http://www.rsf.org/rubrique.php3?id_rubrique=554

Electronic election fraud, refusal to accept foreign surveilance.
Journalists being jailed for doing their job. A press freedom ranking as in Bolivia. In Iraq the US press freedom is down to 137th place. Illegal combatants not being presented with a judge.
1) Is the Us moving towards an totalitarian regime, as the facts would presume?

2) What is the de facto status of the US as a democracy today?

1) Is the Us moving towards an totalitarian regime, as the facts would presume?

Long ways away from totalitarian my friend, a long ways- that being said, we ARE slowly being moved that way- and this election may very well be the watershed moment. Fascism is without a doubt creeping into everyday the US goverment. If we elect republicans- we will probably be a fascist state in some kind of new corporate oligarchy. The massive war on civil rights, the large scale attempts at circumventing checks and balances within the goverment etc- heck, it may already be too late- no matter who is elected. Once power is given away, it is hard to take back. When we have been debating the abuses of GW- I like to ask- would you like to see Bill clinton have this power you are talking about? How about Teddy Kennedy (since it is pretty much the conservatives that give GW a pass on all this stuff, without really thinking if they would like it if someone they didn't like had this same power) - so, moving towards? Yes- racing towards- not really, I don't think, but, could be wrong there. Thank gawd the military support is starting to wane- I could see a major election loss be nullified by GW and troops called in to "protect us from the main stream media and liberals".

How does the quote go from Sinclair Lewis? - perhaps paraphrasing- "Fascim will come to the US wrapped in the flag and carrying the bible"


2) What is the de facto status of the US as a democracy today?

In flux IMHO- As long as poeple vote to take away freedoms, it is probably not long for this earth.

We actually had a fairly long discussion on this subject in my AP Government class the other day and I talked myself into believing that we are not. While there are serious abuses against private individuals, one could argue that some of those abuses trace back to colonial times. The fact of the matter is- and I know we're all tired of hearing it- freedom is not free, so the government likes to pretend they have an invisible hand and can do what they please to safeguard liberty.

There's a little bit of a problem when the invisible hand is by some people's nature distrusted. Now, there is no real right or wrong side in that particular concern; I personally believe that's what is going to keep America from being anything short of a (quasi-) republic.

1) Is the Us moving towards an totalitarian regime, as the facts would presume?

Moving that way, yes. Don't forget about the circumventing of courts to listen to our phone conversations too. It hopefully starts to move back soon.

2) What is the de facto status of the US as a democracy today?
? The US is still a democracy. It's just a democracy that currently has an overexuberant executive branch.

"As the facts would presume"???

Scanning the headlines of the news media, I see stories critical of the administration every single day. I see articles/op eds directly insulting the President, the Speaker of the House, the Vice President, and just about every other authority figure on at least a weekly basis. Is this how totalitarian governments control the media? We must suck as far as dictatorships go.

Now, are we tough on criminals? Yes. Are we tolerant of those that break the law or want to harm our citizens? No.

Where was Captain Hogan's legal counsel in Stalag 13?

What elections are perfect? Elections are human constructs and as such are imperfect. Are they always rigged to keep Republicans in? Heck if we see the GOP pick up seats this election, I'll get suspicious.

The US is not a democracy, it is a representative republic. It is as far from a dictatorship as any country in the world. The government is powerful, yes, but no one individual controls it and the people still have the power to change how the government works and who runs it.

1) Is the Us moving towards an totalitarian regime, as the facts would presume?

No, despite the steady news of corrupt officials and "mistakes" made in elections such as in Ohio, we're not close to a totalitarian regime. We just have a lot of--shall I say--"creative" individuals who can manipulate the system to their own benefit and the benefit of others, and our justice system is ungainly when it needs to deal with offenses relating to technology such as electronic voting.

While the administration is none too pleased with the talk and opinions expressed by the news media, there is no sedition act in place as with Lincoln. While there may be wiretaps on the lines and computers of dissenters, it is not widely known. Surveillance of dissidents is nothing new; many who demonstrated against the Vietnam War had dossiers at the FBI with reports and photographs on their activities.

I do understand your perception, though. President Bush does like to give himself more power than his predecessor, and when the Supreme Court has ruled against him, he has said he disagrees. I am thinking about the situation at Guantanamo Bay where detainees are held without the right of habeas corpus. It took some amount of arrogance for Bush to respond to the High Court in such a manner.

2) What is the de facto status of the US as a democracy today?

Amlord is right in saying that the US is a representative republic.

There are a lot of bugs in our system of government. A lot of them have to do with a technology that has outgrown the laws that we have in place. It doesn't help, either, to be involved in an unpopular war with the death toll rising. Some of our fellow citizens think that we're just supposed to take a deep breath and patiently wait out this administration (and the next!) as it continues with failed policies.

