It looks like Johnson exaggerated a bit. He probably included legitimate American territories and protectorates to inflate the count.

http://www.globalpolicy.org/empire/intervention/2005/basestructurereport.pdf

Only 13 new "bases" in 7 countries since 9/11 2001 but I'm not going to track down size. I imagine they are larger than most Johnson considered in his total. I'm not defending the policy. I'm just saying Johnson has a problem with numbers and definitions.

What we can do--only YOU can answer that question...

portly--You reminded me of a dream I just had...

I was stopped at a toll-booth...why? Probation.

I was hindered from further travel up North. All

the goods were taken and I was frisked. Serious.

The hand on a frit, I swear, the

tangerines, apples, honey, eggs, greens, and jars

of jam were confiscated! Ya's can't make this up!

Then I woke up. portly, you are darntootin' right.

Even more crucial, considering the sleazy actions of the Bush regime that have been exposed to date, isn't it highly probable to the point of certitude that these powers are being abused?

Excuse me. Sleazy is selling the Lincoln Bedroom, squashing the Barret Report, and insinuating one's opponent in the primaries sold drugs on the street corner. Bush has made mistakes, but they were on behalf of the country not himself. Moreover, your allegation is only that, an allegation. You've been listening too hard to the hysteria.

For defending the indefensible: Always Blame Clinton(s).

Would you prefer a President that makes mistakes to enhance himself rather than the country? Chavez for instance? Conflating a sincere desire to protect the country with self-aggrandizement is pretty low, and equally revealing of how one thinks.

By the way, how about my question as to the status of people that call into a legal wiretap? This should be in your baliwick.

This is on the "Inside the CIA's notorious Black Sites" letters thread contributed by Mark Johnson.

And that is the whole point, isn't it? "You're next."

Not "you could be." You are.

That's what a surveillance and torture state is all about. It doesn't mean that the Stasi necessarily breaks down your door in the middle of the night and drags you away to nameless (not to mention lawless) "detention." But they are most definitely doing it to someone, somewhere. Right now. And you're next.

This is a classic case of how autocratic and totalitarian states maintain power, no matter the presence or the absence of opposition, and it is one reason our autocratic (not yet totalitarian) state maintains its power in the face of "overwhelming" opposition.

"You're next."

We don't talk about the domestic disappeared, and in a nation of 300 million, a few tens or hundreds or thousands (who knows?) going missing are hardly noticed. Who would know whether there even are Domestic Disappeared? But we do get hints from time to time of a so-called Justice (ha) Department engaging in prosecutions for political and thought crimes, an example being the Qwest Naccio prosecution -- that has ironically revealed so much about the extent of domestic surveillance and the intricate ties between Government and Corporate states that make it possible.

The groundwork for this was laid long ago, and many of its components were in place, ready to be activated by the Cheney Cabal once they seized power. And almost immediately, it seems, that's what they did.

While we find out something about the extent of this criminal lawlessness at the very top, we might reflect on the fact that though the Stasi was effective, it was very highly overrated. They didn't keep up with everybody. They couldn't. But then, they didn't have to to maintain their power of coercion. And in the end, at least part of the Stasi turned on the State.

The questions: Can a modern Imperial State function without an autocratic executive? And can that autocracy function without a massive surveillance apparatus focused on domestic opposition and potential opposition?

I think the answer is "No" to both questions. Which has enormous implications for the future.

"Get used to it. You're next."

Having spent several years living in India in the seventies and eighties, and having spoken to many Indians about the colonial experience, I would have to say, to a person, they would completely disagree with your statement...

I never said it was pretty. I said they did it well.

Chavez is more popular than Reagan. Even more popular than Clinton. Chavez enjoys more popular support in Venezuela than FDR did in America. But that's the problem with Chavez, isn't it? He's popular with the people who vote.

I have been a Democrat for 82 years but next year when I vote I will not vote for one democrat and you can thank H Reid for it.

If the democrats due not stand up to this President then they are just the same.

It is a mistake to argue, if that is what is happening, that there's a conflict between arguments based on local resistance and arguments based the cost of the enterprise to suggest the fall of British colonialism.

Local resistance drove up the cost of the enterprise in the colonies; and local dissatisfaction with the publicly-borne cost of the Empire at home in the UK also drove up the 'cost'.

If in today's world we misplace a link between post-WW1 and post-WW2 rebellions in West Africa (in both British and French held areas) in calculating costs and benefits for the export crops upon which the Empire depended, and imperial cost calculations, the imperialists of the day did not make the same mistake.

Incidentally, the Empire cost the imperialists very little. The colonial subjects and British taxpayers paid those costs. The rulers and industrialists did not.

As Michael Parenti once quipped (paraphrasing from memory), "Rich people will spend any amount of your and my money to protect and further their money."

What he's really saying -- explicitly -- in the passage you quote is that "Dear Leader loves us and acts for our own good." Thus, even when he "errs" or breaks the law, he does it because he loves us.

God, that's creepy to read, but still valuable.

-- GlennGreenwald

It scares RWAs.