Ex-CIA Official : Patriot Act is a Nazi Law

[Peter Lemkin]

Ex-CIA Official Philip Giraldi: Patriot Act is a Nazi Law
9th January 2011

http://www.presstv.ir/detail/159376.html
Former CIA officer Phillip Giraldi

The United States Patriot Act is similar to the legislations carried out by the Nazi Germany in the World War II era, a former CIA officer says.

"The Patriot Act was similar to legislation carried out by the Nazis because essentially it was using terrorism in both cases as an excuse to strip civil liberties that were enjoyed in both countries; in the United States and Germany," Phillip Giraldi said in an interview with Press TV.

"Governments have been willing to use fear, such as fear of terrorism, and fear of the enemy, as a way to get the people lined up in support of government policies. Very often these policies are essentially bad for the people because they take away many of their rights," the former CIA officer said.

He went on to say that the relationship between the American citizens and the US government has changed for the worse since the introduction of the Patriot Act, adding that Americans had not become any safer by their rights being stripped away.

The US Patriot Act and desecration of the constitution has brought a dictatorship surveillance society of phone tapping, hidden cameras and policy brutality in the United States, Giraldi said.

The act, which was hastily adopted six weeks after the 2001 terrorist attacks, allows the US government to spy on its citizens without the need for a court order.

In February 2010, the House of Representatives and the Senate approved the extension of the Bush-era bill and sent it to President Obama who thereby signed the legislation into law.

[David Guyatt]

Something many of us realized anyway, but good to hear it stated publicly.

And will be ignored, of course.

[Peter Lemkin]

USA PATRIOT Act
enabling act for the US empire

Uniting and Strengthening America by
Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act

Uncle Sam's Army
Packages of Anthrax Terorrized Representatves Into Obliterating Tolerance Act

related page:
Anthrax and the "USA PATRIOT" Act
http://www.oilempire.us/anthrax.html

"Never forget that everything Hitler did in Germany was legal."
-- Martin Luther King Jr.

"A president of the United States has just assumed what amounts to dictatorial power."
--William Safire (Republican former speechwriter for President Nixon), New York Times, "Seizing dictatorial power", November 15, 2001

"The government will make use of these powers only insofar as they are essential for carrying out vitally necessary measures...The number of cases in which an internal necessity exists for having recourse to such a law is in itself a limited one."
-- Adolf Hitler, promise to the Reichstag (Parliament) on the occasion of the "Enabling Act," the imposition of "temporary" dictatorship following the Reichstag Fire. http://www.historyplace.com/worldwar2/ti...abling.htm


Bill of Rights to the United States Constitution

Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. Free speech isn't a reality when the government is reading our emails, tapping our phones, and intimidating the public into being quiet about crimes of state.
Amendment II
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. The Second Amendment was established to balance federal power with local militia. The federalizing of the National Guard (1973) overturned this right.
Amendment III
No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law. The Patriot Act's "sneak and peek" provisions allowed federal agents to snoop in your home without notice and without a warrant.
Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. The ECHELON program of the National Security Agency made this right moot a long time ago.
Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. Corruption in the judicial system is so entrenched that this right also vanished decades ago.
Amendment VI
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense. The declaration from the dictator that certain persons can be designated "enemy combatants" removed from any judicial oversight is an invalidation of this right. This abuse of power could easily be scaled up to encompass much larger numbers of victims.
Amendment VII
In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law. The "enemy combatants" declaration shows that this right has been invalidated by the regime.
Amendment VIII
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted. A peaceful protestor at the 2000 Republican National Convention was detailed on a one million dollar bail for an alleged misdemeanor. This right to be free from cruelty is a nice idea.
Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. We the People have the power to take back the country, if we really want to.
Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people. The Constitution did not provide for the establishment of a National Security State beyond the rule of law.


The USA PATRIOT Act is similar to the Enabling Act passed in Germany in 1933 after the "burning of the Reichstag" (parliament), since both were after a terrorist act blamed on foreign infiltrators. It's not an exact parallel, since the UPA isn't quite as draconian as the Enabling Act, but it is a close historical analogy.

However, the pending "Domestic Security Enhancement Act" - also known as "Patriot Two" - would be closer to Hitler's Enabling Act. The DSEA allows for stripping US citizens of citizenship if they are assumed to be acting for a foreign power as inferred by their conduct, which is an extremely dangerous definition. Once stripped of citizenship, Americans could then be held in indefinite detention. This is very similar to the legal pretexts used in Nazi Germany to round up dissidents, and later, to deport Jews to the death camps.

