Supreme Court backs Guantanamo detainees

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
83,717
47,406
136
Originally posted by: Butterbean

Thanks for the secretarial tips. In the larger pic this is not a bad thing because when Justices say this sort of weepy judicial activism will get people killed its just another wooden stake that can be driven throw Count Barackulas heart. He and lawrence Tribe have real problems now.

Yeah, things have been so bad for him that he's opened up a 6-7 point lead over McCain. (larger then any lead Bush ever had over Kerry) How dare the librulz in the supreme court try and find out if people are actually guilty before locking them up for the rest of their lives!? Damn that liberal constitution!
 

DealMonkey

Lifer
Nov 25, 2001
13,136
1
0
Originally posted by: Butterbean
Thanks for the secretarial tips. In the larger pic this is not a bad thing because when Justices say this sort of weepy judicial activism will get people killed its just another wooden stake that can be driven throw Count Barackulas heart. He and lawrence Tribe have real problems now.
Are you drunk and/or on drugs when you post this drivel?
 

palehorse

Lifer
Dec 21, 2005
11,521
0
76
Originally posted by: Jhhnn
From Palehorse-

The conundrum we face is that, like POW's released prior to the end of hostilities, enemy combatants who are released, at any point, will return to the battlefields to continue fighting against us.

You and socio both assume facts not in evidence- that those detained actually were, at any point, enemy combatants. You presume guilt based on whatever the Govt tells us, and cite the few examples of released detainees returning to the fight, despite the fact that hundreds have been released w/o any subsequent terrarist! activities on their part...

...blah blah...

Whoa there son, I never said that I approve of the current situation, or our current processes... I merely described the conundrum we face, and I also touched on the differences between detainee and POW status'.

So relax your quick-draw stereotyping please.

kkthx
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,681
136
Well, excuse me all to hell, Palehorse. Per the Bush Admin, detainees are "unlawful enemy combatants" by definition. None have ever been convicted of anything, and those released have been deemed to "no longer be a threat", which carries the implicit meaning that they all were some kind of threat at some point, right?

If you don't want to be taken as one of the faithful, then you shouldn't repeat their propaganda verbatim.

You'd serve yourself better to touch on the differences between detainees alleged to be unlawful enemy combatants vs actual enemy combatants, the latter apparently being a rather small % of the former... and the dilemma you describe is the same one faced wrt the war on drugs or the war on crime, the same dilemma that the constitutional convention wrestled with over 200 years ago. They understood terrorism even then, they just didn't have that particular term to describe much of what happened during the French and Indian War, or the Revolutionary War, for that matter...
 

palehorse

Lifer
Dec 21, 2005
11,521
0
76
Originally posted by: Jhhnn
If you don't want to be taken as one of the faithful, then you shouldn't repeat their propaganda verbatim.
Please indicate anywhere I have repeated any propaganda verbatim. Quotes will be helpful.
 

ProfJohn

Lifer
Jul 28, 2006
18,251
8
0
Do you think we go back to secret CIA prisons and the likes?

Will be interesting to see how this plays out. We will won't know the full impact until someone goes 100% through the process and either goes to jail or is set free due to legal reasons.
 

wirelessenabled

Platinum Member
Feb 5, 2001
2,190
41
91
Just went and donated more to the ACLU.

Trying to save my country from the totalitarian wackos like Cheney/Bush and Scalia. Not to mention Chief Justice John Roberts who seems unable to separate himself from Cheney's ideas on right and wrong.

How can anyone construe the Constitution as saying that defendants have no rights to confront their accusers, and see the evidence against them.

Sure go ahead and put all the defendants in a multitude of different boxes and say that different rules apply to each box. Scalia would applaud that methodology.

I say BS! If you have evidence then present it to a jury and let them decide whether it merits punishment. The notion that the Executive Branch has all the wisdom and knowledge in our culture is just wrong.

 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
83,717
47,406
136
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Do you think we go back to secret CIA prisons and the likes?

Will be interesting to see how this plays out. We will won't know the full impact until someone goes 100% through the process and either goes to jail or is set free due to legal reasons.

Bush will find some way to get around this again. He has made it pretty clear that he doesn't care what the courts think. I imagine if he were somehow able to have a third term as president the USSC would eventually get mad enough at him that it would simply slap him down for good and give him a concrete order he couldn't ignore, but he'll be gone shortly.