But while we may be under surveillance for stating our dissenting opinions, and while some think we're giving aid and comfort to the enemy when we just want to get through to our President somehow, we're not getting thrown in jail for expressing those opinions.

What facts?

Any group that ranks the USA that far down the list in "freedom" is just not credible. End of story.

Is the Us moving towards an totalitarian regime?

Not even close. I have to wonder at the "freedom of press" ranking above. I must assume this is simply freedom for journalists to move around and ask questions, because it certainly can't apply to speech freedom itself. We don't have any laws on par with the following in Denmark (ostensibly the country with the highest "press freedom"):

"Anybody who publicly mocks or insults any in this country legally existing religious community tenets of faith or worship, will be punished by fine or imprisonment for up to 4 months."

or

"Whoever publicly, or with intention to disseminating in a larger circle makes statements or other pronouncement, by which a group of persons is threatened, derided or degraded because of their race, colour of skin, national or ethnic background, faith or sexual orientation, will be punished by fine or imprisonment for up to 2 years"

I'm also a little confused about "refusal to accept foreign surveillance". What are you referring to exactly there?

1) Is the Us moving towards an totalitarian regime, as the facts would presume?
Not quite there yet in my opinion. New powers gained by the US president over the last 20 years are certainly grounds for concern, but the US president has always been a very powerfull individual. We have no position like it in most European countries, and I am glad we don't. Having an office like president in Denmark, which the awesome powers it gives, would trouble me greatly, and I am just glad I don't live in the US. Granted however, there are certain advantages to having that much power centralized in one entity, but as the saying goes.. power corrupts etc. etc....

2) What is the de facto status of the US as a democracy today?
Well, what troubles me most about the US is it's two-party system and the fact that only 50% of the people bother to vote. The two dominant political parties of the US seems almost identical to me (if you take out religion and abortion from the equation, and granted, they can be important). I don't think the other 50% are totally indifferent to politics, I just think they dislike the two options that are on the table (and the deck are heavily stacked against any 3rd party making a serious challenge). This is a very serious problem in my opinion, and sadsly, it is a problem the current members of the the US senate and congress has no interest in resolving.


Heard about "non-enforcement"? This law has to the best of my knowledge been involved in two cases in the last 50 years - both times the case was rejected by the prosecutors office. The last of these was muslim organizations in Denmark reporting the newspaper JP for publisihing the mohammed cartoons (which no major US paper dared do as far as I know).

Denmark (to my absolute joy) has a large majority of atheists and agnostics (according to a lot of studies), so it could very well be political suicide to be involved in enforcing this law (and many wants the law abolished, but since the law isn't being used the issue haven't recived serious attention).


Usually people are only prosecuted using this law, if threats are implied or stated.
Hey the speech is free, but we might just throw you in jail, to avoid you carrying out your threat... is that so different from the US?

Maybe this law comes to mind because the row was so recent. The EU pretty much universally has more stringent hate speech laws. That is my main point. Oriana Fallaci, author of The Rage and the Pride, was not prosecuted in the US, where she resides (well, resided), she was prosecuted in Italy for writing that book. Julian has mentioned several times that press freedoms in the US are greater than the UK, like here

So my question remains. What exactly are they referring to as "press freedom" here? It must just be freedom of movement and not speech.

http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0928-20.htm
This is is not entirely untrue, or is it? And camps such as Guantanamo is not a new invention in history.
Germans today are on a constant watchout for a repetition of WW2 tendicies, and so must everybody else be.
We can´t allow such things to happen again, and therefore we must fight back all attacks on the freedom of the mind, in whatever name they happen to be spread. There are facist movements lurking everywhere these days, in Europe as well, and we all have to keep a watchfull eye open.

A worried Dane.

Odd that you should mention Germany. A few days ago I read with interest that there is a rise in popularity amongst far right wing and nationalist German groups, whilst at the same time, the general public of Germany is increasingly disinterested in political issues.
Indeed, according to this article, which I am sure you will have no problem reading, as many as 49% of the German population is disatisfied with their nations democracy...

Is Germany moving towards being a totalitarian regime ...as the facts would presume?

I think not.


1) Is the US moving towards an totalitarian regime, as the facts would presume?

No. Even if these 'facts' actually represent the truth of what is happening in the USA, then they still do not point towards the creation of a totalitarian state. At the very worst what we are seeing is a criminal element in the government of America, but this too shall pass and that which one president may do, so another can undo.

This may be scant comfort to those trapped at Guantanamo bay, but no state is infallible and certainly not any state in Europe where we are so often too quick and eager to throw stones across the Atlantic...


2) What is the de facto status of the US as a democracy today?