Congressional Representative Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) is the only Presidential candidate who called for REPEAL OF THE PATRIOT ACT. This position was on the front of his web page, which is at http://www.kucinich.us

The unPatriotic Act was promulgated on the fiction that the government couldn't "connect the dots" of clues about 9/11, and that it, and the Homeland Security Department, were needed to prevent another 9/11 from happening again. Failure to question 9/11 is tacit support for the USA PATRIOT ACT.


Patriot Act vs, German Enabling Act


The Decrees of 1933

(a) The February 28 Decree. One of the most repressive acts of the new Nazi government, this one allowed for the suspension of civil liberties ....The president was persuaded that the state was in danger and, hence, that the emergency measures embodied in the decree were necessary. Even though under Art. 48 of the constitution, the decree would have been withdrawn once the so-called emergency had passed, any hope of this happening was prevented by the establishment of Hitler's dictatorship following the Enabling Act (see below). It was in fact never withdrawn and remained until the end as an instrument of Nazi terror against ordinary citizens who ran foul of the regime.
ARTICLE 1. In virtue of paragraph 2, article 48,* of the German Constitution, the following is decreed as a defensive measure against communist acts of violence , endangering the state:
Sections 114, 115, 117, 118, 123, 124, and 153 of the Constitution of the German Reich are suspended until further notice. Thus, restrictions on personal liberty [114], on the right of free expression of opinion, including freedom of the press [118], on the right of assembly and the right of association [124], and violations of the privacy of postal, telegraphic, and telephonic communications [117], and warrants for house-searches [115], orders for confiscation as well as restrictions on property [153], are also permissible beyond the legal limits otherwise prescribed.
*Article 48 of the German Constitution of August 11, 1919: If public safety and order in Germany are materially disturbed or endangered, the President may take the necessary measures to restore public safety and order, and, if necessary, to intervene with the help of the armed forces. To this end he may temporarily suspend, in whole or in part, the fundamental rights established in Articles 114, 115, 117, 118, 123, 124, and 153 ...........



Patriot Act:

Section 218 which amends the "probable cause" requirement before conducting secret searches or surveillance to obtain evidence of a crime;
Sections 215, 218, 358, and 508 which permit law enforcement authorities to have broad access to sensitive mental health, library, business, financial, and educational records despite the existence of previously adopted state and federal laws which were intended to strengthen the protection of these types of records;
Sections 411 and 412 which give the Secretary of State broad powers to designate domestic groups as "terrorist organizations" and the Attorney General power to subject immigrants to indefinite detention or deportation even if no crime has been committed; and
Sections 507 and 508 which impose a mandate on state and local public universities who must collect information on students that may be of interest to the Attorney General.



Libraries post Patriot Act warnings
Santa Cruz branches tell patrons that FBI may spy on them
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cg...N14634.DTL

Congress Expands FBI Spying Power
By Ryan Singel
Story location: http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,61341,00.html
02:00 AM Nov. 24, 2003 PT
Congress approved a bill on Friday that expands the reach of the Patriot Act, reduces oversight of the FBI and intelligence agencies and, according to critics, shifts the balance of power away from the legislature and the courts.

Post Office Wants to ID the Mail
By Ryan Singel
Story location: http://www.wired.com/news/privacy/0,1848,60966,00.html
02:00 AM Oct. 27, 2003 PT
Sending a letter may soon require more than a 37-cent stamp. It might also require a valid photo ID

It Didn't Take Long, Did It?
By Greg Palast
GregPalast.com
Friday 15 July 2005

Well, it didn't take long, did it?
In the USA, the curtain opened on new anti-terror follies Wednesday when three Senate committees, in blustery response to the London bombings, voted to extend the power of the FBI under the Patriot Act to obtain library records without a subpoena. Exactly what suicide bomber or sleeper cell has so far been exposed by this powerful new intelligence weapon, we are not told. Did Osama fail to return his copy of 'Harry Potter'? Or 'Hijacking for Idiots'?
What we have here is the great con: to get us to pull each other's hair over the sanctity of library card privacy. We're dragged into some nit-wit debate over the "balance between security and civil liberties" - with the defenders of America against terrorism sneering at the sissies from the ACLU.
Civil libertarians are all shook up that the FBI is going through our summer reading list. My concern is deeper. What I want to know is, who at the FBI is poring over my choice of novels, how much do we pay this guy and why isn't he reviewing Swiss and Pakistani bank transfer records instead

The unPatriotic Act


http://bordc.org/patriot2.htm
Summaries of "Victory Act" and other reincarnations of Patriot II