His successor will probably just quietly undo whatever atrocious shit Bush is going to do in the next 7 months or so. I feel like a big problem Obama will have in the beginning of his presidency is that he will be uncovering reams of insanely stupid/terrible shit that Bush has been doing, and it will be a problem for him to air it all out without being accused of embarking on a partisan witch hunt.
 

BeauJangles

Lifer
Aug 26, 2001
13,941
1
0
Originally posted by: Socio
Originally posted by: BlinderBomber
Originally posted by: Lemon law

I can understand that we have a thorny problem here, but there is something horribly wrong with simply imprisoning someone without an iota of evidence saying they are guilty of something.

There's also something wrong with the fact that the military wants to keep these people 'detained' forever.

Perhaps to keep them from committing terrorist activities, killing our soldiers and civilians;

Ex-Guantánamo detainee became suicide bomber in Iraq

A former Kuwaiti detainee at the U.S. prison camp at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, was one of the bombers in a string of deadly suicide attacks in the northern Iraqi city of Mosul last month, the U.S. military said.

Commander Scott Rye, a spokesman for the U.S. military, identified one of the Mosul bombers on Wednesday as Abdullah Salim Ali al-Ajmi, a Kuwaiti man who was originally detained in Afghanistan and spent three years at Guantánamo Bay before being released in 2005. "Al-Ajmi had returned to Kuwait following his release from Guantánamo Bay and traveled to Iraq via Syria," Rye said, adding that the man's family had confirmed his death.

Ajmi is one of several former Guantánamo detainees believed to have carried out violence, said another U.S. military spokesman, Commander Jeffrey Gordon. "Some have subsequently been killed in combat and participated in suicide bomber attacks," he said.


It is beyond me why so many left wing pacifists want to put their arm around these detainees and invite them in to their house to have dinner their family when most if not all of them would just as soon kill you as look at you.

These detainees are not friends, not poor helpless souls that need saving, not by any stretch and the ONLY rights they deserve are the ones they would give us, period!


Quit your idiotic blathering about "pacifism", "friends", and the threat that these people would just as soon kill me as look at me. Did you consult a neo-conservative handboook before typing that post? Most of what you pass as your opinion is nothing but the fearmongering you've listened to for seven years.

Wake up! Of course people detained are going to be unhappy with the US, particularly when they are held indefinitely, with no trial, with no idea of what they're being charged with. I'm sure plenty of those being held are probably there for a good reason - but what about the ones who aren't? Why do we have a right to pluck them off the street, ship them halfway around the world, and hold them for as long as we feel like? How would you feel if the situation was reversed? I bet that the minute you got released, you'd also go out and attack the nearest symbol of your captors.

If the detainees are being held for real reasons, it shouldn't be hard for the military to put together a case. If they are not, then these people should be released. We cannot imprison the entire ME based on the belief that some of them might harm us.

Nobody wants to hold them by their hands, sing a song, hug, and be friends. by imprisoning so many people, and by doing so in such an opaque way I think we are destroying what little credibility or respect we might have the in Arab world and, while you might not think that's important, I do. I think it's in our best interest to act in a manner befitting our self-proclaimed democratic principles. I think it's in our best interests to actively work to change negative opinions of the US abroad.
 

extra

Golden Member
Dec 18, 1999
1,947
7
81
If I learned anything from this thread, it is that BMW540I6speed is extremely smart and makes great posts. Why isn't this guy a mod? Best posts I've read in months probably. Sound and well reasoned and grounded. Props to you.
 

rudder

Lifer
Nov 9, 2000
19,441
85
91
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Waiting for the requisite, "Damn activist judges!" Wait for it ... wait for it ...

On a side-note, I wonder how long the Bush Administration will continue to operate in clearly illegal territory with their handling of Gitmo detainees? I know they believe themselves to be above the law, but when the SCOTUS rules against you, you know you're f'd.

Damn those activist judges! All the detainees will now have to be released. I mean, none of the soldier probably read any of them their miranda rights. In addition any evidence must be thrown out since there was no warrant. We better ground all the drones. From now on all U.S. soldiers are to announce themselves before engaging with any foreign combatants.