Looking aside from the point about American being a republic and not a democracy (whats the big difference anyway?) then I would say that this question cannot be answered simply. It would require far more insight than you are going to get on an internet debate site. It would be more to the point to ask; what damage, if any, has the Bush administration caused to the United States and its allies... or, has the US constitution been 'compromised'?

If it has, if GW Bush is indeed guilty of violating the first laws of the USA, then I am in no doubt that this will be rectified given time for no matter how omnipotent a President may be, he cannot simply sign away the will of his people with the stroke of a pen, nor dissolve the legal foundations upon which the USA was created. This would require far more than the clumsy machinations, or ill intent, of one president and his cronies.

There are alot of factors that have a culmulative affect but not a specific one which impede giving you a concise answer.

To enter into this argument, one has to show not only an example but a pattern of behaviour which consistently errs on the side of expanding government power and the use of force to settle all disputes.

Therefore the I would equate examples of expansive power combined with attempts of deliberate obfuscation as a barometer towards totalitarianism.

The debatable part is defining the tipping point.

Your article is geared more to a form of fascism than an excessive use of force. Well at least speaking domestically anyways. The loss of transparency has typically been associated with losses in liberty and always in the name of security.

So to answer you question I would say no to question one. Question two is not defined. It is difficult to compare a small south american country like Bolivia to the current health of a democracy. I think you may have better success with comparing watershed moments in american history and extrapolating from there.

Late edit


I forgot about the proposed new bill which facilitates the deployment of the army domestically. My apologies. The ability to quell dissent is one of the more visible aspects of a dictatorship and to this end America does have a new law which expands the military commissions act.

John Warner Defense Authorization Act of 2007 or H.R.5122

Frank Morales the authour of the above article points out,



Nevermind the efficiency issues of pretending the army is better equipped to handle non violent national emergencies (think N.O.) the reasoning behind this bill is frightening. According to Morales the ancestry of the bill was traced back to Operation Garden Plot a method for suppressing dissent. The question is whether they implement it or not.

Here is an interview with Morales on Alex Jones (link)

Anything the encourages or eases in martial law would be an important aspect of a dictatorship.

The US is a republic not a democracy.

Well, I would say that is a bit of quibbling there Tim- we can be called a representative democracy and still be quite accurate on that account, though I think we are moving quickly towards a theocracy/fascist state, depending on who carries the day today and in 08. If the religious right continues to have thier way, I would say we will be a Christo-fascist state within 20 years or less. If the dems win, they will most likely dismantle alot of that horrible legislation passed since 1994, and would move us back to center,

I didn't mean for it to be derogatory but factual. In a direct democracy, the people vote directly on proposed laws, and government (to the extent that it exists) serves only to put their laws into action. By contrast, a republic is a representative democracy, where laws are passed not by the people, but their elected representatives.

I would say your inclination that we will be a Christo-fascist state within 20 years is quite a stretch. Christians are slowing fading and as we evolve, religion will become a thing of the past. Granted, that won't happen for a very long time.

Well, they ARE the ones driving the "wedge" issues- without a doubt- in fact, these issues wouldn't even BE issues without them- and GW basically kept that base throughout his election cycles- without them, he would NOT be president, not even close. Same with the republican majority. ALL "hot button" issues since Regean have been driven by the Christian right- and dems and libertarians are certainly NOT supporting NCLB, Patriot act, unrestricted surveliance on US citizens, without oversite by, well, anybody but the agents themselves- and on and on. Without the religious right- there would BE no republicans in power in this country, at least not in the mold of the post-Reagan conservative. Barry Goldwater type paleo-conservatives are as hopelessly out numbered as the libertarians.

In fact, I see the entire WOT as a new holy war, with christians and muslims still going at it- and the Athiestic Europeans just ceding to the oppressive middle eastern cultures in some way- they are just doing too little about it now in thier countries- and I think the golden age of relative peace in western Europe post east-west cold war is coming to a close, and the Ethnic Euros getting out bred and thier own tolerance not allowing them to combat Middle eastern islamic diaspora into those countries.

Moif has really convinced me BTW LOL

Seriously, USA is the only un-tolerant and naturally violent culture to combat the explosive growth of middle eastern extremist migration into the west. We are isolated enough geographically that they can't out breed us in our own country, and I think we may very well go christo-fascist to fight the Islma-fascist at some point.