Download the "Son of Patriot Act" - read how the Bush / Ashkroft regime wants to abolish civil liberties under the cover of another "terrorist" attack

http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/PA2draft.txt (text format)

http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/PA2draft.html (html format)

http://www.pbs.org/now/politics/patriot2-hi.pdf (PDF format - large file)

http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/USAPA.html

Center for Law and the Public's Health
Model Health Emergency Law
http://www.publichealthlaw.net/
a law that is worse than the Patriot Act



Analyses of "unPatriotic Act 2"

"With the INS reorganized as of March 1 and operating within the Department of Homeland Security, policies against immigrants and citizens that are undemocratic, un-American, and inhumane are likely to continue unabated. And, if and when the Domestic Security Enhancement Act of 2003 (already nick-named Patriot II), becomes law, any American citizen, American citizens who support the lawful activities of an organization the executive branch deems "terrorist" may be presumptively stripped of their citizenship and deported to parts unknown or detained by INS indefinitely."
The War on Immigrants: Detained in America By ELAINE CASSEL
http://www.counterpunch.org/cassel03122003.html

http://www.counterpunch.org/neale04102003.html
April 10, 2003
A Patriot Attack on America - Ashcroft's War on the Bill of Rights
By GEOFFREY NEALE
With public attention riveted on the war in Iraq, politicians may be planning to launch a sneak attack against the American people.
Their weapon: Patriot II, a piece of legislation that would give the government frightening new powers, including the ability to make secret arrests, issue secret subpoenas, create a vast new DNA database and even strip Americans of their citizenship and deport them.
Formally called The Domestic Security Enhancement Act of 2003 (DSEA), the legislation has been shrouded in secrecy, prompting civil liberties groups to fear the government has been waiting for an opportunity -- such as war or another terrorist attack -- to rush it through Congress.

Nat Hentoff, "Red Alert for the Bill of Rights"
http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0311/hentoff.php
http://www.villagevoice.com/specials/civil_liberties/

Mike Ruppert's analysis - new Patriot Act 5 to 10 times worse than the original
http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww...iot_2.html

Son of the Patriot Act - We have to destroy this village to save it
http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/PA2sonofPA.html

Patriot 2 and encryption / authentication
http://www.politechbot.com/p-04456.html

Patriot Act II's Attack on Citizenship
http://www.counterpunch.org/mariner03082003.html

http://reclaimdemocracy.org/civil_rights...t_act.html

http://baltimorechronicle.com/media_patr...ar03.shtml
why there is almost no coverage of the next unPatriotic Act

Bill of Rights Defense Committee
http://www.bordc.org
working to undo the unPatriotic Act and to prevent its sequel from being enacted

[Peter Lemkin]

The Enabling Act (German: Ermächtigungsgesetz) was passed by Germany's Reichstag and signed by President Paul von Hindenburg on 24 March 1933. It was the second major step, after the Reichstag Fire Decree, through which Chancellor Adolf Hitler legally obtained plenary powers and established his dictatorship. It received its name from its legal status as an enabling act granting the Cabinet the authority to enact laws without the participation of the Reichstag. The act stated that it was to last for four years unless renewed by the Reichstag, which occurred twice.

The formal name of the Enabling Act was Gesetz zur Behebung der Not von Volk und Reich (English: "Law to Remedy the Distress of People and Reich").Contents [hide]
1 Text
2 Hitler's speech before the passing of the Enabling Act
3 Background
3.1 Preparations and negotiations
4 Passing of the Enabling Act
5 Consequences
6 References