If terrorists are captured on the battlefield, and are outside the workings of the geneva convention, should the whole constitution now apply to them? Because it is now within their constitutional right to have a day in public court. Better get those public defenders lined up.
 

Grunt03

Diamond Member
Jun 24, 2000
3,131
0
0
enemy combatants receive more rights, well shit why do I even need to be here in Iraq then?
 

Tab

Lifer
Sep 15, 2002
12,145
0
71
Originally posted by: extra
If I learned anything from this thread, it is that BMW540I6speed is extremely smart and makes great posts. Why isn't this guy a mod? Best posts I've read in months probably. Sound and well reasoned and grounded. Props to you.

He and several other memebers should seriously consider starting blogs. I'd bet they'd even make a buck or two with a few ads.
 

Taejin

Moderator<br>Love & Relationships
Aug 29, 2004
3,271
0
0
Originally posted by: palehorse
Originally posted by: loki8481
Originally posted by: palehorse
Originally posted by: jonks
Originally posted by: Genx87
I havent been following this too much. But does the court outlaw military tribunals? What I fear from this decision is any future conflict will flood our courts with POWs. Or does this only apply to people labeled as enemy combatants?

IIRC, POWs don't get to challenge their detention b/c they are to be held and released "at the end of hostilities." You don't capture enemy soldiers and then release them prior to the end of a war so they can jump back onto the battlefield.

The problem with "enemy combatants" in the current WoT context is that there is no measure to define 'ongoing hostilities' resulting in essentially a permanent detainment.

I don't think anyone has to worry about some flood of POW's petitioning for hearings because POWs don't get hearings, since they automatically get set free at the end of a war. Enemy Combatant's must get some form of hearing else they will sit forever in a cell, since there is no triggerable end date at which they will be sent home.
The conundrum we face is that, like POW's released prior to the end of hostilities, enemy combatants who are released, at any point, will return to the battlefields to continue fighting against us.

So what then? How can we prevent them from returning to the fight AND eliminate their indefinite confinement, which I agree is unjust and inhumane?

couldn't we just classify them as POW's (though then they'd be subject to the geneva conventions, which GWB & co seem to hate)
The Geneva convention is still applied to the treatment of enemy combatants -- just less so. That said, they cannot be given true "POW Status" because they do not represent any nation-state that we have a declared war with, or by the definition of such in the GC's themselves. Also, even as POW's, since they do not represent any specific nation-state, how will we determine when "hostilities are ended"?

They are more criminal than POW, but the evidence used to detain and prosecute them is too highly classified and "loose" for normal trials and systems. That said, they're also much too dangerous to simply let go after X number of years.

So, once again, we're right back where we started... now what?

lol..did palehorse just say that you can somewhat apply the Geneva Conventions to someone?

=P
 

BMW540I6speed

Golden Member
Aug 26, 2005
1,055
0
0
Originally posted by: Mursilis
Originally posted by: BMW540I6speed
Congress has not declared "War" on any country (could Congress declare "War" on a religion? or "War" on an individual?). Without a congressionally declared war, Scalia should zip it rather than tell us - in his official capacity as a Supreme Court Justice who is supposedly sworn to defend our Constitution - that the United States Constitution can be disregarded because these are dangerous times.

To me, Congress's half-baked "authorization of the use of force" is a war declaration. Sure, legally, maybe it's not, but Congress has to stop with these pseudo-declarations which result in these legal ambiguities. This same thing happened in Vietnam and Korea; on neither occasion did Congress 'declare war', but plenty of U.S. service members died nonetheless. Congress really abdicates its Constitutional responsibility by doing anything other than declaring war in situations where large-scale military operations are involved.

I see your premise, and can relate. And agree to a extent.

As a lawyer, I & many of my colleagues are tired of this administration breaking the law useing the thinly veiled "War on Terror" meme. Does Bush/Cheney/Scalia honestly not remember the other "extraordinary" existential threats to our country that occurred in their lifetime? Has he forgotten the height of the Cold War and the thousands of nukes aimed at us and an apparent readiness on both sides to enter into that madness? Does he not remember the massive firepower of the Axis forces in World War II?.

My associates & I have been disccussing this ruling...

One could ask the question: If they weren't held at Guantanamo, but instead were held on a military base in Baghdad or in Afghanistan, there'd be no question - habeas petitions would not be entertained?.

