In an earlier post I looked at Dr. Laurence Britt's list of "fourteen common threads that link [fascists] in recognizable patterns of national behavior and abuse of power." Fascism Anyone? It's easy enough to label Dr. Britt a member of the hate America first crowd and move on; still easier to write off his effort as simply anti-Bush, anti-Republican, or even anti-American. But such a vicious (though loftily rendered) charge deserves a serious look; we can decide later if that charge merits consideration, empathy for the good Dr.'s limitations, or scorn. In his first of 14 tell-tale signs (leading to an "absolutely striking convergence of [fascist] modus operandi") Dr. Britt begins to demonstrate his fuzzy thinking (or political intent) by noting that flag-waving, bunting, lapel pins, patriotic fervor, slogans, pride in the military, and demands for unity were common to his list of all-star fascist regimes. This obviously is not Dr. Britt's best shot (see my comments), so on to point two."2. Disdain for the importance of human rights. The regimes themselves viewed human rights as of little value and a hindrance to realizing the objectives of the ruling elite. Through clever use of propaganda, the population was brought to accept these human rights abuses by marginalizing, even demonizing [sic], those being targeted. When abuse was egregious, the tactic was to use secrecy, denial, and disinformation."

Britt tells us "fascism’s principles are wafting in the air today, surreptitiously masquerading as something else, challenging everything we stand for."

It is up to the rest of us, apparently, to make the connection to Abu Ghraib or Guantanamo, where human rights violations are said to abound. Truly, people of good conscience, unflappable patriotism, and high intelligence can argue justifiably that treatment like that depicted here, or discussed here, is unacceptable under any circumstances. So too do most of us find that perpetrations such as this, this and most of these seem surpassingly worse.

For purposes of this discussion, let's agree that inmates at Abu Ghraib have been abused. Let's even accept the premise that "these detentions have had enormous consequences: for the imprisoned civilian Iraqis, many of whom had nothing to do with the growing insurgency; for the integrity of the Army; and for the United States’ reputation in the world," as stated here. And let's additionally accept the claim that the intelligence gathered as a result of those abuses were worthless. The question remains, would those who criticize these efforts rather see us defend against terrorism by treating our known and suspected enemies—who have bombed, beheaded, raped and threatened the entire non-Muslim world—with a gentility that would only prove our weakness in their eyes and embolden them to do more?

I suspect that those who would defer from such "human rights abuse" would be among the first to fail and the very first to suffer at the hands of the terrorists they seek to protect. In the next tier would be those who know damn well we are fighting for our lives but have chosen to attack our efforts at self-defense and label our president fascist in order to further their political aims.

Added 8/24/2006 3:45PM: Do we even want to consider how Dr. Britt's criterion—disdain for the importance of human rights—applies to our enemy? [Note: "enemy" is their word not mine.]