[edit]
Text

As with most of the laws passed in the process of Gleichschaltung, the Enabling Act is quite short, considering its consequences. It is therefore reproduced in full in German[1] and English[citation needed]:Gesetz zur Behebung der Not von Volk und Reich Law to Remedy the Distress of the People and the Nation
Der Reichstag hat das folgende Gesetz beschlossen, das mit Zustimmung des Reichsrats hiermit verkündet wird, nachdem festgestellt ist, daß die Erfordernisse verfassungsändernder Gesetzgebung erfüllt sind: The Reichstag has enacted the following law, which is hereby proclaimed with the assent of the Reichsrat, it having been established that the requirements for a constitutional amendment have been fulfilled:
Artikel 1 Article 1
Reichsgesetze können außer in dem in der Reichsverfassung vorgesehenen Verfahren auch durch die Reichsregierung beschlossen werden. Dies gilt auch für die in den Artikeln 85 Abs. 2 und 87 der Reichsverfassung bezeichneten Gesetze. In addition to the procedure prescribed by the constitution, laws of the Reich may also be enacted by the government of the Reich. This includes the laws referred to by Articles 85 Paragraph 2 and Article 87 of the constitution.[2]
Artikel 2 Article 2
Die von der Reichsregierung beschlossenen Reichsgesetze können von der Reichsverfassung abweichen, soweit sie nicht die Einrichtung des Reichstags und des Reichsrats als solche zum Gegenstand haben. Die Rechte des Reichspräsidenten bleiben unberührt. Laws enacted by the government of the Reich may deviate from the constitution as long as they do not affect the institutions of the Reichstag and the Reichsrat. The rights of the President remain undisturbed.
Artikel 3 Article 3
Die von der Reichsregierung beschlossenen Reichsgesetze werden vom Reichskanzler ausgefertigt und im Reichsgesetzblatt verkündet. Sie treten, soweit sie nichts anderes bestimmen, mit dem auf die Verkündung folgenden Tage in Kraft. Die Artikel 68 bis 77 der Reichsverfassung finden auf die von der Reichsregierung beschlossenen Gesetze keine Anwendung. Laws enacted by the Reich government shall be issued by the Chancellor and announced in the Reich Gazette. They shall take effect on the day following the announcement, unless they prescribe a different date. Articles 68 to 77 of the Constitution do not apply to laws enacted by the Reich government.[3]
Artikel 4 Article 4
Verträge des Reiches mit fremden Staaten, die sich auf Gegenstände der Reichsgesetzgebung beziehen, bedürfen für die Dauer der Geltung dieser Gesetze nicht der Zustimmung der an der Gesetzgebung beteiligten Körperschaften. Die Reichsregierung erläßt die zur Durchführung dieser Verträge erforderlichen Vorschriften. Treaties of the Reich with foreign states which affect matters of Reich legislation shall not require the approval of the bodies of the legislature. The government of the Reich shall issue the regulations required for the execution of such treaties.
Artikel 5 Article 5
Dieses Gesetz tritt mit dem Tage seiner Verkündung in Kraft. Es tritt mit dem 1. April 1937 außer Kraft, es tritt ferner außer Kraft, wenn die gegenwärtige Reichsregierung durch eine andere abgelöst wird. This law takes effect with the day of its proclamation. It loses force on 1 April 1937 or if the present Reich government is replaced by another.

[edit]
Hitler's speech before the passing of the Enabling Act

In his speech before the Reichstag on March 23, 1933, just before the Enabling Act is passed, Adolf Hitler speaks out:

By its decision to carry out the political and moral cleansing of our public life, the Government is creating and securing the conditions for a really deep and inner religious life. The advantages for the individual which may be derived from compromises with atheistic organizations do not compare in any way with the consequences which are visible in the destruction of our common religious and ethical values. The national Government sees in both Christian denominations the most important factor for the maintenance of our society. It will observe the agreements drawn up between the Churches and the provinces; their rights will not be touched. The Government, however, hopes and expects that the task of national and ethical renewal of our people, which it has set itself, will receive the same respect by the other side. The Government will treat all other denominations with objective and impartial justice. It cannot, however, tolerate allowing membership of a certain denomination or of a certain race being used as a release from all common legal obligations, or as a blank cheque for unpunishable behavior, or for the toleration of crimes. [The national Government will allow and confirm to the Christian denominations the enjoyment of their due influence in schools and education.] And it will be concerned for the sincere cooperation between Church and State. The struggle against the materialistic ideology and for the erection of a true people's community (Volksgemeinschaft) serves as much the interests of the German nation as of our Christian faith. ...The national Government, seeing in Christianity the unshakable foundation of the moral and ethical life of our people, attaches utmost importance to the cultivation and maintenance of the friendliest relations with the Holy See. ...The rights of the churches will not be curtailed; their position in relation to the State will not be changed.[4]
[edit]
Background

After being appointed chancellor of Germany on January 30, 1933, Hitler asked President von Hindenburg to dissolve the Reichstag. A general election was scheduled for March 5, 1933.

The burning of the Reichstag six days before the election, depicted by the Nazis as the beginning of a communist revolution, resulted in the Reichstag Fire Decree, which (among other things) suspended civil liberties and habeas corpus rights. Hitler used the decree to have the Communist Party's offices raided and its representatives arrested, effectively eliminating them as a political force.

Although receiving five million more votes than in the previous election, the NSDAP had failed to gain an absolute majority in parliament, depending on the 52 seats won by its coalition partner, the German National People's Party, for a slim majority.