Presumably the Geneva Convention would be applied in full, however, and the status of POW would be afforded to detainees, instead of this legal fantasy limba narnia-land we now employ by calling them "enemy combatants".

As far as I know, detainees, if held in Afghanistan or Baghdad, would not have a right to habeas corpus, because neither is under U.S. jurisdiction. but the bush administration would then be confronted with the inconvenient right of those detainees to be visited by the International Red Cross and other international rights organizations that, under international law, are charged with monitoring the conditions in which detainees are maintained. The bush administration, of course, did not want that, and so they transferred the detainees to a jurisdiction - Guantanamo - where they could argue that the international organizations could be denied access. Actually, they're not "held abroad". The U.S. has, by treaty "complete jurisdiction" over Guantanamo.

Unfortunately, the degree of U.S. jurisdiction necessary to permit an argument that we could deny access to international organizations is also a degree of jurisdiction that requires the application to detainees of habeas corpus rights.

One could ask the question: Has there ever been a time in our history where habeas was afforded to alien combatants, captured by our military and held abroad?

Well, has there ever been a time in our history (prior to gitmo) where alien combatants, captured by our military were not held as POWs?.As has been pointed out before, one problem with the whole "enemy combatant" thing is that no such animal ever existed before.

One could ask the question: What great difficulty would be caused by treating the Gitmo detainees in accordance with the Geneva Convention?

If they are treated in accordance with the Geneva Conventions, then they are prisoners of war. If they are prisoners of war now, they have always been prisoners of war. If they have always been prisoners of war then the US treatment of them amounts to war crimes. The Geneva Conventions levy on the signatories the right, nay, the duty, to seek out perpetrators of war crimes and even to try them in their own courts if necessary.

This why the Military Commissions Act of 2006 tried to statutorily deny the detainees any relief under Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions and also to grant "federal employees" immunity from prosecution under federal war crimes and torture statutes.

We'll see if this ruling is detrimental or not.

The ruling is the first time in US history that the Court has ruled that detainees held by the U.S. government in a place where the US. does not exercise formal sovereignty (Cuba technically is sovereign over Guantanamo) are nevertheless entitled to the Constitutional guarantees of habeas corpus wherever they are held in a place where the U.S. exercises effective control.

To me, and many of my colleagues, The US should remain on the offensive to protect the American people. It should continue to bring the world?s most dangerous terrorists to justice, and it should do so in the context of the rule of law. One of the most enduring features of the American system is the fact that the US is a government of laws and not of men. The Constitution reflects a position that the government should not act arbitrarily or capriciously, and that we want governmental authority to remain subordinate to the rule of law.

Arrest and detention without charge truly offends the Constitution and should rarely be permitted. seizing citizens of foreign nations and placing them beyond the reach of law is antithetical to the principles of justice so dearly held as core values of the American society.
 

feralkid

Lifer
Jan 28, 2002
16,399
4,457
136
Originally posted by: Grunt03
enemy combatants receive more rights, well shit why do I even need to be here in Iraq then?

To support and defend the Constitution of the United States?
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
83,717
47,406
136
Originally posted by: feralkid
Originally posted by: Grunt03
enemy combatants receive more rights, well shit why do I even need to be here in Iraq then?

To support and defend the Constitution of the United States?

That was a pretty good burn... haha.
 

Ryan

Lifer
Oct 31, 2000
27,519
2
81
I don't buy the whole "they're not Americans, they don't get our rights" argument - why should they not? As far as I'm concerned, any action taken by the US government should follow the rules of the constitution, so why should the writ of Habeas Corpus be suspended when it's convenient for them? This is our rule of law, and I think we need to be fair and consistent with it application, regardless of those being tried.
 

yuppiejr

Golden Member
Jul 31, 2002
1,318
0
0
Originally posted by: BMW540I6speed
Originally posted by: palehorse
Originally posted by: loki8481
Originally posted by: palehorse
Originally posted by: jonks
Originally posted by: Genx87
I havent been following this too much. But does the court outlaw military tribunals? What I fear from this decision is any future conflict will flood our courts with POWs. Or does this only apply to people labeled as enemy combatants?

