insurance. The cost will be on a sliding scale with tax breaks to help defray the cost, and something like Earned Income Credit to compensate the working poor for the cost. This is not a government run program, she says, so I assume the insurance companies will continue to run it. It was actually predicted that a time might come under this program where a person might not be able to get a job without proving that they have health insurance. Who does this help? If you fail to get a job because you aren' t insured, will you then get cost free 'poor people's insurance' or will you fall off the bottom of the system?

Anyway, in general, poor people will be covered, but the cost will be shifted from corporations to the middle class as a new regressive tax. Corporations now pay most health insurance as a part of an individuals compensation package. In general, individuals cannot afford personal health insurance. Under Ms. Clinton's system, if you don't pay, you are shut out of the corporate system entirely, and can't get a job. Since the administration will be run by the same people that run it now, the cost will not decrease. Ms. Clinton tells us that modernization (technology?) will bring about big savings. Who will manage this process? The insurance companies have huge profits now, but they say they can't afford it. Will the government mandate the change? Will they monitor it? I have to assume that we will pay for it. It seems to me this is the biggest rip off since George Bush pushed through Medicare 'Reform' a couple of years ago with a rider saying that the system isn't allowed to negotiate with the drug companies for a reasonable price. And it isn't just Hillary Clinton pushing it, the so called 'Liberal' pundits are lining up behind her.

The statement 'rule of law' does not clarify which laws, whose laws, will rule. People have some sense of a righteous order and laws subtended by humanitarian ideals, but every day, the law is more completely owned by the corporate, rather than the human interests. We have all seen the books and films about Robots taking over the world, and about how there have to be special rules to control these powerful, inhuman entities. However, it turns out that what we have constructed socially is far more powerful than any technological device. The inhuman forces taking over our world are more powerful and less human than the Robots we once imagined. And thanks to their human proxies, there are no laws constraining the Corporations that are taking over our world and our society. Moreover, problem is not confined to the United States, though they do seem to have their most powerful base here, for the moment. Dark times lie ahead.