To free himself from this dependency, Hitler had the cabinet, in its first post-election meeting on March 15, draw up plans for an Enabling Act which would give the cabinet legislative power for four years. The Nazis devised the Enabling Act to gain complete political power without the need of the support of a majority in the Reichstag and without the need to bargain with their coalition partners.
[edit]
Preparations and negotiations

The Enabling Act allowed the cabinet to enact legislation, including laws deviating from or altering the constitution, without the consent of the Reichstag. Because this law allowed for departures from the constitution, it was itself considered a constitutional amendment and thus its adoption required a two-thirds majority, with at least two-thirds of deputies attending the session.

The Social Democrats (SPD) and the Communists (KPD) were expected to vote against the Act. The government had already arrested all Communist and some Social Democrat deputies under the Reichstag Fire Decree. The Nazis expected the parties representing the middle class, the Junkers and business interests to vote for the measure, as they had grown weary of the instability of the Weimar Republic and would not dare to resist.

Hitler believed that with the Centre Party members' votes, he would get the necessary two-thirds majority. Hitler negotiated with the Centre Party's chairman, Ludwig Kaas, a Catholic priest, finalizing an agreement by March 22. Kaas agreed to support the Act in exchange for assurances of the Centre Party's continued existence, the protection of Catholics' civil and religious liberties, religious schools and the retention of civil servants affiliated with the Centre Party. It has also been suggested that some members of the SPD were intimidated by the presence of the Nazi SA throughout the proceedings.[5]

Some historians, such as Klaus Scholder, have maintained that Hitler also promised to negotiate a Reichskonkordat with the Holy See, a treaty that formalised the position of the Catholic Church in Germany on a national level. Kaas was a close associate of Cardinal Pacelli, then Vatican Secretary of State (and later Pope Pius XII). Pacelli had been pursuing a German concordat as a key policy for some years but the instability of Weimar governments as well as the enmity of some parties to such a treaty rendered the project moot.[6] The day after the Enabling Act vote, Kaas went to Rome in order to, in his own words, "investigate the possibilities for a comprehensive understanding between church and state".[7] However, so far no evidence for a link between the Enabling Act and the Reichskonkordat signed on July 20, 1933, has surfaced.
[edit]
Passing of the Enabling Act This section does not cite any references or sources.
Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (January 2010)


Debate within the Centre Party continued until the day of the vote, March 23, 1933, with Kaas advocating voting in favour of the act, referring to an upcoming written guarantee from Hitler, while former Chancellor Heinrich Brüning called for a rejection of the Act. The majority sided with Kaas, and Brüning agreed to maintain party discipline by voting for the Act.

Meanwhile, the Social Democrats initially planned to hinder the passage of the Act by boycotting the Reichstag session, rendering that body short of the quorum (two thirds) needed to vote on a constitutional amendment. The Reichstag, however, led by its President, Hermann Göring, changed its rules of procedure, allowing the President to declare that any deputy who was "absent without excuse" was to be considered as present, in order to overcome obstructions. Because of this procedural change, the Social Democrats were obliged to attend the session, and committed to voting against the Act.

Later that day, the Reichstag assembled under intimidating circumstances, with SA men swarming inside and outside the chamber. Hitler's speech, which emphasised the importance of Christianity in German culture, was aimed particularly at appeasing the Centre Party's sensibilities and incorporated Kaas' requested guarantees almost verbatim. Kaas gave a speech, voicing the Centre's support for the bill amid "concerns put aside", while Brüning notably remained silent. Only the Social Democratic chairman Otto Wels spoke against the Act. Kaas had still not received the written constitutional guarantees he had negotiated, but with the assurance it was being "typed up", voting began. Kaas never received the letter.

At this stage, the majority of parties already supported the bill, and any deputies who might have been reluctant to vote in favour were intimidated by the SA troops surrounding the meeting. In the end, all parties except the SPD voted in favour of the Enabling Act. With the Communist delegates removed and 26 SPD deputies arrested or in hiding, the final vote was 441 supporting the Enabling Act to 94 (all Social Democrats) opposed. The Reichstag had adopted the Enabling Act with 83% of the deputies. After the Reichsrat had also given its approval, the Act was signed into law.
[edit]
Consequences

Under the Act, the government had acquired the authority to pass laws without either parliamentary consent or control. Unprecedentedly, these laws could (with certain exceptions) even deviate from the Constitution. The Act effectively eliminated the Reichstag as active players in German politics, though the existence of the body, alongside that of the Reichsrat and of the office of President were protected under the Act. Together with the Reichstag Fire Decree, it transformed Hitler's government into a legal dictatorship.