IIRC, POWs don't get to challenge their detention b/c they are to be held and released "at the end of hostilities." You don't capture enemy soldiers and then release them prior to the end of a war so they can jump back onto the battlefield.

The problem with "enemy combatants" in the current WoT context is that there is no measure to define 'ongoing hostilities' resulting in essentially a permanent detainment.

I don't think anyone has to worry about some flood of POW's petitioning for hearings because POWs don't get hearings, since they automatically get set free at the end of a war. Enemy Combatant's must get some form of hearing else they will sit forever in a cell, since there is no triggerable end date at which they will be sent home.
The conundrum we face is that, like POW's released prior to the end of hostilities, enemy combatants who are released, at any point, will return to the battlefields to continue fighting against us.

So what then? How can we prevent them from returning to the fight AND eliminate their indefinite confinement, which I agree is unjust and inhumane?

couldn't we just classify them as POW's (though then they'd be subject to the geneva conventions, which GWB & co seem to hate)
The Geneva convention is still applied to the treatment of enemy combatants -- just less so. That said, they cannot be given true "POW Status" because they do not represent any nation-state that we have a declared war with, or by the definition of such in the GC's themselves. Also, even as POW's, since they do not represent any specific nation-state, how will we determine when "hostilities are ended"?

They are more criminal than POW, but the evidence used to detain and prosecute them is too highly classified and "loose" for normal trials and systems. That said, they're also much too dangerous to simply let go after X number of years.

So, once again, we're right back where we started... now what?

Depends rather a lot on your definition of what constitutes "an act of war". Certainly setting off bombs in an 'enemy's' home territory or assassinating public figures or private citizens is an act of aggression; but are you "at war" with the bombers if they serve only themselves and/or belong to a non-state entity or network? Who are you "at war" with?

This is yet another example of applying wartime rationale to the "War on Terror," a fallacy which should have been vigorously challenged from the beginning. The phrase "War on Terror" is a contradiction on its face, as you cannot declare war on a feeling or, in the case of "Terrorism," a tactic or strategy.

Even with today's decision affirming habeas corpus as a right that even the Bush Administration and its allies in Congress cannot abolish, this administration and succeeding ones can continue to claim the U.S. is in a perpetual state of war on "terror" unless Congress affirmatively acts to protect the Constitution and our fundamental liberties.

Because our Nation?s past military conflicts have been of limited duration, it has been possible to leave the outer boundaries of war powers undefined.

The next Congress and President should promptly enact a law to clarify the legal nature of our fight against the use of mass terror tactics. That law should clarify that our intelligence and, when necessary, military commitments to avoid and punish the use of terror attacks against Americans - and all civilized people - consists of the pursuit of international criminals outside the protection of any state.

This is not a war but is the same as efforts to obtain protection from and justice against terrorists ranging from the Barbary pirates to the Baader-Meinhof gang. If any state, like Afghanistan before 9/11 or arguably Pakistan currently, sponsors or assists groups planning or using mass terror, the traditional notion of war against that specific state may be appropriate.

What we should have learned from this reckless administration is that the 1984-like use of perpetual war is as much a risk from a radical right-wing government, manipulating a panicked and accommodationist Congress, as from any radical left-wing one. And we might ask ourselves why the lesson of Germany from 1933 to 1945 wasn't sufficiently instructive.

Germany in 1933 to 1945 was a radically left wing government... Smoking bans, gun confiscations, modern liberal utopia! Hitler, like many here, was a big fan of attacking business and the private property rights of citizens as Fuher (leader) of the "National Socialist German Workers' Party" (the Nazi party).

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/704277/posts

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_Nazi_Party

.. you might want to pick another example to support your leftist slant next time, unless you're ok with admitting that modern socialist liberalism has much in common with the period and place in history you cited?
 

yuppiejr

Golden Member
Jul 31, 2002
1,318
0
0
Originally posted by: Ryan
I don't buy the whole "they're not Americans, they don't get our rights" argument - why should they not? As far as I'm concerned, any action taken by the US government should follow the rules of the constitution, so why should the writ of Habeas Corpus be suspended when it's convenient for them? This is our rule of law, and I think we need to be fair and consistent with it application, regardless of those being tried.