Heck, I might even write this into a post-apocalyptic sci-fi novel of the near future "in the armed camps of western Christo fascism that is Russia, all of south and north america, with the now balkanized Europe by warlord islamo-fascists and neo-nazi city-states in a constantly shifting hot zones, and all of africa and all the way to china, which has allied itself with russiia and the Western bloc, though highly unstable due to its restive muslim population. Most of the south pacific is firmly east, with the exception of the citidels of Australia and New Zealand, highly xenophobic to anyone not white or ethnically indegenous to those countries, with the west relying on the now burgeoining population explosion in North and South America, and high tech weaponry, and a new found ruthless treatment of it's enemies, they seem to have the edge- but the eastern bloc has learned to adapt, and is attempting to ramp up conventional weaponry capabilities. India has become a fascist state of its own, with suspected death camps for muslims. This is the dangerous world we live in the year 2070. Bio plagues, pocket nukes and net warfare are the norm. The west have established quaruntined colonies on the moon and Mars, due to the fear none of us will make it out alive. Those reliious leaders calling for moderation and a look into the books that call for peace are quickly assasinated, by either side. "

Ya, good start. Hope it doesn't happen though.

I will concede Bush is a primary driving force for the religious right but that political montage is begining to fade

1) Is the Us moving towards an totalitarian regime, as the facts would presume?

No, I do not think so, although there are some negative developments that should be closely monitored and preferably be put to a halt. As long as the system of democratic checks and balances is firmly in place the threat for the U.S. of becoming a totalitarian regime in the near future is minimal at the very best.

I agree with Moif's analysis on this point:


2) What is the de facto status of the US as a democracy today?

Although, in my opinion, the brutal competition in the U.S. two party system is not beneficial for the democratic process, the U.S. is still a nation with a strong representative democratic system (or representative Republican system, whatever you like to choose).

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


In Holland we have laws that put some restrictions on the freedom of speech that are similar to the Danish law.

"Anybody who publicly and intentionally insults a certain group of people because of their race, faith or sexuality, will be punished by a fine or imprisonment for up to a year." (art. 137c of the Dutch criminal laws)

The fact that laws like this are in place, does not mean it hinders the freedom of speech we enjoy in Holland. It only makes sure certain moral and ethical boundaries are not overstepped and it has a positive effect in making sure people will uphold a certain degree of decency when speaking in public. Although this law is not used often, it is one of the instruments for the government and the people in their fight against radical imams who preach hatred and intolerance.

What I personally never understood in regard to the freedom of speech in the U.S. is the fact that it is legal to promote hate fuelled opinions, but it is not okay to use foul language (the famous *beeps* come into mind).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



I do not agree with your view here, CR. First of all I have strong objections against your view that European countries are ceding to the oppressive North-African / middle eastern cultures. Secondly eventhough it is a fact that p.e. muslim communities have a higher birthrate than ethnic Europeans, I do not think this will be in the long run the end of democratic, secular European societies as we know it. Thirdly, the USA is not the only nation that combats middle eastern extremist migration to the west. The most important contribution to that is made by European states, who are very busy tigthening up their borders and adressing the social problems that have arisen within the muslim communities. And fourthly, although I do agree that there is a strong radical christian element in US. society, I do not believe that in the end a full blown christo-fascist - islamic fascist war will ever occur.

Before we go digressing too much from the topic at hand, perhaps it would be a good idea to further ellaborate on these issues in a new thread?

Authorization bills are yearly events. They do not grant "new abilities" to quell dissent or anything similar. They set policy for how the defense money is spent, and sets the spending level: yearly pay increases, ect.



Again, nothing new here at all. This simply grants appropriations for such contingencies. The LA riots, for example, were quelled by military back in 1992.

The chief difference, under the latest Authorization Bill, is that it would allow the President to assume control of the various National Guard units unilaterally, without advice or consent of the governor in question.

Again, this is an appropriations authorization bill. It does not authorize special powers of authority that were previously unknown. It cannot, as far as I know. I'm 99.99 percent certain of this. Look for executive orders for something along those lines...and there are plenty of "scary" executive orders for presidents of both present and past that has filled the internet with SPAM allegations of "America the police state" for the last decade. (example)

Here is a link to the actual text of this appropriations authorization bill.

Here is one longstanding law regarding this issue, which uses similar language. There are likely others.

) Is the Us moving towards an totalitarian regime, as the facts would presume?

2) What is the de facto status of the US as a democracy today?



Miller broke the law- that’s the LAW we all approved of through our representatives in Congress. We have never been close to “a totalitarian regime” as the last election points out. Journalism is as free as ever and people here have more freedom than most of the world including all of the Communist/Socialist societies. The “illegal combatants” are war criminal and will get a military tribunal – which is more than they would have received in Socialist countries like Cuba where they would have been tortured and shot 2 years ago.

Reporters Without Borders is in No position to pass judgement.

I completely disregard this entire list on source alone.

I am curious why you have the feeling that Reporters without borders is in no position to pass judgement? Perhaps you have some information you would like to share with the rest of us?