The Act also effectively removed Presidential oversight, as Hindenburg's representative had stated that the aged president was withdrawing from day-to-day affairs of government and that presidential collaboration on the laws decreed as a result of the Enabling Act would not be required.

During the negotiations between the government and the Centre Party, it was agreed that the government should inform the Reichstag parties of legislative measures passed under the Enabling Act. For this purpose, a working committee was set up, chaired by Hitler and the Centre's chairman Kaas. However, this committee met only three times without any major impact and rapidly became a dead letter.

Though the Act had formally given legislative powers to the government as a whole, these powers were for all intents and purposes exercised by Hitler himself; as Joseph Goebbels wrote shortly after the passage of the Enabling Act:

The authority of the Führer has now been wholly established. Votes are no longer taken. The Führer decides. All this is going much faster than we had dared to hope.[8]

As evidence of this, cabinet meetings were rare after the passage of the Enabling Act, and stopped altogether after 1938.

The passage of the Enabling Act reduced the Reichstag to a mere stage for Hitler's speeches. It only met sporadically until the end of World War II, held no debates and enacted only a few laws. Within three months after the passage of the Enabling Act, all parties except the Nazi Party were banned or pressured into dissolving themselves, followed on July 14 by a law that formally made the Nazi Party the only legally permitted party in the country. With this, Hitler had fulfilled what he had promised in earlier campaign speeches: "I set for myself one aim ... to sweep these thirty parties out of Germany!"

Due to the great care that Hitler took to give his dictatorship an appearance of legality, the Enabling Act was renewed twice, in 1937 and 1941. In 1942, the Reichstag passed a law giving Hitler power of life and death over every citizen, effectively extending the provisions of the Enabling Act for the duration of the war.[9]

Ironically, two of the penultimate measures Hitler took to consolidate his power violated the Enabling Act. In February 1934, the Reichsrat, representing the states, was abolished even though the Enabling Act specifically protected the existence of that chamber.[9] A few months later, Hindenburg died, and Hitler seized the president's powers for himself in accordance with a law passed the previous day. However, the Enabling Act specifically forbade Hitler from tampering with the presidency.[9] By this time, however, Hitler had become law unto himself, and no one dared object.
[edit]
References This article needs additional citations for verification.
Please help improve this article by adding reliable references. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (January 2010)

^ Uwe Brodersen, Gesetze des NS-Staates, p. 22
^ Article 85 outlined the process by which the Reichstag and Reichsrat approved the Reich budget. Article 87 restricted government borrowing.
^ Articles 68 to 77 stipulated the procedures for enacting legislation in the Reichstag.
^ http://atheism.about.com/od/adolfhitlern...Values.htm Adolf Hitler: Compromises with Atheism Destroy Religious, Ethical Values
^ Martin Collier, From Kaiser to Fuhrer: Germany, 1900-45, p131
^ Klaus Scholder "The Churches and the Third Reich" volume 1 pp 160-1
^ Letter from Kaas to von Bergen, German ambassador to the Vatican, translation quoted in Scholder, p. 247
^ http://learnhistory.org.uk/y12/index.php...&tb=1&pb=1
^ a b c William Shirer, The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich (Touchstone Edition) (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1990)

[Peter Lemkin]

21st Century Comparison of The Enabling Act and The Patriot Act
History - US Empire
furnitureforthepeople.com - Last September, German Justice Minister Herta Daeubler-Gmelin pointed out that George Bush is using Iraq to distract the American public from his failed domestic policies. She capped her statement by reminding her audience: "That's a popular method. Even Hitler did that." What was lost in the reactions to Ms. Daeubler-Gmelin's comments was that she wasn't comparing Bush to the Hitler of the late 1930s and early 1940s; but to the Hitler of the late 1920s and early 1930s.

Most Americans have forgotten that Hitler came to power legally. He and the Nazi Party were elected democratically in a time of great national turmoil and crisis. They themselves had done much to cause the turmoil, of course, but that's what makes the Bush comparison so compelling.

Similar to the Bush administration, the Nazis were funded and ultimately ushered into power by wealthy industrialists looking for government favors in the form of tax breaks, big subsidies, and laws to weaken the rights of workers. When the Reichstag (Germany's Parliament building) was set ablaze in 1933 (probably by Nazis), the Nazis framed their political rivals for it. In the general panic that followed, the German Parliament was purged of all left-wing representatives who might be soft on communists and foreigners, and the few who remained then VOTED to grant Chancellor Hitler dictatorial powers. A long, hideous nightmare had begun.