... because they are NOT American citizens, nor identifiable members of a standing army that adheres to the Geneva Convention. These are known terrorists that have directly or indirectly been involved in killing US citizens or attacking our interests internationally. We are at war with these people as authorized by congress. I consider the Guantanamo detention a waste of my tax dollars, it's not like they have cozy camps set up to keep any US soldiers they capture safe and warm... The best a US soldier can hope for in the hands of one of these animals is mutilation and torture, perhaps followed by having their booby trapped body dumped in the desert.
 

OrByte

Diamond Member
Jul 21, 2000
9,302
144
106
Originally posted by: yuppiejr
Originally posted by: Ryan
I don't buy the whole "they're not Americans, they don't get our rights" argument - why should they not? As far as I'm concerned, any action taken by the US government should follow the rules of the constitution, so why should the writ of Habeas Corpus be suspended when it's convenient for them? This is our rule of law, and I think we need to be fair and consistent with it application, regardless of those being tried.

... because they are NOT American citizens, nor identifiable members of a standing army that adheres to the Geneva Convention. These are known terrorists that have directly or indirectly been involved in killing US citizens or attacking our interests internationally. We are at war with these people as authorized by congress. I consider the Guantanamo detention a waste of my tax dollars, it's not like they have cozy camps set up to keep any US soldiers they capture safe and warm... The best a US soldier can hope for in the hands of one of these animals is mutilation and torture, perhaps followed by having their booby trapped body dumped in the desert.

its not enough just to say we are at war and they are our enemies. This is a "war" with no known enemy state, it might as well be a crusade against terror.

The rest of your comments are just emotional tag lines. I expect real smart people within our judicial and administrative systems to work something out and get this whole issue out the the "grey area" that our government is all too fond of working in.

doubt it will happen though.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
83,717
47,406
136
Originally posted by: yuppiejr

... because they are NOT American citizens, nor identifiable members of a standing army that adheres to the Geneva Convention. These are known terrorists that have directly or indirectly been involved in killing US citizens or attacking our interests internationally. We are at war with these people as authorized by congress. I consider the Guantanamo detention a waste of my tax dollars, it's not like they have cozy camps set up to keep any US soldiers they capture safe and warm... The best a US soldier can hope for in the hands of one of these animals is mutilation and torture, perhaps followed by having their booby trapped body dumped in the desert.

So you're arguing against giving them the right to challenge their status as illegal terrorist enemy combatants based upon the idea that you already know that they're illegal terrorist enemy combatants.

Nice creepy proto-fascist rhetoric there. I like your frothing, rabid description of them as subhuman as well. I'm sure it makes your opinion that I commented on before easier to stomach.
 

Thump553

Lifer
Jun 2, 2000
12,651
2,395
126
The right the Supreme Court recognized is habeus corpus, THE bedrock principle of Ango-American jurispurdence since before Columbus was even a glint in his father's eye.

I don't have a problem with this decision-with a little INTELLIGENT rule drafting we could easily live with this and still have solid anti-terrorist protection.

Personally, I'm very glad of this decision. For the third time an extremely conservative Supreme Court has pushed back against GWB's efforts to change the American presidency into an unrestricted emporer. It's about time someone had this sort of backbone. Too bad they didn't way back in that 5-4 decision back in 2000-one that will rank with Dred Scott as one of the worst US Supreme Court decisions ever.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
83,717
47,406
136
Originally posted by: yuppiejr

Germany in 1933 to 1945 was a radically left wing government... Smoking bans, gun confiscations, modern liberal utopia! Hitler, like many here, was a big fan of attacking business and the private property rights of citizens as Fuher (leader) of the "National Socialist German Workers' Party" (the Nazi party).

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/704277/posts

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_Nazi_Party

.. you might want to pick another example to support your leftist slant next time, unless you're ok with admitting that modern socialist liberalism has much in common with the period and place in history you cited?

Look, just because you read Jonah Goldberg's hilariously awful book doesn't mean much. The "socialism" in the NSDAP was a rhetorical device and had way more to do with nationalism then it did with socialism. Here's a good hint towards how socialist Hitler was: he threw socialists and communists in concentration camps or killed them.

A large part of the justification of his invasion of Russia was based upon fear of leftist domination of the world. The mistake you're making is somehow that subjugation to state power is somehow a phenomenon of the left.

Of course, you actually attempted to link to Freep as a source for your arguments. This says everything we need to know.