History teaches us that it is shockingly easy to separate reasonable and intelligent people from their rights. A legally elected leader and party can easily manipulate national events to whip up fear, crucify scapegoats, gag dissenters, and convince the masses that their liberties must be suspended (temporarily, of course) in the name of restoring order. Consider the following two statements, and see if you can identify the authors.

Statement Number One: "The people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country."

Statement Number Two: "To those who scare peace-loving people with phantoms of lost liberty, my message is this: Your tactics only aid terrorists, for they erode our national unity and diminish our resolve."

The first statement is a quote from Hitler's right hand man, Hermann Goering, explaining at his war crimes trial how easily he and his fellow Nazis hijacked Germany's democratic government. The second statement is a quote from Bush's right hand man, John Ashcroft, defending the Patriot Act and explaining why dissent will no longer be tolerated in the age of terrorism. If that doesn't send chills down your spine, nothing will.

When the shooting started at Lexington Green in 1775, those calling themselves patriots were the men and women who refused to yield their rights to an increasingly oppressive government. Today, according to John Ashcroft and his Patriot Act of 2001, a patriot is someone who kneels down in fear, and hands over his or her rights to the government in the name of fighting terrorism. Isn't the hypocrisy of this all too obvious? The Bush administration wants us to fight in Afghanistan, to fight in Iraq, and to fight wherever terrorists may be hiding. And what, pray tell, are we fighting for? Well, according to the White House, we're fighting for freedom. Yet freedom is exactly what the White House is demanding that we now SURRENDER in the name of fighting terrorism.

So what's really going on? Well, it's all a lie, of course. The Bush administration isn't any more interested in protecting our freedom from terrorists than Hitler was in protecting Germans from communists, Jews, and all the other groups he scapegoated. The Bush administration is fighting only to protect itself and its corporate sponsors. It hides behind a veil of national security and behind non-stop war headlines of its own creation. And behind that smokescreen, Bush, Inc. is pursuing Hitler's old agenda from the 1920s and 1930s: serving the interests of the corporate industrialists who brought it to power.

There is a name for governments that serve the interests of Big Business at the expense of their own citizens: fascist. Here's a short list of the rights we've already surrendered since the September 11 attacks. Most of these abuses are from a single piece of legislation called the Patriot Act of 2001, which was rushed through Congress with no debate in the aftermath of the attacks. Many of the Congressmen who voted for it later admitted that they hadn't even read it at the time.

[Peter Lemkin]

1) How the Patriot Act Compares to Hitler's Ermächtigungsgesetz (Enabling Act)

On March 23, 1933, the newly elected members of the Reichstag met in the Kroll Opera House in Berlin to consider passing Hitler's "Ermächtigungsgesetz". The "Enabling Act" was officially called the 'Law for Removing the Distress of the People and the Reich.'

Opponents to the bill argued that if it was passed, it would end democracy in Germany and establish a legal dictatorship of Adolf Hitler. To soften resistance to the passing of the Enabling Act, the Nazis secretly caused confusion in order to create an atmosphere in which the law seem necessary to restore order.

On February 27, 1933, Nazis burned the Reichstag building, and a seat of the German government, causing frenzy and outrage. They successfully blamed the fire on the Communists, and claimed it marked the beginning of a widespread terrorism and unrest threatening the safety of the German "Homeland." On the day of the vote, Nazi storm troopers gathered around the opera house chanting, "Full powers - or else! We want the bill - or fire and murder!"

The Nazis used the opportunity to arrest 4,000 communists. Not only did the Nazis use the incident as a propaganda against communists but they also arrested additional 40,000 members of the opposition. Consequently, the Nazis had achieved their objective of eliminating democracy and ensuring their majority in the parliament.

After the fire on February 28, 1933, president Hindenburg and Hitler invoked Article 48 of the Weimar Constitution, which permitted the suspension of civil liberties during national emergencies. Some examples of this Decree of the Reich President for the Protection of the People and State abrogated the following constitutional protections: Freedom of the press, free expression of opinion, individual property rights, right of assembly and association, right to privacy of postal and electronic communications, states´ rights of self-government, and protection against unlawful searches and seizures.

Before the vote, Hitler made a speech to the Reichstag in which he pledged to use restraint. He also promised to end unemployment and promote multilateral peace with France, Great Britain and the Soviet Union.

In order to accomplish all this, Hitler said, he first needed the Enabling Act. Since this act would alter the German constitution, a two-thirds majority was necessary. Hitler needed 31 non-Nazi votes to pass it. The Center Party provided these votes after Hitler made a false promise to them. Four hundred and forty votes were registered for the Enabling Act, while a mere 84 votes were opposed â€" the social Democrats. In glory the Nazi Party stood to their feet and sang the Nazi anthem, the Hörst Wessel song. The German Democratic party had finally been eliminated, and Hitler’s dream for Nazi command became closer to reality.

The Enabling Act granted Hitler the power he craved and could use without objection from the Reichstag. Shortly after the passing of The Enabling Act all other political parties were dissolved. Trade unions were liquidated and opposition clergy were arrested. The Nazi party had, as Hitler said, become the state. By August 1934, Hitler became commander-in-chief of the armed forces. This was in addition to being President and Führer of the German Reich, to whom every individual in the armed forces pledged unconditional obedience. The Reichstag was no longer a place for debate, but rather a cheering squad in favor of whatever Hitler might say.

2) A 21st Century Comparison of The Enabling Act and The Patriot Act

Last September, German Justice Minister Herta Daeubler-Gmelin pointed out that George Bush is using Iraq to distract the American public from his failed domestic policies. She capped her statement by reminding her audience: "That's a popular method. Even Hitler did that." What was lost in the reactions to Ms. Daeubler-Gmelin's comments was that she wasn't comparing Bush to the Hitler of the late 1930s and early 1940s; but to the Hitler of the late 1920s and early 1930s.

Most Americans have forgotten that Hitler came to power legally. He and the Nazi Party were elected democratically in a time of great national turmoil and crisis. They themselves had done much to cause the turmoil, of course, but that's what makes the Bush comparison so compelling.

Similar to the Bush administration, the Nazis were funded and ultimately ushered into power by wealthy industrialists looking for government favors in the form of tax breaks, big subsidies, and laws to weaken the rights of workers. When the Reichstag (Germany's Parliament building) was set ablaze in 1933 (probably by Nazis), the Nazis framed their political rivals for it. In the general panic that followed, the German Parliament was purged of all left-wing representatives who might be soft on communists and foreigners, and the few who remained then VOTED to grant Chancellor Hitler dictatorial powers. A long, hideous nightmare had begun.

History teaches us that it is shockingly easy to separate reasonable and intelligent people from their rights. A legally elected leader and party can easily manipulate national events to whip up fear, crucify scapegoats, gag dissenters, and convince the masses that their liberties must be suspended (temporarily, of course) in the name of restoring order. Consider the following two statements, and see if you can identify the authors.

Statement Number One: "The people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country."

Statement Number Two: "To those who scare peace-loving people with phantoms of lost liberty, my message is this: Your tactics only aid terrorists, for they erode our national unity and diminish our resolve."

The first statement is a quote from Hitler's right hand man, Hermann Goering, explaining at his war crimes trial how easily he and his fellow Nazis hijacked Germany's democratic government. The second statement is a quote from Bush's right hand man, John Ashcroft, defending the Patriot Act and explaining why dissent will no longer be tolerated in the age of terrorism. If that doesn't send chills down your spine, nothing will.

When the shooting started at Lexington Green in 1775, those calling themselves patriots were the men and women who refused to yield their rights to an increasingly oppressive government. Today, according to John Ashcroft and his Patriot Act of 2001, a patriot is someone who kneels down in fear, and hands over his or her rights to the government in the name of fighting terrorism. Isn't the hypocrisy of this all too obvious? The Bush administration wants us to fight in Afghanistan, to fight in Iraq, and to fight wherever terrorists may be hiding. And what, pray tell, are we fighting for? Well, according to the White House, we're fighting for freedom. Yet freedom is exactly what the White House is demanding that we now SURRENDER in the name of fighting terrorism.

So what's really going on? Well, it's all a lie, of course. The Bush administration isn't any more interested in protecting our freedom from terrorists than Hitler was in protecting Germans from communists, Jews, and all the other groups he scapegoated. The Bush administration is fighting only to protect itself and its corporate sponsors. It hides behind a veil of national security and behind non-stop war headlines of its own creation. And behind that smokescreen, Bush, Inc. is pursuing Hitler’s old agenda from the 1920s and 1930s: serving the interests of the corporate industrialists who brought it to power.

There is a name for governments that serve the interests of Big Business at the expense of their own citizens: fascist. Here's a short list of the rights we've already surrendered since the September 11 attacks. Most of these abuses are from a single piece of legislation called the Patriot Act of 2001, which was rushed through Congress with no debate in the aftermath of the attacks. Many of the Congressmen who voted for it later admitted that they hadn't even read it at the time.